Or if they worked for the government would they get a call that the "Big Boss" was upset about their verdict convicting a "good" guy?
Nobody knows yet who threatened the Judge, maybe some fixer?
But I don't think in any case Jurors names need to be released, they suffered enough, the pay is not that good and who wants to spend days in a room with a bunch of lawyers.

You cited a case where ICE picked someone up who was wanted on homicide charges as a Good example, perhaps of people who should not be treated as human beings.
In this case it is the wife of someone who unlike Baby Donnie Bonespurs served his chosen country, has committed no crime other than immigrating illegally, has been a productive member of our society.

The media is always hungry for the story and who can tell it better. The make up of the jury is a huge part of this story...doesn't mean there's anything nefarious behind it...it's how the press works.

They're not sequestered so releasing names now wouldn't be prudent. In some cases like the marathon bomber I'd wager they felt there was a long-term threat so they've kept it sealed. This case is likely somewhere in the middle, but if and when the guilty convictions start to drop I think it's safe to say these jurors will be getting death threats from Trump's base.

so?....that makes her better than any of the thousands-millions of women either currently here illegally or wanting to come here illegally?

more stupid...nobody cares about Manafort beyond those that hope he somehow brings Trump down

How about for the well being of their children who are Americans? How about respect for the service of her husband?

Immigration law has never been followed to the extreme because it's impractical and at times immoral.

How about because not deporting her makes the country stronger?

I think we all agree to protect the jurors names for as long as possible. Otherwise the pool of potential jurors in future high profile cases will suffer.

good grief....

At least as good as Trumps inlaws

I think as long as is practical. The baseline is that it's public info, where is goes from there is case by case.

Yep.

were they here illegally?


so would you like this to apply to all members of the military?...if they sneak someone across the border and marry them or marry someone who is here illegally they are exempt from our immigration laws?

most of the military members that i know go out of their way to follow our laws

Captain Obvious again........the names and addresses and other info was requested by the far left media during jury deliberation, a jury that was feeling threatened already....that was the rub...not whether or not that info should ever be released

Whats really funny is you believe what you wrote :rotflmao:

didn’t obama also break up families and put kids in cages?

what you think, is becoming less and less connected with reality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, we've covered this about 5 times now...

yeah but Trump eats them for breakfast

I love that you were amused :kewl:

[QUOTE=wdmso;1149180]In the memorandum that the media who petitioned for names and addresses of jurors, requesting when the information should be released, they wrote:

"Therefore, the Media Coalition respectfully requests that the Court issue an order directing the clerk to make publicly available the names and addresses of the jurors and alternates who heard this case, at the latest immediately upon return of the jury of its verdict.

So, the media would have liked to get the info before the verdict, but no later than immediately after the verdict.

It doesn't say that, they're just planning ahead for when the trial is over.

sounds like far left media collusion to me...that's a VERY odd way of wording "just planning ahead"
"

[QUOTE=detbuch;1149238]immediately upon,,,,,,,like ....right away

Apparently, many do see it as intimidation. I certainly can't disprove that. Can you? The Judge has gotten threats and has U.S. Marshal protection. The jury was scared. I don't think it is a stretch to say that many can see, and do, that revealing the juror's names and addresses would be intimidating in light of threats already being made.

And did you read the entire Breitbart article, including the blue links embedded in the article which added to the credence of the Breitbart article?

And the jury is not sequestered, so it could have heard about the request to post their names and addresses. And the media requested the info AT THE LATEST immediately after the verdict. So, possibly, before that.

Where is a first hand report of the jury being scared?

How is that in any way trying to influence the Jury?

I don't know from where you get your "interpretation." I know you subscribe to judicial interpretation by whim or personal opinion. Or, perhaps, you're just resorting to some sort of mental channeling?
I go by the memorandum's actual words, a sort of textual originalism,-- the media coalition requested the names and addresses "at the latest immediately upon return of the jury of its verdict."

If it was requesting the info only after the verdict was rendered, it would not require, in a legal memorandum of request, to add the words "at the latest". That clearly is a request to get it before "the latest" if possible.

it's like the mafia letting them know they're being watched and they know where they live...typical leftist intimidation tactics lately...plenty of examples

The word being used was "intimidation." Not everyone is as self-assured, brave, with nerves of steel as you. My understanding is that the locality in which the trial is being held is anti-Trump. I can see how a juror wouldn't want some hot-head looney in that community to know his name and address if the verdict was not guilty. It might influence a juror to decide that discretion is the better part of valor, and discretely vote for conviction.

The judge didn't say anything about juror intimidation, he said he had personally received threats. I'm all for keeping them private for now but I would fear more from Trump supporters than I would from the media.

uh, she claimed she had a big scoop. i can only guess, that she didn’t even glance at the tax return until she revealed that he paid a boatload in taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

from the POLITICO article....for the second time

" the judge overseeing the case alluded to "threats" the jury may be receiving.

“I had no idea this case would incite this emotion,” U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III said in an open court hearing, responding to a motion from seven news organizations, including POLITICO, seeking access to sealed materials related to the trial that would have publicly identified the jurors.

Ellis denied the motion, telling the courtroom that jurors were "scared” and “afraid.” As a result, Ellis said, he didn’t “feel right” releasing the names of the 12-person jury.

Name one specific juror threat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and what you said, is that obama did the same thing, but not quite as often. how big of a difference is that. the photo of kids in a cage that got everyone foaming at the mouth, was taken during the obama years. why let facts getnin the way if a good commie temper tantrum.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ask the judge dummy

Yes, the media is the problem...:rolleyes:

You should repeat what you are about to post in front of the mirror and see if your own eyes roll before you submit reply
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This administrations policy was to Separate as a deterrent and that is pretty abhorrent to most Americans
Sessions said, “If people don’t want to be separated from their children, they should not bring them with them. We’ve got to get this message out.”
Commie no longer works for Trumplicans unless you’re just self identifying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never said Obama did the same thing, their policies are quite different. Do some homework Jim.

Well aware of the Obama era photo, it does nothing to refute the reality that the policy and scope of the two administrations isn't vastly different on this issue.