Trump's 'dirty war' on media

[scottw]

BOSTON — A judge has rejected a motion by The Boston Globe to publicly release the names of jurors in the Boston Marathon bombing trial.

Judge George O'Toole Jr.'s ruling Monday came more than three months after a federal jury convicted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (joh-HAHR' tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) in the deadly 2013 attack and voted in favor of the death penalty.


I'm pretty sure the Manafort jury is still deliberating

[Jim in CT]

ben shapiro played a clip today, of a new york times employee who was on msnbc, and she said that while
trump isn’t rounding people up and slaughtering them, “he’d like to”. so who declared war on who, exactly? wdmso, you tell me, who started this war between trump and the media?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

here, a columnist for the new york times was on msnbc, and she said that Trump would like to round up people and slaughter them.

go ahead spence, tell me i’m taking it out of context, that what she really meant to say was, something else, something brilliant and harmonious.

i’m not sure it’s a big stretch to say this deranged, vindictive bitch is the enemy of the people. because if what she said had a speck of truth to it, we’d be justified in taking up arms against Trump. at a minimum , she doesn’t deserve the significant protections we give the press. these people have large audiences and a lot of influence, they have a responsibility to use it wisely. they aren’t coming close to living up to that responsibility. the foundation of journalism needs to be the truth, and if they want to bash trump, there’s plenty of truthful ways to do that. but that’s not good enough for these maniacs.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/ny...mp-round-kill/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

here, a columnist for the new york times was on msnbc, and she said that Trump would like to round up people and slaughter them.

go ahead spence, tell me i’m taking it out of context, that what she really meant to say was, something else, something brilliant and harmonious.

i’m not sure it’s a big stretch to say this deranged, vindictive bitch is the enemy of the people. because if what she said had a speck of truth to it, we’d be justified in taking up arms against Trump. at a minimum , she doesn’t deserve the significant protections we give the press. these people have large audiences and a lot of influence, they have a responsibility to use it wisely. they aren’t coming close to living up to that responsibility. the foundation of journalism needs to be the truth, and if they want to bash trump, there’s plenty of truthful ways to do that. but that’s not good enough for these maniacs.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/ny...mp-round-kill/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now I see where your style of prose comes from.
Kinda the pot calling the kettle black if you look at Crowder and that NYT reporter

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Now I see where your style of prose comes from.
Kinda the pot calling the kettle black if you look at Crowder and that NYT reporter

forget about me for a second. is this new york times reporter being grossly irresponsible, or not? how far off is trump when he calls her the enemy of the american people? you can’t answer that by saying that i’m a jerk as well. this thread was started to bash trump because he attacks the press. i’m not saying trump has handled this ( or anything really) with class, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

BOSTON — A judge has rejected a motion by The Boston Globe to publicly release the names of jurors in the Boston Marathon bombing trial.

Judge George O'Toole Jr.'s ruling Monday came more than three months after a federal jury convicted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (joh-HAHR' tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) in the deadly 2013 attack and voted in favor of the death penalty.


I'm pretty sure the Manafort jury is still deliberating

Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that .. the issue at hand is the false claim

the Media is trying to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury or that the request was a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented. when it clearly is not new

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Now I see where your style of prose comes from.
Kinda the pot calling the kettle black if you look at Crowder and that NYT reporter

So you're saying that Crowder and the NYT reporter are alike. Style aside, does that also mean that they are both right or that both are wrong. It doesn't make sense that both can be right since their opinions are diametrically opposed. If both are wrong, then Jim is right about the NYT reporter.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that .. the issue at hand is the false claim

the Media is trying to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury or that the request was a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented. when it clearly is not new

The claim is that "what many see here" is that some of the media is trying to intimidate the jury. Is that a false claim? Can you support that it is a false claim?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that particular privacy issue (apparently, re Roe v Wade, privacy is an important right). Various state courts are leaning to giving jurors that right.

And if the First Amendment gives the public a right to know the jurors, there is no specification as to when that right kicks in. One could assume if the public has that right, it would have it before or during as well as after the trial.

There seems to be a lot in dispute and undecided about the issue. And about even if you have the right to publish names and addresses, is it ethical to do so. And maybe even about "What many see here".

This link is not about possible pending court case or the issue of privacy.. and that was not the Idea floated in the story ..

... the issues is very clear a request for the names of those seated is not outrageous or intimidation or disturbing and almost unprecedented. as claimed by the link provided .. thats it


But Truth isnt Truth either a breitbart reader on the interview with chuck todd

"what show were *you* watching? He made Chuck U. Toad look like a moron.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1149168]Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that .. which is why they are asking for names and addresses now?

the Media is trying to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury(yes) or that the request was a move that is both disturbing(yes) and almost unprecedented(yes).

[/QUOTE

MANAFORT TRIAL

Manafort trial Day 14: Jury 'scared' as it heads home without a verdict
Manafort's attorney Kevin Downing said the ongoing deliberations favor his client.


Paul Manafort's trial will stretch into a fourth week, as jurors headed home Friday without reaching a verdict for the second straight day and 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.

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN and JOSH GERSTEIN 08/17/2018 10:37 AM EDT Updated 08/17/2018 05:42 PM EDT

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

here, a columnist for the new york times was on msnbc, and she said that Trump would like to round up people and slaughter them.

go ahead spence, tell me i’m taking it out of context, that what she really meant to say was, something else, something brilliant and harmonious.

I think she was drawing on Trump's wannabe tyrant-ism and the abhorrent treatment refugees and migrants have suffered as Trump is rounded them up en mass and broken families with little concern that they are human beings. Clumsy and full of hyperbole but as evidence the press is the enemy doesn't really hold up...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think she was drawing on Trump's wannabe tyrant-ism and the abhorrent treatment refugees and migrants have suffered as Trump is rounded them up en mass and broken families with little concern that they are human beings. Clumsy and full of hyperbole but as evidence the press is the enemy doesn't really hold up...

talk about hyperbole....geez

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The claim is that "what many see here" is that some of the media is trying to intimidate the jury. Is that a false claim? Can you support that it is a false claim?

Yes its called Normal! to request such information AKA precedent


Can you support how this isn't a false claim or how the request is an attempt to intimidate the jury or how that would even happen

[wdmso]

[QUOTE=scottw;1149172]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that .. which is why they are asking for names and addresses now?

the Media is trying to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury(yes) or that the request was a move that is both disturbing(yes) and almost unprecedented(yes).

[/QUOTE

MANAFORT TRIAL

Manafort trial Day 14: Jury 'scared' as it heads home without a verdict
Manafort's attorney Kevin Downing said the ongoing deliberations favor his client.


Paul Manafort's trial will stretch into a fourth week, as jurors headed home Friday without reaching a verdict for the second straight day and 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.

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN and JOSH GERSTEIN 08/17/2018 10:37 AM EDT Updated 08/17/2018 05:42 PM EDT

when they ask means nothing ... unless you wear a tin foil hat

And do you know who are making theses threats ?? I know i don't

[scottw]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1149180]

Originally Posted by scottw

And do you know who are making theses threats ??

crazy leftists obviously....

[DZ]

So what would you think could happen if the jurors names were released? Do you have any doubt that the press would look into and publish everything about them they could find? Looking for any kind of dirt or bias in their social media profiles? IMO jurors have served an important obligation of citizenship and deserve some sense of privacy in today's "tabloid journalism" conduct in much of the mainstream media.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

treatment refugees and migrants have suffered as Trump is rounded them up en mass and broken families with little concern that they are human beings.

this is a good example....

ICE detained a man while he was driving his pregnant wife to the hospital. He was taken when they stopped for gas.

"My husband needs to be here," Maria del Carmen Venegas said. "He had to wait for his son for so long, and someone just took him away."

Joel Arrona Lara, 36, was detained at a gas station in San Bernardino, California, while he and his wife were on their way to the hospital for her cesarean section. He reportedly had been living in the U.S. illegally for 12 years.

Mr. Arrona-Lara was brought to ICE’s attention due to an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Mexico on homicide charges.

this prompted democrats everywhere to call for the abolition of ICE

[scottw]

Originally Posted by DZ

So what would you think could happen if the jurors names were released? Do you have any doubt that the press would look into and publish everything about them they could find? Looking for any kind of dirt or bias in their social media profiles? IMO jurors have served an important obligation of citizenship and deserve some sense of privacy in today's "tabloid journalism" conduct in much of the mainstream media.

yeah...next thing you know Antifa is camped out on your yard...but that would give CNN, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, the New York Times, NBC, and the AP something to cover...

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is a good example....

ICE detained a man while he was driving his pregnant wife to the hospital. He was taken when they stopped for gas.

"My husband needs to be here," Maria del Carmen Venegas said. "He had to wait for his son for so long, and someone just took him away."

Joel Arrona Lara, 36, was detained at a gas station in San Bernardino, California, while he and his wife were on their way to the hospital for her cesarean section. He reportedly had been living in the U.S. illegally for 12 years.

Mr. Arrona-Lara was brought to ICE’s attention due to an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Mexico on homicide charges.

this prompted democrats everywhere to call for the abolition of ICE

Here is another example
KISSIMMEE, Fla. — The wife of an Iraq War veteran wiped away tears and held her young daughters as she said goodbye to her family at Orlando International Airport on Friday morning — not knowing the next time they would all be together.

Alejandra Juarez, who entered the United States illegally from Mexico more than 20 years ago, had pleaded publicly for President Donald Trump to stop her deportation. But a letter delivered to the White House this week by members of Congress wasn't enough to keep her with her husband, a naturalized American citizen, and their two American-born daughters.
There is an immigration policy for members of the military and their families called “parole in place” to “recognize the important sacrifices made by U.S. Armed forces members, veterans, enlistees, and their families." The Citizen and Immigration Services website says they provide “discretionary options such as parole in place or deferred action on a case-by-case basis.”

The Juarezes received a call Tuesday from their attorney saying ICE agreed to review her most recent “parole in place” application. But they have rejected her previous three applications, according to Stars and Stripes.

“I love this country. This country has given me great things because we have worked hard. But the America we are living in now is getting full of hate,” Juarez said.

She checked in regularly with immigration authorities during former President Barack Obama’s administration, and says she was always told she is not a criminal and has nothing to worry about.

Now, under Trump’s immigration policy, few exceptions are made for unauthorized immigrants — even in cases when a crime has not been committed.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is another example

Alejandra Juarez, who entered the United States illegally from Mexico more than 20 years ago,

She checked in regularly with immigration authorities during former President Barack Obama’s administration, and says she was always told she is not a criminal and has nothing to worry about.



no doubt...

Pete, what makes her more deserving than any other woman on either side of the border who either wants to come her or is already here illegally? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to come here illegally/stay here illegally...marry someone in the service(or not) or have a couple of kids on US soil? Laws for everyone don't work when everyone wants special treatment all of the time

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by DZ

So what would you think could happen if the jurors names were released? Do you have any doubt that the press would look into and publish everything about them they could find? Looking for any kind of dirt or bias in their social media profiles? IMO jurors have served an important obligation of citizenship and deserve some sense of privacy in today's "tabloid journalism" conduct in much of the mainstream media.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

Alejandra Juarez, who entered the United States illegally from Mexico more than 20 years ago,

She checked in regularly with immigration authorities during former President Barack Obama’s administration, and says she was always told she is not a criminal and has nothing to worry about.



no doubt...

Pete, what makes her more deserving than any other woman on either side of the border who either wants to come her or is already here illegally? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to come here illegally/stay here illegally...marry someone in the service(or not) or have a couple of kids on US soil? Laws for everyone don't work when everyone wants special treatment all of the time

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by DZ

So what would you think could happen if the jurors names were released? Do you have any doubt that the press would look into and publish everything about them they could find? Looking for any kind of dirt or bias in their social media profiles? IMO jurors have served an important obligation of citizenship and deserve some sense of privacy in today's "tabloid journalism" conduct in much of the mainstream media.

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.these were Spence's stupid words..


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.

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Pete, what makes her more deserving than any other woman on either side of the border who either wants to come her or is already here illegally? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to come here illegally/stay here illegally...marry someone in the service(or not) or have a couple of kids on US soil? Laws for everyone don't work when everyone wants special treatment all of the time

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?

[DZ]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

How about because not deporting her makes the country stronger?

good grief....

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

At least as good as Trumps inlaws

[spence]

Originally Posted by DZ

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.

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