I figure if a lawyer is willing to spend a weekend at Rikers so that his client can make a stupid tweet, he should spend the weekend at Rikers instead of his client.
Yes, the Times is correctly quoted regarding Juror 2. It looks to me there were reasons for both sides to be concerned, but obviously not concerned enough to use a preemptory challenge.
He might actually want some time to think about it.
I have a job where I have to evaluate other people’s arguments on sometimes complex issues, and quite often, I’ll be thinking, “Okay, they make a good point about X, but their argument about Y is pretty weak.” Then I’ll often put it aside for a few hours or days to think about whether X or Y is the deciding factor in my decision. Taking some time to let it percolate through your brain sometimes really does help.
Or, he wants to put it in writing, so there’s absolutely no confusion about what he means, or so he documents all the of the reasons he’s crafted the sanction he chose.
I would not be thrilled if I were defense counsel. This is a judge who is saying “I’m going to pick my words carefully.”
Thank you for the enlightening responses, especially Moriarty’s. I get it now.
I agree. If he was not going to do something serious, he could be less careful with his wording. He wants to create a bullet proof record of why he’s taking action. Or, perhaps, make his threat for “next time” crystal clear.
Despite what people here seem to think, there is still a very large progressive/liberal contingent on X/Twitter.
For example, tweets by Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Greta Thunberg are among the top ten most liked tweets of all time.
The problem is not Twitter but the ironically named “Truth” Social
Ah yes, I definitely see your point.
So this alleviates my concern a little, I mean of the two options:
A: He’s a MAGAt who follows Trump because he believes what he says and follows MuellerSheWrote to hear what the other side are saying.
B: he’s an opponent of Trump who follows MuellerSheWrote because he believes what they say, and a Trump to see what manner of batshiattery the former POTUS comes up with next.
I would say option B is more likely. I realize there is a potential third option of, he follows what Trump and his opponents are saying closely but has remained neutral without strong feelings towards either side. But I find that very unlikely whatever the juror says
This is interesting not just for this trial but the broader sense of what it means to get a jury of your peers.
23 minutes:
I’m not sure if that chart is reliable. Only two jurors get their news from CNN? Only one from the Washington Post? 8 out 12 jurors get all their news from the New York Times? Only one from X – which incidentally is where that chart comes from, and in fact where a great many news items posted on this board come from?
Gotta love the one moron who gets all their news from Truth Social. What were the mitigating circumstances that didn’t get this person immediately thrown out?
Incidentally, I initially misread that quote, quite reasonably, as “Juror 2 gets their news from Truth Social, only person on the planet to do so”. 
This might be a topic for a separate thread but I feel like it is easier to be a liberal dipping their toes in conservative content rather than the other way around. Like, if you’re a liberal who reads conservative sources you’re just an informed person who tries to see an issue from all sides. But if you’re a conservative and you watch MSNBC you’re a traitor/RINO/etc. I could be wrong and it’s entirely possible conservatives consume liberal news sources because they find them comedic or whatnot but I still have the strong impression that when someone’s media bubble ends up with some chocolate in the peanut butter it is more likely to be option B by default. Mods, please feel free to advise if this is better suited to a separate thread.
The chart appeared in this April 20th, 2024 article in the NYT (paywalled), written by NYT graphics editor Charlie Smart. I would need to see a cite that the graphic is not Smart’s original work.
I wonder why none of Trump’s family have appeared in court with him-you’d think they’d at least make a cameo appearance for publicity’s sake. Even Dahmer had family show up.
That dog won’t hunt. Trump wasn’t President in 2016; he was running for the office.
I’m not debating where the chart originally came from. I’m only saying that it was posted to Twitter, so Twitter/X can be a useful source of info, and indeed Xits are posted on this board a lot.
Moderating:
Oh, don’t worry, we always do. 
I think you’re fine for the time being. Your issue arose out of jury selection in this case and doesn’t presently pose a huge hijack. We’ll see where it meanders, and do feel free to start a new thread if you feel it is merited. Thanks for being mindful of our concerns.
Not moderating:
In the interests of fighting ignorance and also because I’m a little pedantic about it, they are PERemptory challenges, not PREemptory challenges. Also, lawyers make opening STATEMENTS and closing ARGUMENTS. The second point was drilled into my head by judges so I would craft my minutes properly. Lawyers make STATEMENTS about what they believe their evidence will show. Then they ARGUE that their evidence showed what they said it would.
I thought some of you would like to know.
mary trump was asked about this last night on msnbc. she said that trump doesn’t find comfort in his family like most people. that he would be more upset that his maga people are not on the street in large numbers.
interesting, pecker claims that trump and cohen asked him how pecker could help the campaign at the “infamous” meeting in august.
“PERemptory”! Thank you! That grates on me every time. Especially when I have to correct it in a court reporter’s transcript (typo there, most likely; they know better).
I continue to be amazed that jury selection went so fast; we’ve got a murder trial here in Massachusetts that’s had enough pretrial publicity to stretch the process over several days and I thought for sure the NY case would go even longer.