Stephen Bush: Still, it's a nice change of pace because usually I'm all 'yes. It's terrible. We have very sharply limited speech rights here' to look at something and go 'yeah, that should be illegal'.

dave. dave. this is way too much information to put in public. i could figure this out in like half an hour

there is zero chance Trump's team is letting this guy sit, tbf

Yeah but Dave is reporting everybody like this. Somebody's gotta stop his dumb ass

It’s strange. I *know* that people in the US have much more extensive rights to free speech, but it’s still a hell of a trip to see someone doing something that carries a two to five year prison sentence in England and Wales.

If that were a trial in England and Wales, you could get done for contempt of court for tweeting that lede!!

Still, it's a nice change of pace because usually I'm all 'yes. It's terrible. We have very sharply limited speech rights here' to look at something and go 'yeah, that should be illegal'.

We have to assume all jurors are in danger of retribution from Trump's deranged supporters, if he's convicted. It's just like a mafia trial, in that respect. Utterly crazy.

I think even before that (and I accept it's *arguable* that jury selection doesn't count as part of proceedings, but I cannot imagine a case where if we had jury selection, UK lawmakers would not very quickyl legislate to say 'of course it counts'). Even without that, it traduces the process.

I think it's incredibly optimistic to think they wouldn't be targeted before that.

Seriously, why retaliate after a verdict when you can jury-tamper before?

Agree w you. (American Eyeballs much?) This is a fairly sane, responsible discussion about the jury selection process and its protocols. www.wnyc.org/story/former...

Post