Jeff, how
risky is it for
the former president
to go in front of the cameras
every day and complain like this?
I don't think it's that risky.
This has been his strategy
from the beginning.
I mean, you know,
he hasn't had to go
to all these court proceedings
in the four cases against him.
But he goes and protests that that he's
being railroaded, that they'd say that,
you know,
this is an unfair
all unfair prosecutions.
This is how he's running for president.
He's using this case as well.
I think,
you know, he's doing
pretty well in the polls.
That's about his presidential campaign.
That's not really about this
jury selection.
Jennifer, the
the former president
posted on social media site yesterday
about a fox host saying
they're catching undercover
liberal activists
lying to the judge in order
to get on the Trump jury.
Jeff and made the argument
last night
that it's
you know, it's
one thing to trash Michael Cohen
or a public
figure, but, two,
to go after a juror like this.
Does it matter
that Trump is quoting someone else?
I mean, in terms of a potential effect
on a gag order?
No, no, he's
not supposed to repost things either
that do what he's prohibited from doing,
which includes intimidating
talking about the jurors.
So he has violated this partial gag order
multiple times
with comments about witnesses
and with this comment about jurors
and next week, next Tuesday,
the judge is holding a hearing
to figure out
what he's going to do about it.
And that's really the big question here.
Sorry for interrupting.
I'm sorry that the judge is waiting
till Tuesday to do this.
Do you think he should do it sooner?
Absolutely.
I mean,
because he's
Trump is violating
this gag order every day.
And the thing about
the jury is so dangerous
because, you know,
those people are
the ones most worried about publicity
and most worried
that, you know, someone's
going to come after them.
The fact that he's
letting this linger
and let Trump,
you know, continue on
social media on this issue
for another, you know,
four days is dangerous to the process.
Jill, do you think it likely
that maybe other jurors
as sort of the reality starts
to sink in of what they have,
are going to be seated for that
they might try to get dismissed?
I mean, I think that's
that's a fair possibility
that the jurors are paying attention.
They already know that.
They already know
once they walk into the room,
they know that it's Trump.
They know that.
They know that
that there have been threats
against various people, judges and people
who've testified.
And so they know that
walking in the door.
But it sounded like the oncology nurse,
it did kind of sink in
once she left and started to see things
being posted,
but also said that,
like relatives of her friends
were reaching out to her,
saying, are you,
you know, like identified her.
Right.
And that and there's nothing
the court can do,
nothing the court can do about that.
It's just that,
you know, with social media
and it's it's so easy
for a name of a juror
to go to go viral very quickly
that I'm just worried
that's going to happen.
And I'm sure the judges worried about it.
But once it's done,
there's not much you can do.
That's why
I think he's going
to have six alternates.
And once you see that
and once they're seated
in the trial begins,
I mean, you know, two weeks in.
If they if a juror gets revealed
and they're upset,
is there anything they can do about it?
Nothing at all.
All you can do
is replace them with an alternate,
but you can't come up with
more alternates and you need 12.
It's over. The mistrial.
It would be a mistrial.
Well, okay.
Jennifer Rogers, thank you so much.
Jeff Toobin as well.
Jill Huntley Taylor, thank you.
Appreciate it.
More now on how the trial judge
is conducting proceedings. So far.
The tempo seems to be setting for it all.
For that, we're joined by Johnnie
Jones, the third
former chief judge for the U.S.
middle District of Pennsylvania.
Judge Jones,
how do you think Judge
Merchan is handling the trial so far
and the fact that the jury, aside
from seven
more alternates,
has already several more alternates that
have already been seated?
I think he's doing a good job, Anderson.
These are
hard cases at the beginning
because the lawyers tend to spar
and there's a lot of kind of combat
at the beginning.
And lawyers
tend to be too clinical
at times in
in what they do in jury selection.
And then after a while,
it sort of collapses of its own weight.
You may have seen that today.
And, you know,
I have to say,
if they get the whole jury
picked tomorrow,
then he's done a great job
getting it done this week.
The two jurors were dismissed
today, as we talked about, one,
because of concerns
her identity had figured out
the judge
as the media to refrain
from describing jurors
by physical descriptions,
not disclosed their current
and past employers.
And what happens?
Do you worry that details will leak out?
I mean, as Jeff was saying,
you know, it is very easy
for some
unscrupulous person
to put information out there.
Inevitably, I'm afraid that,
as Jeff Toobin said, things will leak out
and there's not much
you can do about that
other than pick alternate jurors.
I mean,
it's going to frighten jurors
who are on this panel
if things start to bubble up about them,
given the tenor of the times,
the threats,
the passions
that are evoked in this election.
You know, it could very well happen.
And I understand
why the judge excused it, particularly
the juror
who felt that she was outed today.
I think the judge is trying
to thread
the needle
in terms of his admonitions and orders
to the media.
Not everybody loves that.
But, you know,
I think he's doing the best he can.
And largely,
I think the media has been responsible.
The prosecution's saying
they're not going to turn over
their witness list to the defense.
Doesn't seem like
the judge is going to force them to.
Does that.
So how is that appropriate?
Well, there's a
distinction there, Anderson,
because they've turned
the witness list over.
They have to do that.
What I understand
they're doing is is saying
we're not going to give you
the order of witnesses,
which, you know,
would start a tweetstorm
at the beginning of the the trial.
You know, I heard Jeff say that
the judge should have admonished
Trump sooner.
You know, it's a balance.
He's trying to get the jury picked
and he doesn't
want to have his side show.
But if if you know,
they announced the witnesses
for Monday morning,
you can bet that there's a high potential
that over the weekend
there could be tweets and other
not just from Trump,
but from allies about
particular witnesses. And I think
the judge is letting the
prosecution avoid
walking into that
sort of nightmare scenario.
Do you think the former president
has already violated the gag order?
You know, it's interesting,
as your panel just said,
what he's doing is publishing
what other people say.
Tactically, yes.
I think he is violating the gag order
when he does it.
He's going to claim that
he's not he's entitled
to his due process.
I think what's going to happen
on Tuesday,
Anderson, is
they're going to convene
something that the judge is going to tie
that up and say, look,
there's no distinction
between you posting
and you posting yourself
your own ideas and you posting
what someone else said
and you're going to have to stop.
So he's probably going to admonish them.
I doubt that he's going to
hold them in contempt.
But, you know, it's it's
he's going to he's
going to draw the lines
even in in a clear way
so that the former president understands
exactly what he can and can't do.
We'll see where he goes from there.
Judge Jones, thanks so much.