We just got word that there are Trump supporters posting the grand jurors
addresses online.
Security has already been ramped up down there, it's been ramped up for the DA,
how is this likely gonna affect things?
>> Speaker 2: Well, certainly it's something that Fani Willis has been
concerned about.
She put everybody on notice in sort of an unusual way,
sort of telegraphing when this indictment, if any,
was gonna come down because she was so worried about security.
>> Speaker 3: It's true, turns out that Trump supporters are basically doxxing
members of the grand jury that decided to indict Donald Trump for
now, the fourth time.
This indictment from Fulton County mostly focuses on using RICO statutes
in order to go after Donald Trump and 18 of his allies in their attempts
to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Now, on Truth Social, many of the users launched direct attacks on the grand jury,
going so far as to share their names and
details about their purported social media profiles.
Many of these posts have since been deleted, but
we do have some examples to share with you.
So, for instance,
one person wrote, someone needs to look into all these grand jurors.
I can guarantee that every one of them has a BIG FAT D by their name, so
that was written by LeviSnodgrass88 with a photo of the jurors' names.
You have another person on Truth Social saying,
I'm looking forward to the fun some will have with the list of leaked grand jurors,
with a devilish laugh included.
By the way, I mean, Georgia apparently has a law that
forces the grand jurors' names to be made public.
So the names of the jurors are apparently in the indictment itself.
And so the idea that it needs to be leaked is kind of hilarious.
But I do think, considering the sensitivity of this situation,
maybe there should have been some sort of exception made to protect the identities
of these grand jurors.
And NBC News also reported that the names and addresses of members of the grand
jury have been posted on a fringe website that features violent rhetoric.
NBC News didn't want to promote that fringe website, so
they didn't report exactly which website it is.
But one of the posts read as follows, these jurors have signed their death
warrant by falsely indicting President Trump.
So clearly a death threat there.
So, David, it's frustrating to see this play out over and over again,
the political war, the harassment, the entitlement to essentially
making people scared in doing what they're supposed to do, right?
They were called into participating in this grand jury.
They did what they were supposed to do, and
now they're being targeted by Trump supporters.
And by the way, there's no leadership in the Republican Party
urging them to stop doing this either.
>> Speaker 4: It's against the law, so
there's some action that a prosecutor could take if, in fact,
somebody shows up at somebody's house or makes threats online.
I'm a little bit mixed, though,
on this because there have been times in my career where I've used that public
database in various jurisdictions to reach out to grand jurors after an indictment or
to do my own work with jurors and find out is there a political bias that maybe
was missed during voir dire during jury selection.
And there have been times when I've called up a juror and say, hey,
I'd like to talk to you about this case.
But the difference, of course, is that when that's in the hands of journalists
who are taking some responsibility to doing the research and
trying to find out is there a conflict or not and giving the jurors or
grand jurors an opportunity to speak for themselves, that's very different
than these armchair lunatics online who are just posting the telephone numbers and
the addresses and encouraging people to just show up.
That's where we've gone too far.
And there's got to be some way in terms of protecting yes,
that there should be public disclosure about who sits on a jury and a grand jury,
but at the same time, I think in places like Georgia,
where some of these cases may be brought, maybe it's time to strengthen
the laws in terms of harassment and stalking people and making online threats.
>> Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, the MSNBC video that we opened the segment with was
kind of jarring to me because while the prosecutor in this case,
Fani Willis, beefed up her own security, it appears that all
that was done on behalf of protecting the grand jurors was, hey,
I'm just warning you about when we're gonna announce the indictment.
You know what I mean?
Basically, you're on your own, but you're getting a warning.
That's the sense I got from the way that this topic was being discussed.
But I agree with you.
Look, I'm mixed on it as well,
because I do think that in the context of journalists and
in the context of having information to kind of investigate stories like this, it
is important to have as much information as possible as a journalist, right?
But at the same time, if we're gonna have that law in the books that discloses
who the grand jurors are, if it comes to sensitive cases like this,
politically charged cases, especially those involving Donald Trump,
there absolutely has to be some resources spent on protecting the grand jurors and
ensuring that they're secure.
Not just now, after the indictment was announced,
but in the future as the trial takes place and jurors are involved.
I'm concerned about the safety for these individuals.
>> Speaker 4: Absolutely, and I think you're absolutely right.
There needs to be something more than just say, we're about to release this.
There needs to be some guidance, provide them with a number,
provide them with resources so that if somebody should show up and
make threats online or show up at their house, that these grand jurors or
jurors have an opportunity to have law enforcement take some action.
I mean, it was the same in a trial that I covered many years ago.
The judge instructed the jurors at the end of the case, and, look, your names, your
identities are public, but if a journalist crosses the line and comes up to your
house and won't leave, when you ask him or her to leave, that is against the law.
And here's what you can do about it.
Some kind of instruction, some kind of resource and help to the jurors and
grand jurors is definitely warranted because especially in this day and
age where we have all kinds of crazy people out there who might I act on these
addresses, there's got to be some venue to provide some safety to
the grand jurors to make sure that there's not a chilling effect.
We don't want people saying, no, I don't wanna do my civic duty because I'm afraid
that somebody's going to dox me at the end of this.
We want to make sure that people can do their civic duty, but
also have some confidence in the system to provide for their safety.
>> Speaker 3: Yeah, no, you're exactly right.
I mean, no good deed goes unpunished, right?
You decide to respond to the call for civic duty, you do what you're supposed
to do, and this is how they're rewarded for doing what they're supposed to do.
Yeah, and this will definitely discourage people to avoid serving on juries.
And, look, it just makes me sad to see that things have devolved to
this point where it's not just jurors, as we all know,
whether we're talking about educators, whether we're talking about
people who have political beliefs that a certain faction of the country
does not align with, the political harassment needs to stop, right?
And it's not that the jurors committed a crime here.
It's that the politician that these individuals engaging in these
threats happen to support has engaged in potential criminality here.
If they're angry, the person they should be the most angry with is Donald Trump and
the 18 co-conspirators who have been named in this indictment because they're hurting
your chances of winning in the next election, right?
The grand jurors aren't doing that, the grand jurors are presented with evidence,
and they have to make a decision as to whether or not Donald Trump and
his co-conspirators should be indicted.
And based on that evidence, which we all saw, by the way,
in the January 6 House Select Committee hearings, it's pretty damn convincing.
So, of course,
I think most of the hardcore MAGA fans probably are not privy to that evidence.
They're probably hearing nonsense lies in right wing media about how Trump
definitely lost the election, I'm sorry that Trump definitely won the election and
that Biden lost it and stole the election from him.
And look, just to buttress the point that I'm making right now,
I want to give you an example of how these commenters on
True Social definitely believe what they're saying, right?
Let's go to graphic six.
We can't accept a stolen election, if we do,
they will steal another election and another.
We can never allow corruption and fraud to win.
They are indicting and silencing President Trump for
revealing the crime of the century,
so they can go ahead stealing another election.
Georgia election fraud was massive and evidence was overwhelming.
That's from Lara47 on Truth Social, right?
She genuinely believes what she's saying, David, so it's not just Trump and
Republican leadership kind of inciting some of the lunacy we're experiencing.
It's also right wing media literally lying to their audiences and their readers.
I don't know what we do about that.
I don't know how we break through and pierce that filter bubble.
I don't really know if it makes sense to pass any kind of policy,
because I do think that First Amendment rights are important,
freedom of the press is important, and that could be a slippery slope.
But I'm curious what you think.
>> Speaker 4: Well, that gets back to something you mentioned earlier, and
that is the responsibility of elected leaders, political leaders,
to restore some confidence and some faith in the system.
There was a time not that long ago where I was covering a governor of Arkansas who
got convicted in a trial and was thrown out of office.
He disagreed with the jury, but he thanked the jury for their service and said,
I disagree with them, but we're gonna raise our issues on appeal.
In other words, he made it clear to everybody that even though if you were
a supporter of his and you disagreed with the outcome,
you were not to take it out on the people who did their civic duty.
We've seen that time and began until the last couple of years.
And something has changed in our society where instead of thanking people for
their service on a grand jury or a jury and spending so much time listening to
the evidence and listening to the law and following the instructions of the judge or
the prosecutors who are guiding the grand jury, instead of thanking people for
their service, we've turned the corner.
And now it seems like it's okay, according to some politicians, to go ahead and
attack those people who are doing their civic duty.
And until we have a party, a national party like the Republican Party,
which is willing to stand up and say, this is unacceptable, you can disagree with
the outcome, you can disagree with the law and the evidence, you cannot attack
the people who are helping to carry out justice in this country.
Until we have elected leaders who are willing to stand up and at least do that,
whether it's Donald Trump, whether it's Mitch McConnell,
whether it's Kevin McCarthy, until they stand up,
I'm afraid that this sort thing is simply gonna repeat itself.
And eventually, I think, somebody's going to get hurt.
And then it's going to get even worse.