Member Newsletter
Trump supporters are trotting out any number of responses to Trump’s string of felony convictions last week. One of the most perverse and malign is the demand or “request” for jurors to come forward and explain their reasoning. Part of the idea is to suggest that the logic of the verdict is obscure or hard to justify and thus requires explanation. “Can you explain how you came to this very hard to understand verdict?” Neither is the case. The logic of the verdict is very straightforward. There may be some room for debate about how the judge interpreted the relevant law. But within those interpretations the jury verdict is elementary. The other part is to suggest something odd or suspicious in the fact that none of the jurors have yet gone public in the press.
It’s an apt illustration of the mix of disingenuousness and predation that is at the heart of Trumpism. Perhaps one of these jurors will come forward to discuss the case. It’s entirely their right to do so. But who could honestly question why they might not want to? Even by the standards of other high-profile court cases, doing so could be reasonably interpreted as an act of self-harm.
We all know that people who become publicly identified as enemies of Trump, even if only for doing an ordinary civic duty with no ill-will toward Trump at all, become subject to punishment ranging from ordinary harassment, to stalking, doxxing, various kinds of severe vilification and even terrorist violence. It’s a bit surprising the court was even able to impanel a jury given the risk of, at a minimum, having one’s life upended that came with this service.