Politico, along with almost the rest of the media, seems to be be suffering from a strong dose of convenient memory lapse when it comes to the upcoming sentencing of Donald Trump by the highly biased Judge Juan Merchan in the Manhattan hush money trial.
In early June a possible incident of jury tampering came to light when a poster going by the name of "Michael Anderson" claimed on the court's Facebook page that his cousin, supposedly a juror in a trial, had informed him that they voted for conviction a day before that conviction was officially announced. It was widely covered at that time but since then almost completely forgotten. This memory lapse was especially noticeable in Thursday's Politico story by Erica Orden, "Trump seeks to delay his hush money sentencing until after the election."
Attorneys for Donald Trump asked the judge overseeing the former president’s Manhattan criminal case to postpone his sentencing, now set for Sept. 18, until after November’s presidential election.
In a letter to the court dated Wednesday but made public Thursday, Trump’s lawyers noted that the sentencing for the Republican presidential nominee’s conviction on falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn star is currently scheduled to take place after the start of early voting.
And they argued that the sentencing should be delayed in order to allow Trump to weigh appellate options in response to Justice Juan Merchan’s upcoming ruling on whether Trump’s conviction should be tossed out in light of the Supreme Court’s July 1 decision on presidential immunity.
Umm... Erica. Have you not the slightest curiosity as to another possible reason for delay? Namely the fact that the allegations of jury interference back in June that could be grounds for a mistrial seems not to have been resolved. Here is the Newsweek coverage on June 7 of a stunning letter produced by Juan Merchan in which he announced evidence of possible jury tampering, "Judge Merchan's Letter to Trump Trial Lawyers Raises Eyebrows."
Questions have surfaced regarding the jury in former President Donald Trump's New York City hush money trial after the presiding judge flagged a post to social media alleging that a juror had spoken about Trump's verdict before it was handed down.
According to New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan's letter, which was sent to Trump lawyer Todd Blanche and Manhattan District Attorney Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, a comment was left on the New York State Unified Court System's Facebook page by a user under the name "Michael Anderson," who wrote, "My cousin is a juror and says Tump is getting convicted. Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!"
...It is unclear if Anderson is related to one of the 12 jurors who served on Trump's case, or if the comment was posted online prior to the former president's conviction on May 30. Several Trump supporters suggested on social media that the comment was grounds for a mistrial.
The big tell why this matter remains unresolved is that if it had been found during investigation that "Michael Anderson" had just been kidding around and that he had no relatives on the jury, that fact would have been loudly proclaimed by Politico and the rest of the media. The fact that no announcement has been made about a resolution of this possible jury tampering is reflected in the utter silence of the media... and Erica Orden.
It's almost as if the media does not want this matter to be resolved for fear of what would be discovered that could destroy or at least delay the sentencing of Trump that many are so desperately desiring before people vote.
