HI, ARI. WHAT A WHIRLWIND. >> WE HAVE A JURY. WE'LL SEE YOU SOON. WELCOME TO THE BEAT. THE NEWS IS HERE. VERY IMPORTANT FOUR WORDS WE HEARD FROM THE JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THIS CRIMINAL TRIAL, WE HAVE OUR JURY. IT'S NOT AN OBSERVATION, OP ED, IT IS THE PRESIDING JUDGE FORMALIZING THAT THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH TOTAL FAIRNESS TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN LOSING SOME JURORS WHICH I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT TODAY AS WELL, BUT WE HAVE OUR JURY. THAT'S AFTER JUST THREE DAYS OF JURY SELECTION. 12 NEW YORKERS ARE NOW ON THIS JURY SWORN IN TO DECIDE THE FATE OF DONALD TRUMP AND I CAN TELL YOU AS A LEGAL FACT THAT THESE 12 PEOPLE WILL HEAR THE EVIDENCE AND THEN MAKE A DECISION AND IF ONE OF THEM BECOMES SOMEHOW UNAVAILABLE OR UNABLE TO CONTINUE THEIR DUTIES, AN ALTERNATE WILL STEP UP INTO THAT BOX OF 12 AND CONTINUE ON. THERE ARE PRECEDENTS AND PRACTICES HERE, WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE SUBSTITUTES. THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE. IT'S NOT JUST 12, IF SOMEBODY FASHION FALLS AWAY, IT GOES AWAY. THEY'LL PICK THE ALTERNATES. FIVE WOMEN, SEVEN MEN IN THE 12. WE DO KNOW THEIR PROFESSIONS. WE'RE NOT DISCLOSING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THESE INDIVIDUALS. THAT'S WHY AS WELL YOU SEE ANONYMOUS JURORS UP ON THE SCREEN. THEY WERE SELECTED OUT OF A POOL THAT COULD GET AS LARGE AS IT NEEDED BUT INITIALLY BEGAN WITH ABOUT 200 NEW YORKERS WHO WENT THROUGH THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS PROCESS. THE DEFENDANT LOOKED ON AS THESE JURORS WERE QUESTIONED AND CHALLENGED ABOUT ANYTHING THAT COULD CREATE THE KIND OF BIAS OR IMPARTIALITY THAT WOULD HAVE THEM REMOVED. NOW TODAY ALSO BEGAN WITH A BIT OF A SHAKEUP BECAUSE TWO PEOPLE WHO WERE JUST RECENTLY THIS WEEK SEATED AS JURORS WERE DISMISSED, EACH FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. THE DA, THAT'S THE PROSECUTION SIDE, RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW ONE HAD A PRIOR ARREST, WE'LL RETURN TO THAT. TODAY ALONE HALF OF THE 96 POTENTIAL JURORS WERE EXCUSED AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING THEY COULD NOT BE IMPARTIAL. WE HAVE WORD ON ONE OF THEM, A REPORTER CAUGHT UP WITH TWO OF THEM ACTUALLY OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE. >> IT'S A HISTORICAL CASE AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO DEFINE SO MANY THINGS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME OUR JOB AS A JUROR, RIGHT, IS TO BE IMPARTIAL, LIKE TO BE UNBIASED. >> THERE'S NO WAY AFTER MY ONLINE PRESENCE WHERE I'VE SATIRIZED THIS MAN AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT I WOULD BE FIT TO -- THEY WOULD REGARD ME AS TO BE FIT TO SERVE. >> THAT'S ONE NEW YORKER SAYING THAT HE SAT TARRIZED DONALD TRUMP ONLINE. THAT'S PUBLIC. THE INTERNET LIVES FOREVER IF YOU'VE HEARD THE TERM SO NOW IN WHAT IS UNCERTAINLY AN UNFORESEEABLE TURN FOR HIM. IF YOU SAID TO ANY OF THEM WHAT YOU ARE TYPING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT OR IN FRUSTRATION OR IN REACTION WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW, NOT TO SAY YOU'RE A CRIMINAL, BUT TO SAY YOU ARE NOT FIT FOR THE JURY. THEY COULD NOT CONSIDER HIM IMPARTIAL. THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE. IF SOMEONE HAS VEHEMENTLY COMMITTED TO A CONVICTION OR CRITICISM THAT IS ADVERSE TO IMPARTIALITY IN THIS CASE, THEN THEY'RE NOT THE ONE. THEY ONLY NEED 12 JURORS AND A COUPLE MORE ALTERNATES. THEY CAN BE VERY PICKY IN FAIRNESS TO THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE BURDEN IS ON THE PROSECUTION. THE JURORS ANSWERED THE SAME 40 PLUS QUESTIONS INCLUDING WHETHER THEY EVER ATTENDED A TRUMP RALLY, RED HIS BOOKS, LISTENED TO MICHAEL COHEN'S ASK. IF CONVERSATIONS WITH CO-WORKERS COULD INFLUENCE HER AND SHE FIRST SAID SHE COULD TRY TO BE FAIR BUT SHE ALSO SAID THIS, WHAT YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN, QUOTE, IT IS HARD TO UNRING A BELL, IN OTHER WORDS, SHE'D TRY TO BE FAIR BUT THE BELL HAD BEEN RUNG ON HER VIEWS IN THIS CASE SO SHE WAS ALSO NOT PICKED. ANOTHER JUROR THOUGH TODAY WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE HAVING BEEN SWORN IN AND THEN TASTING OR HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF THE KIND OF PUBLIC AND ALL OF THAT JUST IN WEEK ONE FROM ALL OF THE MEDIA MADE HER SAY SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CONTINUING ON AND CONCERNED ABOUT HER AND HER FAMILY'S SAFETY. SHE TOLD THE COURT, I HAVE CONCERNS NOW. THE ASPECTS OF MY IDENTITY HAVE BEEN OUT IN PUBLIC. I HAD THEM PUSH THINGS TO MY PHONE REGARDING QUESTIONING MY IDENTITY AS A JUROR. I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL HERE. THAT IS HER VIEW. YOU MIGHT CALL IT HER SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OR HER OPINION. YOU COULD IMAGINE A DIFFERENT PERSON IN NEW YORK BEING ASKED, ARE YOU A JUROR BECAUSE OF INFORMATION OUT THERE AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE IN DANGER, IT JUST MEANS PEOPLE ARE ALL PROCESSING SOME OF THE SAME INFORMATION. HAVING SAID THAT AS FAIRLY AS I CAN, THERE IS A CONTEXT TO THIS. AND IT IS CONCERNING. HER DISMISSAL CAME AFTER THESE KIND OF STATEMENTS AND COVERAGE, WHICH MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT STILL HAS REPERCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS NEW JURY. >> SHE GETS HER NEWS FROM "THE NEW YORK TIMES", GOOGLE AND CNN. SHE SAID TWO THINGS THAT REALLY STUCK OUT, ONE, QUOTE, I DON'T REALLY HAVE AN OPINION OF TRUMP AND, QUOTE, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. I'M NOT SO SURE ABOUT JUROR NUMBER 2. THE FATE OF THE BILLIONAIRE REAL ESTATE TYCOON, TURNED 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS IN THE HAND OF DISNEY TEACHERS WHO LIKE TO GET THEIR NEWS FROM THE TIMES BUT SWEAR THEY CAN BE IMPARTIAL. >> THAT IS THAT INDIVIDUAL THAT MEMBER OF THE MEDIA'S VIEW. NOW THERE'S NOTHING IN THAT CLIP I JUST SHOWED YOU THAT IS ILLEGAL OR THAT WOULD BE SUPPRESSED. IT MIGHT BE DISAGREEABLE. IT MIGHT BE MISLEADING, AND IT MIGHT, COMBINED WITH OTHER THINGS, CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS UNDERMINING RATHER THAN SUPPORTING A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL PROCESS. BY THE WAY, THAT'S HYPOCRITE CALL BECAUSE IF THOSE FOLKS ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROCESS, THEY SHOULD WANT A FAIR, REASONED SOBER ONE SO WE GET TO THE RIGHT ANSWER WHICH COULD BE THE ACQUITTAL OF THESE CHARGES, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT A FAIR PROCESS COULD RESULT IN. BUT IF YOU NOTICE I'M BEING VERY CAREFUL, IT'S FOR A REASON. NO LAW WAS BROKEN WITH THAT COMMENTARY AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO WEIGH IN ON THIS TRIAL, INCLUDING VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE PROCESS AND THE JURORS. NOW THE JUDGE DECIDES THE LAW IN THIS CASE AND THE JURY DECIDES THE FACTS AND SO I'M GOING TO READ TO YOU WHAT THE JUDGE SAID TODAY FOR FURTHER CONTEXT. QUOTE, WE JUST LOST WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A VERY GOOD JUROR FOR THIS CASE, SHE SAID SHE WAS AFRAID AND INTIMIDATED BY THE PRESS. SO THAT'S THE LAY OF THE LAND. THE JUDGE HAS NOW TIGHTENED RESTRICTIONS EVEN FURTHER ON DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THE PRESS CAN REPORT ABOUT PROSPECTIVE JURORS. AGAIN, THE FACT THAT A MEMBER OF THE MEDIA, IN THAT CASE A FOX NEWS ANCHOR, USED THAT INFORMATION THE WAY HE CHOSE TO DOESN'T RESOLVE THE TOUGHER QUESTIONS HERE BECAUSE YOU CAN RESTRICT CERTAIN INFORMATION IN THE COURT CERTAINLY FOR SAFETY, CERTAINLY FOR THE JURORS ANONYMITY, BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE A FREEWHEELING DEBATE AND PEOPLE WILL SAY WHAT THEY WANT ABOUT THE TRIAL. THERE HAS TO BE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN THIS TRIAL. SO THAT'S WHAT THE JUDGE SAID. I TOLD YOU THE OTHER THING, PROSECUTORS ALSO ALLEGE THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN VIOLATING HIS GAG ORDER. THAT CAME UP EARLIER THIS WEEK. THEY NOW CITE SEVEN OTHER INSTANCES, INCLUDING TRUMP POSTING ONLINE WITH A QUOTE FROM THAT FOX HOST I JUST SHOWED YOU SAYING THAT LIBERAL ACTIVISTS WERE ALSO SOMEHOW LYING TO GET ON THE JURY. NOW TRUMP IS USING FOX IN A DANCE TO TRY TO GET AWAY WITH SAYING THINGS. LET ME BE CLEAR, TRUMP THE DEFENDANT, IS NOT LIKE JUST SOME FREEWHEELING MEMBER OF THE PRESS, HE ALREADY HAS RESTRICTIONS, INCLUDING A GAG ORDER. SO IT'S VERY DIFFERENT WHEN HE DOES THINGS ABOUT THE JURY OR WITNESSES THAN OTHERS. FOR EXAMPLE, ON THIS PROGRAM WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS AND EVEN AT TIMES FACT CHECK THE WITNESSES. WE CAN DO THAT. THE DEFENDANT CAN'T. THE PROSECUTOR SAID THAT POST I'M LEAVING UP ON THE SCREEN WAS THE MOST DISTURBING POST, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAPPENED THIS MORNING. TRUMP'S DEFENSE LAWYERS SAY, QUOTE, NONE OF THAT ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS A WILLFUL VIOLATION. IN FACT, IT BRINGS TO LIGHT SOME OF THE AK BIG GUTS OF THE GAG ORDER THAT I MENTIONED. HERE'S WHAT THE GAG ORDER STATES. THE DEFT, TRUMP, IS DIRECTED TO REFRAIN FROM MAKING OR DIRECTING OTHERS TO MAKE PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT ANY PERSPECTIVE JUROR OR ANY JUROR IN THIS CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. SO YOU WANT ME TO BOIL IT DOWN. YOU SAY, OKAY, ARI, THIS SEEMS LIKE IT'S GETTING A LITTLE DETAILED AND TECHNICAL. WELL, YEAH, IT IS GETTING TECHNICAL. IF YOU WANT TO BOIL IT DOWN, THE ANCHOR PROBABLY WAS FINE MAKING THAT STATEMENT. I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A CASE OPENED ABOUT HIM. THE DEFENDANT BASED ON THE PLAIN TEXT OF THE GAG ORDER PROBABLY WAS NOT. THAT'S THE LEGAL ISSUE. SEPARATE FROM THE OPINION YOU CAN CRITICIZE BOTH STATEMENTS. TRUMP TRYING TO HIDE BEHIND THE MEDIA, I'M JUST RETWEETING, I'M REPOSTING. NO, YOU'RE DOING IT AND THE GAG ORDER VERY CLEARLY SAYS YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THESE JURORS OR PROSPECTIVE JURORS. THE JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON THIS. THERE IS A PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED HEARING TUESDAY ON THE GAG ORDER AND WE EXPECT ALL OF THIS STUFF, THESE NEW CLASHES, TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT HEARING. NOTHING ABOUT THIS IS VERY TYPICAL ALTHOUGH THE PRECEDENCE AND THE RULES APPLY. IT'S A HIGH PROFILE CASE. A FORMER PRESIDENT IS THE DEFENDANT AND ALL OF THIS SHOWS THE KIND OF CHALLENGES WE'RE UP AGAINST. WITH THAT IN
