Thread by @joshgerstein

Just finished reading through transcripts of Greg Craig jury selection from yesterday. We're starting the process over tomorrow because of concerns about much of it being done behind closed doors politico.com/story/2019/08/… But what happened behind those doors is worth a THREAD (1/x)

Bruce Reed wasn't the only person in the jury pool with high-level government ties politico.com/story/2019/08/… One potential juror is wife of Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) She's a schoolteacher and went online to try to figure out whether the case might last into the school year (2/x)

Another prospective juror also went online to try to figure out what the case might be. His mom also Googled a bit and saw that the judge threw out a charge last week politico.com/story/2019/08/… Man told mom she shouldn't be telling him that (3/x)

Fact that potential jurors used the date they were called and the notice of the length of the trial to figure out this was Craig case is one of the things Craig's defense objected to this morning. Said it appeared to violate a federal law calling for a random jury pool (4/x)

Judge Jackson sent out similar notices already in Roger Stone case. This afternoon, she asked both sides to weigh in on whether that's OK or not.....But back to the Craig voir dire (5/x)

Many of those questioned had Hill ties. One said she'd worked for offices of Sen. Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein and now works for a Hill committee (6/x)

Many said they regularly read the news and/or followed the Mueller probe closely. One said he'd read NYT & WaPo stories about the Craig case and, due to evident good taste, even read yday's POLITICO story before coming to court. (Be like that guy: politico.com/story/2019/08/… ) (7/x)

That fellow said the release of the Craig/Skadden report at issue in the trial struck him as an act of 'great backroom spin.' Another man said he'd read 'everything about the special counsel's investigation' and that his parents went to law school with Mueller (8/x)

Another woman called seemed like a real free spirit. She said she's a painter who 'paints about the news.' 'Did you paint about Paul Manafort?' the judge asked. 'Specifically, no [but] I've painted a lot about collusion and foreign agents and whatnot,' the woman replied. (9/x)

Another juror said it was his impression that Manafort is a 'shady, sleazy guy.' Yet another is a managing director at FTI consulting, which flacked the Craig/Skadden report out of London. 'We're going to call FTI a liar,' Craig lawyer Bill Taylor said (10/x)

Most of the answers people gave seemed like things they'd be content to discuss publicly, even crime stuff like victims of thefts, car break-ins, etc. But a couple things were fairly sensitive (11/x)

One woman said her dad was convicted of statutory rape. Another said her mom was raped. These, and medical issues, were the kinds of things the judge said made her want to hear these answers privately (12/x)

But the law seems to be--and the way most judges do it--that the non-sensitive answers should be taken in public with matters people are uncomfortable discussing publicly taken at the bench with fewer ears listening (13/x)

So, an all-new jury pool has been called for tomorrow. About 120 people. Judge will try again, but this time anyone who wants should be able to hear most of the process in real-time. And we may get on with opening arguments Friday (14/x) ENDS