Whether she aimed to or not, a potential juror who was dismissed from former President Donald Trump’s hush money case in Manhattan has essentially revealed why there’s no way the man can get a fair trial in the New York venue.

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s own views.

Kara McGee informed media outlets outside the courtroom on Tuesday that she was dismissed but expressed her belief that she could remain impartial. However, she acknowledged the challenge, stating that it would be “very difficult for anyone really in this country to not come to this without prior opinions,” The Epoch Times reported.

“We all have prior opinions on the defendant, unless you’ve been living in a cardbox,” she said, adding that she was excused because of her job in the cybersecurity sector.

Regarding her personal feelings about President Trump, the woman stated, “I’m not a fan.” She attributed this sentiment primarily to her perception of his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic response, the outlet continued.

McGee offered some clarification about the inquiries that the jurors were presented with.

“One of which is: Do you have opinions about the ability for a former sitting president to be tried in a court of law? Which I think the way people answered that showed how they felt about case,” she said.

“The other one was: Do you have any opinions about legal limits for campaign finance donation amounts? Which I believe was another one that was kinda meant to gauge feelings about the particular case,” she added.

The former president is standing trial for purportedly falsifying payments made during the 2016 campaign intended to suppress potentially damaging stories about him.

Prosecutors allege that he directed $130,000 to former lawyer Michael Cohen to handle a story regarding an alleged affair with adult actress Stormy Daniels, also known as Stephanie Clifford, but almost no serious legal expert, whether they support Trump or not, believes Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case has any merit.

That includes Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley, a liberal who votes for Democrats, by his own admission.

Turley said last week he believes potential jurors who may have an ax to grind with the former president or just simply do not like him will lie about being ‘impartial’ just to get on the panel.

“This case is creating something—it’s creating a criminal code just for Trump. You know, you have a misdemeanor whose time has expired, the statute of limitations ran out, and it was revived in this rather curious way. He’s effectively arguing that Trump was filing false business records through his counsel to hide a federal crime. But it isn’t a federal crime; this wasn’t a campaign contribution,” he told Fox News.

“None of that appears to matter. And that’s why a lot of us are looking at this and recoiling. This is not how the law is supposed to be. New Yorkers appear to like it this way. They elected James, who ran on bagging Trump for anything, didn’t even mention what. And they now are lionizing this district attorney for putting together what many consider to be an absurd indictment,” Turley continued.

“What is troubling is that in a couple of past Trump cases, they found out after the conviction or after the trial that jurors had lied about their past political involvements. The judges refuse to toss out the verdict,” he added. “So you have to try to stick that landing up front to show that bias. Also, keep in mind you only get ten strikes as a defense counsel, but you can have unlimited strikes for bias. As you bring forth evidence of bias, it is a freebie where you can try to remove some of these jurors.”


Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.