To serve or not to serve, that is the question.

I understand that Judge Tanya Chutkan, the judge overseeing the “election interference and conspiracy” case against Donald Trump, has already initiated the jury selection process in next year's D.C. trial of DJT (i.e., questionnaires are currently being mailed out to potential jurists).

Got a lot of questions for you today:

1. So, if you were presented with the opportunity, would you agree to be on a jury prosecuting DJT? 
2. Do you think you could be unbiased?  Or, do you have too much emotional DJT baggage? In other words, have you already made up your mind as to his guilt, regarding all the various and sundry indictments?  Or rather, 
3. To be on the case, while believing he is already guilty, would you see yourself/cast yourself in the role of a “Never Trumper” counterpart, to negate against a MAGA Trump-loving advocate coming in predisposed to Trump's innocence, like you would be coming in predisposed to his guilt?  A kind of "compromising of your integrity" with a heroic "fighting fire with fire" bent, in the name of "keeping democracy alive?"  (Remember, it only takes one “not-guilty” to let him off the hook.)  (Wordy question, sorry about that.)
4. Would a politically "low-info person," for whom politics and voting is more an inconvenience in their life rather than a staple of it, make for a good juror in a political case? IOW, someone who doesn’t follow/is not tainted with too much nasty politics under their belt?
5. Here's a toughie.  So, what would you consider the “qualified person” to handle such an historic challenge? Must they be a “professional” type, with a lot of higher education and/or tech skills?  Profile (demographic) your ideal of what would make “the perfect juror” in these DJT cases.