In reply to Ag with kids

Ag with kids said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Quote:

---

That juror looked me right in the eye and when she said she could be very impartial, she meant it," Merchan says, adding that the juror is credible

---

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous on its face. Sure, I attended a Klan rally but I can be impartial when judging whether this black man killed a white woman.

---

It impossible to pick an unbiased jury when the defendant is Donald Trump. Everyone and their mother has an opinion on the guy. The challenge is picking the least biased.

---

Then they need a change of venue to allow a larger pool of less biased people for the jury.

---

Counties outside of the NYC area are so less biased and disconnected from Trump or politics that even though they nearly all have less than 1/5th or 1/6th the population of Manhattan/New York County, they'd provide a meaningfully larger pool of "less biased people?"

In reply to Faustus

Faustus said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

How so? Juries determine intent every day in courts in every state in this country. it has nothing to do with mind reading.

I'm pretty sure 95% of the posters on this forum realize this is a political attack case, but being asked to determine intent, has nothing to do with mind reading.

---

Not just men either, women can determine mens rea too.

---

WYMENS REA, thank you...

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Six jurors have been seated in Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial so far today. Here's what we know about them:
[ol]

The first seated juror, who will be the foreperson on Trump's jury, is a man originally from Ireland. He works in sales and has some college education. He is married but doesn't have kids. He reads the New York Times and Daily Mail and watches some Fox News and MSNBC.

The second juror is an oncology nurse who lives with her fianc. She's a native New Yorker. She reads the New York Times and watches CNN.

The third seated juror is a corporate lawyer. He's originally from Oregon. He gets his news from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Google. He's a younger man who's never been married and doesn't have kids.

The fourth juror is an older Puerto Rican man who's married with adult children and two grandkids. When asked about his hobbies, he said, "I guess my hobby is my family." He has an IT business for training and consulting and attended one year of college. He told the court he finds Trump fascinating and mysterious. "So many people are set off one way or the other and that is interesting," the man said. "Really, this one guy can do all of this, wow." Trump "makes things interesting," the man said, but also didn't indicate any strong feelings about his politics.

The fifth juror is a young Black woman who teaches English language in a public charter school system. She has a master's degree in education, is not married and doesn't have any kids. The juror said that as a person of color she has friends who have strong opinions on Trump, but she personally is not a political person. She said she tries to avoid political conversations and doesn't really care for the news. The juror did say she appreciates Trump's candor: "President Trump speaks his mind and I'd rather that than someone who's in office who you don't know what they're thinking." She was also the only juror of 18 in the box Tuesday morning who said she wasn't aware that Trump is facing charges in other criminal cases.

The sixth juror is a software engineer at a large broadcast company who recently graduated from college. She voiced no strong feelings about Donald Trump one way or the other and said, "I will be fair and impartial." She is not married and has no kids, currently living with three roommates in Chelsea. The juror gets her news from the New York Times, Google, Facebook and TikTok. She asked the judge whether her sister's wedding on a Sunday in September would be a scheduling conflict. Merchan quipped, "If we were still here in September that would be a big problem," garnering laughs in the courtroom.

[/ol]

---

Quote:

---

The six potential juror to review his questionnaire was dismissed after he raised a work problem.
Before being dismissed that juror said, "as much as I would love to serve for New York and one of our great presidents," he felt he couldn't take off from work for six weeks.

---

Just as well, he would have been struck by the state anyway.

---

Maybe he meant Biden.

In reply to TXAggie2011

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Quote:

---

That juror looked me right in the eye and when she said she could be very impartial, she meant it," Merchan says, adding that the juror is credible

---

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous on its face. Sure, I attended a Klan rally but I can be impartial when judging whether this black man killed a white woman.

---

It impossible to pick an unbiased jury when the defendant is Donald Trump. Everyone and their mother has an opinion on the guy. The challenge is picking the least biased.

---

Then they need a change of venue to allow a larger pool of less biased people for the jury.

---

Counties outside of the NYC area are so less biased and disconnected from Trump or politics that even though they nearly all have less than 1/5th or 1/6th the population of Manhattan/New York County, they'd provide a meaningfully larger pool of "less biased people?"

---

Ummm...

Trump lost something like 85-15 in Manhattan...

I'm going to guess you could find a venue pretty much anywhere else where the difference is not 70%...

What does the size of the pool have to do with it (other than sample size)? It'll will still be large enough. But it won't be skewed so far to the left.

BTW, did you REALLY just ask that question seriously?

In reply to Rapier108

Rapier108 said:

---

Of the six picked so far, pretty easy to guess how most will vote if asked to do so right now.

1. Probably Guilty
2. Guilty
3. Guilty
4. ?
5. Guilty
6. Guilty

---

Already 4 book deals getting negotiated out of that group and the older Puerto Rican dude being to involved with his family to care about it.

Six more jurors ready for their lottery payout on Thursday. That's all that will be decided prior to finding Trump guilty of that thing in 2017 that related to the election in 2016.

In reply to aezmvp

aezmvp said:

---

Yeah but again not all attorney's are created equal. Not all of them view the law as something sacred. As something that when the law is applied evenly and equally universally allows civilization to advance. It's a tool for personal enrichment or status. I grew up around attorney's and that jaded me pretty well. My folks were fine but lots of their partners were snakes.

---

This is true. We have a self-identified lawyer from the SE US that celebrates like a fascist every time Trump gets more lawfare. Not all lawyers respect the law, some use it to persecute their enemies.

In reply to Tony Franklins Other Shoe

Quote:

---

Six more jurors ready for their lottery payout on Thursday. That's all that will be decided prior to finding Trump guilty of that thing in 2017 that related to the election in 2016.

---

And sadly, that's about as specific a description of the predicate crime supporting the state felony charges either we or the jury will have.

He'll be found guilty and likely appeal. Conviction will mean pay some fines, no jail time is my guess. But the goal is to tie him up in court, have the pravda media breathlessly reporting on whether he's farting, sleeping, yawning every day for weeks. A guilty verdict will be enough to drive some squishy Rs and independents away from him. All part of the Dems plan.

In reply to 4stringAg

4stringAg said:

---

He'll be found guilty and likely appeal. Conviction will mean pay some fines, no jail time is my guess. But the goal is to tie him up in court, have the pravda media breathlessly reporting on whether he's farting, sleeping, yawning every day for weeks. A guilty verdict will be enough to drive some squishy Rs and independents away from him. All part of the Dems plan.

---

This and the Dems are begging for an excuse to constantly label him "Convicted felon Trump" over and over.

In reply to Ag with kids clearly the Trump defense is trying to find ONE juror who can hang it..

In reply to LMCane

LMCane said:

---

clearly the Trump defense is trying to find ONE juror who can hang it..

---

And?

In reply to 4stringAg

4stringAg said:

---

He'll be found guilty and likely appeal. Conviction will mean pay some fines, no jail time is my guess. But the goal is to tie him up in court, have the pravda media breathlessly reporting on whether he's farting, sleeping, yawning every day for weeks. A guilty verdict will be enough to drive some squishy Rs and independents away from him. All part of the Dems plan.

---

There is a grand jury process, then a trial by jury. The venue is where the crime was committed.

The allegation is that he had sex with a porn star when his wife was recovering from pregnancy. Before the 2016 election around the time of the release of the Access Hollywood tape, he tried to hide it from electorate by having his fixer attorney pay her hush money and then they made up bogus legal fees to repay his fixer attorney so no one would see the payment and connect the dots before the election. Those are allegations of things HE DID. There are receipts and there will be testimony. Cohen was already convicted. If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

Democrat John Edwards was tried on very similar charges for the affair he had. He was acquitted, and Trump might be also. But don't act like there is no precedent, and this is just made-up lawfare. Trump is no different from Edwards and is no special snowflake.

Gee, no one saw this coming during the GOP nomination? That's why many here and elsewhere wanted De Santis to be the nominee. Instead of having a veteran, faithful, once-married, true conservative, you have this guy.

And the other cases are all still pending.

In reply to BMX Bandit

BMX Bandit said:

---

LMCane said:

---

clearly the Trump defense is trying to find ONE juror who can hang it..

---

so doing what every criminal defense attorney in the nation does in every trial?

color me shocked

---

Exactly. All he needs is one holdout. That will be the end of the case forever and he'd likely get a huge election bump from it. It is unlikely the other cases get tried before the election.

In reply to GeorgiAg

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

In reply to GeorgiAg

GeorgiAg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

He'll be found guilty and likely appeal. Conviction will mean pay some fines, no jail time is my guess. But the goal is to tie him up in court, have the pravda media breathlessly reporting on whether he's farting, sleeping, yawning every day for weeks. A guilty verdict will be enough to drive some squishy Rs and independents away from him. All part of the Dems plan.

---

There is a grand jury process, then a trial by jury. The venue is where the crime was committed.

The allegation is that he had sex with a porn star when his wife was recovering from pregnancy. Before the 2016 election around the time of the release of the Access Hollywood tape, he tried to hide it from electorate by having his fixer attorney pay her hush money and then they made up bogus legal fees to repay his fixer attorney so no one would see the payment and connect the dots before the election. Those are allegations of things HE DID. There are receipts and there will be testimony. Cohen was already convicted. If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

Democrat John Edwards was tried on very similar charges for the affair he had. He was acquitted, and Trump might be also. But don't act like there is no precedent, and this is just made-up lawfare. Trump is no different from Edwards and is no special snowflake.

Gee, no one saw this coming during the GOP nomination? That's why many here and elsewhere wanted De Santis to be the nominee. Instead of having a veteran, faithful, once-married, true conservative, you have this guy.

And the other cases are all still pending.

---

The difference is John Edwards actually got a woman pregnant. The entire case rests on the word of a porn star and a convicted perjurer.

In reply to GeorgiAg

GeorgiAg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

He'll be found guilty and likely appeal. Conviction will mean pay some fines, no jail time is my guess. But the goal is to tie him up in court, have the pravda media breathlessly reporting on whether he's farting, sleeping, yawning every day for weeks. A guilty verdict will be enough to drive some squishy Rs and independents away from him. All part of the Dems plan.

---

There is a grand jury process, then a trial by jury. The venue is where the crime was committed.

The allegation is that he had sex with a porn star when his wife was recovering from pregnancy. Before the 2016 election around the time of the release of the Access Hollywood tape, he tried to hide it from electorate by having his fixer attorney pay her hush money and then they made up bogus legal fees to repay his fixer attorney so no one would see the payment and connect the dots before the election. Those are allegations of things HE DID. There are receipts and there will be testimony. Cohen was already convicted. If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

Democrat John Edwards was tried on very similar charges for the affair he had. He was acquitted, and Trump might be also. But don't act like there is no precedent, and this is just made-up lawfare. Trump is no different from Edwards and is no special snowflake.

Gee, no one saw this coming during the GOP nomination? That's why many here and elsewhere wanted De Santis to be the nominee. Instead of having a veteran, faithful, once-married, true conservative, you have this guy.

And the other cases are all still pending.

---

You don't have the facts straight. Cohen set up an LLC to pay Stormy. He submitted a bill to Trump not to the Trump campaign for legal services. The DA is alleging that this expense was to benefit the Trump Campaign in 2016, though paid in 2017, and not a Trump personal expense. It gets into this gray area of what benefits a campaign and what is personal.

Edwards paid his mistress and baby directly from the campaign and collected donations directly to pay the expense. Donors knew that they were funding money for this cause as well.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is here
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].

Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.

In reply to Casual Cynic

Casual Cynic said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

He'll be found guilty and likely appeal. Conviction will mean pay some fines, no jail time is my guess. But the goal is to tie him up in court, have the pravda media breathlessly reporting on whether he's farting, sleeping, yawning every day for weeks. A guilty verdict will be enough to drive some squishy Rs and independents away from him. All part of the Dems plan.

---

There is a grand jury process, then a trial by jury. The venue is where the crime was committed.

The allegation is that he had sex with a porn star when his wife was recovering from pregnancy. Before the 2016 election around the time of the release of the Access Hollywood tape, he tried to hide it from electorate by having his fixer attorney pay her hush money and then they made up bogus legal fees to repay his fixer attorney so no one would see the payment and connect the dots before the election. Those are allegations of things HE DID. There are receipts and there will be testimony. Cohen was already convicted. If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

Democrat John Edwards was tried on very similar charges for the affair he had. He was acquitted, and Trump might be also. But don't act like there is no precedent, and this is just made-up lawfare. Trump is no different from Edwards and is no special snowflake.

Gee, no one saw this coming during the GOP nomination? That's why many here and elsewhere wanted De Santis to be the nominee. Instead of having a veteran, faithful, once-married, true conservative, you have this guy.

And the other cases are all still pending.

---

The difference is John Edwards actually got a woman pregnant. The entire case rests on the word of a porn star and a convicted perjurer.

---

The jury can vote to acquit if they don't find the testimony credible.

My god, I can just picture the musical comedy that will be made in the future about this trial. What a farce.

In reply to GeorgiAg

GeorgiAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is here
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].

Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.

---

Such BS. Should not have expected a real response, I guess.

FTR: Challenges for cause are unlimited. It is peremptory challenges that are restricted in number by the judge. He can increase those numbers in a high profile case in which seating a jury requires a very large panel of prospective jurors.

There is no such statutory crime as "election interference." Both the FEC and SDNY concluded there was no campaign finance violation, you know, the federal agencies charged with enforcing such matters to the exclusion of state prosecutions.

Even the CNN legal analyst believes this case is FOS.

Alina giving Trump advice on this case?

I thought STRIKES were supposed to be “unlimited” when we were picking our jury? I was then told we only had 10, not nearly enough when we were purposely given the 2nd Worst Venue in the Country. Don’t worry, we have the First Worst also, as the Witch Hunt continues! ELECTION…

— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) April 17, 2024

RULE #1 COMPLIANCE:

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

What Hillary did when she created a false document and paid for it with "legal servi es". You know, an ctual fraudulent document.

That would be an example.

In reply to Science Denier

Science Denier said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

What Hillary did when she created a false document and paid for it with "legal servi es". You know, an ctual fraudulent document.

That would be an example.

---

Trump should have had Perkins Coie make his hush money payment

In reply to GeorgiAg

Quote:

---

Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.

---

I know reading is hard, so let me explain this to you slowly.

Trump's case is based on ILLEGAL interference. Not interference. What he did is not illegal, thus, this case is BS.

In reply to captkirk

captkirk said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Trump should have had Perkins Coie make his hush money payment

---

---

---

Or had Congress pay it out of their $17 million slush money fund

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Alina giving Trump advice on this case?

I thought STRIKES were supposed to be “unlimited” when we were picking our jury? I was then told we only had 10, not nearly enough when we were purposely given the 2nd Worst Venue in the Country. Don’t worry, we have the First Worst also, as the Witch Hunt continues! ELECTION…

— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) April 17, 2024

RULE #1 COMPLIANCE:

---

Sixty-two jurors were immediately dismissed out of the iniial panel of 96. Why? They told the court they refused to be impartial. Even Merchan reluctantly had to aclnowledge a challenge for cause would result and he would have to boot them one by one if he didn't dismiss them immediately.

Of the remaining 34, only 7 were seated as jurors. Defense used 6 peremptories and the state used 4. That's 10 peremptories in total out of 27 prospective jurors excused for conflicts or challenges for cause.

In reply to aggiehawg Thanks to you diligently posting from the blog, I have kept up with the proceedings and know all that.

Which has nothing to do with Trump laughingly "truthing" he has been denied his "unlimited" strikes.

In reply to GeorgiAg

GeorgiAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is here
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].

Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.

---

If Trump was bringing a case against someone for "election interference" you might have a point this one time. But he isn't, so you don't.

As a lawyer, wouldn't you say there would have to be a law on the books that you can say Trump violated to bring a case? What is that crime, exactly?

In reply to Science Denier

Science Denier said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

What Hillary did when she created a false document and paid for it with "legal servi es". You know, an ctual fraudulent document.

That would be an example.

---

The fascist leftist should pray I am never president. I would have them under indictment so fast their head would spin.

Everything they're doing to Trump, I would do to them double. Hillary broke laws, Biden broke laws, Hunter didn't appear for a subpoena...the list goes on and every one of them would be under a F-ing prison on inauguration day.

In reply to WHOOP!'91 true, hillary did break the law, but she had already suffered enough.

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Thanks to you diligently posting from the blog, I have kept up with the proceedings and know all that.

Which has nothing to do with Trump laughingly "truthing" he has been denied his "unlimited" strikes.

---

He's a layman. The differences between challenges for cause and peremptory challenges is lost on him.

BTW, in the E. Jean Carroll cases, the juries were anonymous, even to Judge Kaplan. Voir dire with an anonymous jury? How the hell does that work?

In reply to BMX Bandit

BMX Bandit said:

---

true, hillary did break the law, but she had already suffered enough.

---

Trump tried to play nice, and this is the thanks he gets from the fascist left.

In reply to GeorgiAg "........ he engaged in illegal election interference."

GOOD LORD. This is your definition of election interference?

LOLOLOLOLOL

This may be the dumbest, tone deaf, most obtuse point of view I've EVER seen on this board. EVER!

In reply to GeorgiAg

GeorgiAg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

He'll be found guilty and likely appeal. Conviction will mean pay some fines, no jail time is my guess. But the goal is to tie him up in court, have the pravda media breathlessly reporting on whether he's farting, sleeping, yawning every day for weeks. A guilty verdict will be enough to drive some squishy Rs and independents away from him. All part of the Dems plan.

---

There is a grand jury process, then a trial by jury. The venue is where the crime was committed.

The allegation is that he had sex with a porn star when his wife was recovering from pregnancy. Before the 2016 election around the time of the release of the Access Hollywood tape, he tried to hide it from electorate by having his fixer attorney pay her hush money and then they made up bogus legal fees to repay his fixer attorney so no one would see the payment and connect the dots before the election. Those are allegations of things HE DID. There are receipts and there will be testimony. Cohen was already convicted. If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

Democrat John Edwards was tried on very similar charges for the affair he had. He was acquitted, and Trump might be also. But don't act like there is no precedent, and this is just made-up lawfare. Trump is no different from Edwards and is no special snowflake.

Gee, no one saw this coming during the GOP nomination? That's why many here and elsewhere wanted De Santis to be the nominee. Instead of having a veteran, faithful, once-married, true conservative, you have this guy.

And the other cases are all still pending.

---

This is made up Lawfare and you're only defending it because you're a Biden voter who can't wait to vote Biden again