Jury Selection Begins in Trump NYC ‘Hush Money’ Trial
“This is a persecution like never before. It is an assault on America and that’s why I’m very proud to be here.”
Hi. I’m back for a bit. I miss you guys. <3
The jury selection for Trump’s hush money case has begun in NYC.
Trump faces “34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.” Trump supposedly told his former lawyer Michael Cohen to pay off porn star Stormy Daniels to keep their supposed affair quiet.
Judge Juan Merchan released the 42 questions the potential jurors must answer. A few include:
- “Do you have any political, moral, intellectual, or religious beliefs or opinions which might prevent you from following the court’s instructions on the law or which might slant your approach to this case?”
- “Have you read (or listened to audio) of any of the following books or podcasts by Michael Cohen or Mark Pomerantz?”
- “Have you ever considered yourself a supporter of or belonged to any of the following: the QAnon movement; Proud Boys; Oathkeepers; Three Percenters; Boogaloo.”
- “Do you currently follow Donald Trump on any social media site or have you done so in the past?”
- “Do you have any feelings or opinions about how Mr. Trump is being treated in this case?
I couldn’t sync the time when he started speaking, but you can rewind the video to 5:00.
JUST IN — President Trump addresses reporters ahead of Day 1 of his hush money trial:
"This is a persecution like never before. It is an assault on America and that’s why I'm very proud to be here." pic.twitter.com/VW0CQKrtMq
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 15, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Nobody can tell you what the crime is supposed to be, but it’s unsavory.
Like the unsavory aftermath of Helen of Troy’s whoring around, as Anne Carson put it.
Nothing like kicking off the comments with some pretentious middlebrow cultural reference from the resident dilletante.
I thought the comparison of Stormy Daniels to Helen of Troy was good. Enormous consequences based on continuing idiocy. The Bragg would be Priam? We need to work out the cast.
Well, Helen was renowned for her beauty, though.
It’s complicated when it’s a business because part of the deal is the hidden difference between what you pretend and what actually is happening. A porn actress is taken as beautiful.
Strip joints make all efforts to look sexual but what’s actually happening is a business. Hence the job of bouncer.
On which see Kari Lerum “Precarious Situations in a Strip Club: Exotic Dancers and the Problem of Reality Maintenance” (2001)
The opposite situation see Joan P. Emerson “Behavior in Private Places: Sustaining Definitions of Reality in Gynecological Examinations” (1970), standard moves to prevent anything from being framed as sexual.
I’m thinking that the beauty of porn actresses is always accepted but only as a fiction. Perhaps a sort of Helen of Troy effect.
So is Stormy Daniels!
🤮
That box has more miles than a KC-135
In her day Stormy was not a bad looking woman and still isn’t I think. Her line of business while distasteful to most is perfectly legal so I don’t hold that against her. I do have a problem with what she did afterwards in regards to Trump. She should have taken the money and shut up about it.
I thought it an interesting comparison. I doubt Stormy launched a thousand ships, though and the circumstances are not the same but the backlash and subsequent actions seem close.
What is Priam ever do to you to get compared to Bragg?
Does anybody recall any time that Thad has contributed anything useful to a discussion?
Of course not….it’s not here for that.
I just wish those two would get a room.
No… and why?hes jr’s brother in arms
Of course. But only on those days when he doesn’t log in and comment.
I’d say he was right on target
Nothing like kicking off the comments with some drive-by shitflinging from one of the resident choad-gargling trolls.
Shouldn’t you be out licking toads, Thud?
No way in Hell Trump can get a fair trial in NYC.
Correct. I don’t know why I’m doing this to myself. But, I’m holding out hope there’s at least one sane person on that jury who will refuse to bow to peer pressure. A hung jury would be a YUGE win for Trump. Absent that lone dissenter, I’m afraid Trump will be convicted and this judge gives me ZERO confidence he won’t immediately remand Trump…which might in fact work at least for a few days until an appellate court could issue a stay pending appeal. But, it’s clear this judge is a partisan hack reminiscent of the Soviet show trials.
Yeah, the judge is a disgrace, as is the DA and it looks like pretty much his entire staff. And the NY bar isn’t any better with their deafening silence against this outrage.
I think that ship sailed when the DA decided to make up (quite literally) a crime and no state court gives a rat’s ___ about it. This is beyond appalling. Don’t know what if anything President Trump can do procedurally in this NY cesspool. Is a federal action of some sort possible?
He didn’t literally invent a statute. The statute exists, and its literal language can be stretched to apply to the behavior he alleges, at least if you get a good grip and pull really hard; so there’s nothing yet for an appeals court to look at. If he’s convicted, he can then appeal it.
There’s no question that he would never have brought such charges against anyone else.
He’s inventing an illegal federal campaign donation that isn’t illegal under federal law.
He didn’t invent the expenditure. That it was a crime is Bragg’s contention, which he will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, even though he hasn’t charged Trump with it. Trump is entitled to argue that it wasn’t illegal, but that too is a contention, not an established fact.
A contention shared by the DOJ, the real party charged with enforcing federal law, and S.Ct. precedent. Which leaves a defendant subject to this abuse to his contentions, with a judge that appears to be able to do, well, whatever he wants. Almost doesn’t seem fair.
DOJ never decided it wasn’t a crime, just that it wasn’t going to prosecute him for it. That’s not an exoneration. Bragg is entitled to claim that it was still a crime, but at trial he’s going to have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Don’t think he’s entitled to enforce federal election law but that’s just me. No matter how much Bragg and his DOJ/Biden hacks try to twist things, they have to allege and prove a violation of a federal law that the NY DA has no power to enforce and for which there is no wrong under federal precedent If the facts and law supported federal charges, the federal lawfare scum would have brought charges long ago.
He isn’t enforcing federal election law. But whether Trump violated federal election law is a matter of fact; either he did or he didn’t. And Bragg is entitled to allege that as a matter of fact he did violate it. And he can allege it as an element in a state law. There’s nothing controversial about that.
“If the facts and law supported federal charges, the federal lawfare scum would have brought charges long ago” is your opinion, not a legal fact. Bragg is entitled to try to show otherwise.
The sleight of hand in this case is that the payments went through his personal trust, not his business or campaign entities. And the FEC has already definitively ruled that none of this is a campaign contribution of any type.
And they’re not making that up as they go along. The John Edwards case – which was reversed on appeal – speaks DIRECTLY to almost this exact issue. Paying off trollops, real or imagined, is not a campaign expense in any way.
This is exactly why Bragg refused to to name the crime he’s alleging Trump committed.
How the $!!@# is this possible? How can you charge and try someone constitutionally without frigging identifying the crime?
Not so hard when you live in a communist shithole
That’s not true. He has certainly identified the crime he’s charged him with! You can’t have an indictment without naming the crime alleged!
I think TargaGTS is referring to Bragg initially refusing to name the “other crime” he is alleging Trump committed this crime to cover up. At the time of charging he didn’t have to name it, since he was not charging him with it, but he has certainly done so since, because Trump was entitled to that information in order to defend himself.
The “other crime” is an element in this crime, so at trial Bragg will not only have to name it publicly, but he will have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
The other crime is what? A federal elections law violation that doesn’t exist?
The federal law certainly exists. Whether Trump violated it is a point of dispute. Bragg will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did.
Interesting theory on federal illegality not shared by the DOJ. But what do they have to do with federal criminal law? And does the Manhattan DA’s office prosecute a lot of crimes under the federal criminal code, almost seems out of its jurisdiction?
1. Again, your claim that DOJ doesn’t share Bragg’s theory is not supported by the facts. DOJ merely decided not to prosecute him for it. That’s completely consistent with it being a crime.
2. You still don’t seem to understand that Bragg is not prosecuting him for it. He’s prosecuting him only for a state crime; the alleged federal crime only comes into it because it’s an element of the state crime. And that is certainly within his jurisdiction, just like any other element of a crime.
Understand that if Trump is convicted in this trial, which means the jury will have found that he did commit the federal crime, he still will not have been convicted of that federal crime and will suffer no penalty for it. The worst that could result is that the feds could change their minds and decide to charge him with it after all.
What federal crime? Bragg has no authority to enforce federal election law. And even if a federal crime could be a predicate to the state charges in their insane set of charges (which it goes without saying has never happened anywhere before), one would still need to allege and prove a federal crime that didn’t happen under the law and facts. If there were federal election law violations, the corrupt DOJ wouldn’t have passed.
He isn’t enforcing federal law.
If you’re claiming that it’s never before happened that a federal crime is an element in a state crime, that’s just not true. There’s nothing remarkable about it.
And yes, he will have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
As for the “corrupt DOJ” having passed, as I understand it it wasn’t the DOJ’s decision at all, it was the FEC’s, and the FEC is not corrupt, it’s political. The Dems on the FEC probably wanted to prosecute, but half the commissioners are Rep, and without at least one of them going along the prosecution couldn’t happen.
No, it hasn’t. It has not made any ruling at all about it. Remember that it’s impossible to get a FEC ruling without bipartisan support. Most charges the FEC considers end in no ruling, because the commissioners split along party lines.
Will the jurors be asked if they are members of BLM, Antifa, the DNC?
not on the questionnaire,…but if Trump’s lawyer weren’t a bunch of suck ups, the would ask the potential jurors that same questions but in stead of asking if they or anyone they know ever worked for Trump, ask the same same about any Dem politician or campaign,…but Trump lawyers are a bunch of pussies
No… and why?
Thankfully the justice system, especially in NY, is there watching out for all of us.
Yep! Watching out for us like a deer hunter watches out for deer!
Yes, but then there are the literalists.
A man doesn’t pay a whore for sex. He pays her to go away afterwards w/ no strings or expectations. That includes keeping her mouth shut.
This is a process non-crime. Money is fungible. Campaign finance laws are a joke, and eveyone knows it – regardless of political party. It’s just more Get Trump BS.
And this weaponize government to persecute political enemies will never end until qualified immunity is abolished, and people go to prison for these aggressive and egregious abuses of power.
We are at war. Prepare accordingly.
I was listening to two talking heads on Fox today while on a drive. One of them said there are now well over 300,000 criminal laws on the federal books. This means any of us can be brought up on charges of some kind.
A book was written on that issue…. the average America could be guilty of three felonies a day. Got throw away 3rd class mailer in your mail box and toss it…. felony! The whole of present law is a trap and now even no law is now a trap.
I’m already guilty of several counts of removing flow restrictors from faucets and shower nozzles.
Yup. Newsweek should run a new cover stating, “We’re all criminals now.” There used to be a blog titled ‘Over-Lawyered’ dot com run by Walter Olson. He would comment on the criminalizing of nearly everything now and again.
“As laws multiply, injustice increases” Cicero.
Judge told President Trump he had to
Personally be in
Court every day or he’d arrest him
If Trump brings up the corrupt judges corrupt daughters link to the Democrat party, he’ll put him in jail
How is this America
How is this not election interference
The collective purpose is to break him both financially and psychologically. The big bonus is preventing him from campaigning.
Trump in jail is a plus for Trump. He just has to play the offense right.
Maybe. He won’t be able to campaign but he will have non stop publicity. The question here is what are the other prisoners going to do as Trumps Secret Service has all the authority it needs to vacate the entire jail for his safety if they want.
The Democrat Party ascendent! The Coup is almost totally finished.
It’s a criminal trial and the judge is expecting the defendant to follow the god damn rules. You seem to think its corrupt to hold Trump to the same standard as everyone else.
And the judge doesn’t care that this is election interference, which the Democrat Party has decided is a crime in itself.
With respect it would be election interference if it didn’t go to trial before the elections. The public deserve to know whether a presidential candidate is a criminal or not.
“Democrat Party has decided is a crime in itself” No they aren’t, its quite reasonable to say that a catch and kill tactic with respect to a damaging story on a candidate is beyond the pale. I think you’ll find that’s just having standards.
Preventing him from campaigning is literally election interference. And it’s the Dem Party that has invented out of thin air the claim that “election interference” is a crime.
As I understand it, the US Congress, and wealthy individuals, pay out millions every year to buy off lawsuits, many of which are wholly or partly unjustified. It’s simply not worth fighting it out in court, with what may well be a highly biased jury.
My question is: When Trump, inevitably, looses this case, does that mean there will be a flood of cases against everyone else who has ever paid ‘hush money’?
Frankly, it seems like a legitimate campaign expense for Trump?
I would go further and state with high confidence that anybody with a net worth over $X or Y number of front page articles in a Hollywood newspaper has been approached by at least one person they have never met before and extorted for money. As X and Y increase, the number of potential extortionists and fraudsters increase proportionately. As a multiplier, any person with a high X or Y count who is indicted on a real or imaginary crime will *immediately* be swamped with copycat fraudsters looking to cash in. As an example, Bill Cosby, who would have needed to be triplets to do everything he was accused of by all the women who came out of the woodwork when they smelled money. This gives a very high incentive to pay off fraudulent extortionists, such as Miss Clifford.
Citing Bill Cosby’s sexual assaults as a defense for Trump’s sexual assaults is not likely to win any votes.
He didn’t cite Cosby’s assaults, he cited the false allegations against him.
The vast majority of elected officials have never had to pay hush money to cover up a sexual affair with a porn star. What is your point?
Why are you here?
What??????????????????
Congress has a slush fund that pay off anyone they fuck, harass, and otherwise slip their fingers in a woman’s vagina. It doesn’t pay for certain former senators who diddle their daughters.
There is no “sex slush fund”. Congress has a fund to settle lawsuits with its employees who sue it, as happens to any large employer. The suits can be for all the things that employees routinely allege against employers, one of which is sexual harassment, hostile environment, etc. It’s a fact that employees often do sue for those things, whether they happened or not, and that it’s often cheaper to settle than to fight.
Yes they do!! https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/03/24/182_million_congressional_slush_fund_for_metoo_claims_769046.html#!
No, they do not. Did you even bother to read the article you linked?! It says exactly what I said, which is the opposite of what you allege.
@wendybar
“Slowly, it has emerged that the fund, appropriated annually by Congress, includes payouts for workplace safety and pay disputes, in addition to sexual harassment claims, though many specifics are not reported.”
From the article you cite
Nah, they just used their Congressional slush fund that they keep Secret
There is no “secret slush fund”. There is an openly known provision for the Congress settling lawsuits of all kinds against it. As there would have to be, since, like any large enterprise, it is regularly sued for one thing or another.
I don’t think her being a porn star has much to do with this although it does add a salacious air to the entire thing. There are numerous politicians that had affairs and got caught. Edwards comes to mind.
We know. They have a taxpayer funded slush fund to cover it up.
No, they do not. And you know it, since you just linked an article that explicitly says what I said, and contradicts your claim. Unless you never bothered reading the article before linking it.
No, because nobody is alleging that there is anything wrong with paying hush money. Trump is certainly not charged with doing so; he’s charged with wrongly accounting for the money.
Oops, I missed a </blockquote> there.
“he’s charged with wrongly accounting for the money.”
No.
He’s being charged with wrongly accounting for the money. in pursuit of covering up another crime.
Because, without that other crime there IS no crime at all.
Not true. Without the other crime, wrongly accounting would still be a crime, but it would be a misdemeanor, and the statute of limitations would be shorter. The other crime just promotes it to a felony, and extends the statute.
That the judge may try to drag this simple case into June is revealing of his purpose to make an in kind contribution in honor of his daughter.
Someone needs to shadow the daughter and report on every picadillo, every misstep, everyone they stay overnight with, every financial transaction, research everything she has ever done in her life, and fry her for it – no matter how minor.
She needs to feel the heat of being in the political fishbowl.
Then we can start with the judge’s spouse.
More effective, perhaps, is simply to expose the connection and how deep it is, and how it shows this jurist flaunts rules of professional conduct. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
1. s/flaunts/flouts
2. He consulted the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics nearly a year ago, and they told him it was not an issue. So he is not flouting anything.
Said he was flaunting, so why talk about flouting. The Advisory Commitee is as bad.
It’s pretentious to correct people, especially when you try to tell them what they are saying.
Because it makes no sense to say that he is flaunting the rules. What’s he doing, wearing them embroidered on his robes?! Seriously, how could he flaunt the rules if he wanted to? So you must have meant “flout”, and must still mean it, even if you deny it. Nothing else makes sense.
The Advisory Committee is the authority on the matter, and their opinion heavily cites the sources on which it relied, so what is your objection? In any case, having consulted the committee and received its OK, it’s simply false to say that he’s flouting the rules; he’s doing exactly what he’s supposed to do. If the committee is wrong, that’s not his problem.
The only way you can fault him is if you can show that the facts he presented to the committee were not true, or are no longer true. If the daughter’s income does depend on the outcome of the case, then he must recuse himself. But nobody has yet shown how that could be so.
Just because it makes no sense to you, does not make it so.
The fact that you must argue this point, after being told you were incorrect says a lot!
The fact that you must tell someone what they meant, after being told otherwise, says a lot!
The fact that you engage in ridicule, when you are wrong, says a lot!
Flaunt: To exhibit ostentatiously or shamelessly. The judge is shamelessly exhibiting his respect for the rules of judicial conduct with respect to due process and conflict.
Huh? Now you’re just babbling. What could possibly be shameful about respecting the rules?
Nope. Although this case was bogged down with substantive and procedural problems, the goal of this and all these prosecutions is to convict and actually jail Trump before Election Day. I hate to say it, but this is the truth.
The goal is to keep him from becoming president by any means necessary, and one means is a very long dragged out process.
He said it would never have happened if he did not run, and the prosecutions started after he declared.
The only thing Democrats are after is a criminal conviction so they can campaign on this over the next few months.
Democrats need this conviction because they have absoluetly nothing else to run on. So you can see why the WH has been so eager for Brag to get this trial going as they know they will get their badly needed conviction…and when the conviction is eventually over turned in 2 or 3 years time no one will give a fuck…most certainly not the same media that worked hard to push the Biden Junta’s propoganda.
Also, as it’s a criminal case Trump has to be there…pretty much like everyone else in a criminal case. Again, this is a desired approach from the WH as it means Trump can’t be anywhere else campaigning.
“Democrats need this conviction because they have absoluetly nothing else to run on”
Abortion, the economy, Trumps presidential record, what Trump says, Trumps other crimes, Trumps civil court case record …
“So you can see why the WH has been so eager”
Oh really, please do share your sources on the WH displaying its eagerness
*gets popcorn
Killing babies and, bless your heart, you believe Biden can run on his economic record 😂😂😂
As I said, Democrats need this conviction as they have nothing else to run on 😂😂😂
“Killing babies” Ah yes lets pretend foetuses are babies, that’ll make your non argument more convincing
“believe Biden can run on his economic record” Belief isn’t required its a fact, should maybe look at the economic data like fore example the jobs report, inflation (which is improving), GDP. You just don’t have an argument here
“Democrats need this conviction”
Not really, since reality is something you are unfamiliar with Trump has already been found liable for multiple frauds. The public record is damning for Trump on the other trials, I mean you have to be seriously silly to even think he is innocent
The US is over and done.
The charge is that he should have recorded the payments to Cohen the lawyer as a campaign expense, not a legal expense, even though they came from a private account. To get here, we don’t even know what felony crime was being hidden to get around the statute of limitations. To me, the factual question is whether he knew that they were mischaracterized, and whether he knew that mischaracterizing them was for the purpose of concealing the felony. If you can’t say what the felony was, how can you say that he acted to conceal a felony that can’t be named? What felony did he think he was concealing? Very Kafka-esque, but certainly not my concept of justice.
Yet today, the prosecutors again requested that they be able to show the Access Hollywood video. The judge already allowed them to use the transcript, and he’ll decide about the video later. Witnesses against include Clifford and McDougal. What do they know about how the transactions were recorded? Excuse me, but what element of the crime is it whether he had an affair?
The Judge has pronounced that this will be dragged out as long as possible, to keep DJT captive in the courtroom, while the prosecution is allowed to publish every bad fact and slander against him. An 8 week trial, with 12 prosecutors on the case, to try to jail someone for how many years, because he characterized the expense as a legal expense, not a campaign contribution? Simple question, with respect to people who entered into settlement agreements, but who weren’t politicians (think Hollywood at a minimum), how many labeled them as legal expenses?
This is a kangaroo court, being used to assassinate a political opponent. That it will be overturned on appeal is moot, the damage will have already been done, Merchan will enjoy his pension, and Bragg will enjoy the adulation of the left.
The Republic is done.
1. The “other crime” doesn’t have to be a felony. It could be a third-class misdemeanor, and it could even be a crime committed in another country that isn’t even against the law here.
2. He has certainly informed Trump of what this “other crime” is, even if he hasn’t yet announced it in public. And he will not only have to name it to the jury but also to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
“2. He has certainly informed Trump of what this “other crime” is, even if he hasn’t yet announced it in public. And he will not only have to name it to the jury but also to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.”
Cite?
The man appears to be grasping at straws. Legal analysis better than the charlatanry you spew forth have been pointing out the stretch this is because this supposed ‘other crime’ has to have occurred BEFORE the money was paid to Daniels, BEFORE the invoices that Braggs charges hinge on went out.
And before that period, Trump had zero charges anywhere.
“The man appears to be grasping at straws. Legal analysis better than the charlatanry you spew forth have been pointing out the stretch this is because this supposed ‘other crime’ has to have occurred BEFORE the money was paid to Daniels, BEFORE the invoices that Braggs charges hinge on went out.”
Given Cohen went to prison for the campaign finance violation involved in this very case its hard to dismiss outright the claim it was a campaign finance violation, that said disentangling person interest with campaign interest will be tricky.
As far as i’m aware Bragg has suggested several different possible legal avenues, the merits of which will be determined during the course of the case.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/alvin-bragg-says-trump-tried-173030604.html
I don’t need a citation. It’s obvious that he must have informed him, or his lawyers would be screaming blue murder about it. They’re already going to trial, how could they prepare a defense if they don’t even know what the elements of the offense are alleged to be?
This is false. The law is right here. Not only need it not have happened before those things, it needn’t even have happened before the allegedly wrong accounting note was made.
That’s irrelevant. No charges are necessary.
“Judge Juan Merchan released the 42 questions the potential jurors must answer. A few include:”
“Do you have any political, moral, intellectual, or religious beliefs or opinions which might prevent you from following the court’s instructions on the law or which might slant your approach to this case?”
Judge Merchan’s response: “Yes, I do.”
“Have you read (or listened to audio) of any of the following books or podcasts by Michael Cohen or Mark Pomerantz?”
Judge Merchan’s response: “Yes, I did.”
“Have you ever considered yourself a supporter of or belonged to any of the following: the QAnon movement; Proud Boys; Oathkeepers; Three Percenters; Boogaloo.”
Judge Merchan’s response: “No, I hate them as much as I hate Trump.”
“Do you currently follow Donald Trump on any social media site or have you done so in the past?”
Judge Merchan’s response: “Yes, so I can find more bullshit that I can hold against him in violation of his first amendment rights.”
“Do you have any feelings or opinions about how Mr. Trump is being treated in this case?
Judge Merchan’s response: “Yes, I do. I don’t believe I have been hateful enough in my treatment against the guilty party, er, defendant, but I need to portray some level of objectivity, fairness, and integrity.”
Sleepy Trump