Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

I couldn’t find a thread just about this case, and thought we should have one since it’s Trump’s first criminal trial. He has to attend every day, as I understand it. Here is a quick reminder of what it’s about. His former lawyer Michael Cohen already went to prison for his involvement in this case.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[MT15]

Yeah, I’d agree that it’s dubious for an American in 2024 to claim “no opinion” of Donald Trump. I think it’s counsel’s job to explore that answer and without the transcript we don’t really know if anything else was said.

They can’t possibly exclude everyone who has an opinion on Trump, good or bad. What they have to figure out is if the person has enough integrity to put their opinions aside and vote on the evidence. Maybe they set the bar at “strong opinion”?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Is that the two tiered justice system I’ve been hearing so much about?

 

[superchuck500]

They can’t possibly exclude everyone who has an opinion on Trump, good or bad. What they have to figure out is if the person has enough integrity to put their opinions aside and vote on the evidence. Maybe they set the bar at “strong opinion”?

Totally agree - but I don't think the point here is that any given juror should be excluded or not for having an opinion on Trump, the question is whether this juror was being truthful in saying that she has no opinion of Trump. I think jurors are supposed to answer the questions truthfully so that the parties can make informed decisions about whether the strike the juror.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Trump faces grilling about sexual abuse and fraud if he testifies in hush money trial

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said he intends to use this information at the hush money trial ‘to impeach the credibility of’ the former president

www.independent.co.uk

 

[LA - L.A.]

Totally agree - but I don't think the point here is that any given juror should be excluded or not for having an opinion on Trump, the question is whether this juror was being truthful in saying that she has no opinion of Trump. I think jurors are supposed to answer the questions truthfully so that the parties can make informed decisions about whether the strike the juror.

I'm being genuine and not a smart arse. She might honestly think she doesn't have an opinion of Trump, because even the perception of whether or not one has an opinion is more in the realm of subjective opinion than it is in the realm of objective fact.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm being genuine and not a smart arse. She might honestly think she doesn't have an opinion of Trump, because even the perception of whether or not one has an opinion is more in the realm of subjective opinion than it is in the realm of objective fact.

It's possible - hard to know what she thinks based on one line accounts of what she said. Clearly the prospective juror's voir dire answers are under oath and she has a duty to be truthful, but there are different ways that a person may interpret their own views on something and such a response isn't necessarily false. It's counsel's job to follow-up with questions designed to learn more about the juror's views and beliefs. Without a transcript we just don't know if that happened but if you presume it didn't, and she does in fact have an opinion of Trump, that's on Trump's counsel - they're the professionals, she's just trying to answer a question.

 

[Lapaz]

It's possible - hard to know what she thinks based on one line accounts of what she said. Clearly the prospective juror's voir dire answers are under oath and she has a duty to be truthful, but there are different ways that a person may interpret their own views on something and such a response isn't necessarily false. It's counsel's job to follow-up with questions designed to learn more about the juror's views and beliefs. Without a transcript we just don't know if that happened but if you presume it didn't, and she does in fact have an opinion of Trump, that's on Trump's counsel - they're the professionals, she's just trying to answer a question.

I can believe that a person that doesn’t follow the news doesn’t have an opinion. I can also believe that a person who follows the news could be unsure about their opinion about Trump, but that is an opinion. I suppose you could give her the benefit of the doubt about how she defines an opinion. If she believes that having an evolving position is the same as not having an opinion, then I question her analytical ability, because she has drawn the wrong conclusion about what it means to have an opinion. Once she claimed to follow CNN, her statement about not having an opinion didn’t make sense, even if it is evolving. I believe having a neutral opinion on Trump in NYC is much better for the defense than most. On the other hand, this juror is more likely to go along with whatever everyone else believes on the jury, so that may also work well for the prosecution.

 

[superchuck500]

One of the seven jurors has asked for (and been granted) dismissal due to concerns that the news coverage provided sufficient information for people to identify where she works - raising a security concern. The judge dismissed her and instructed the press pool to no longer provide any information about where jurors work.

 

[superchuck500]

Prosecutors: Trump violated gag order seven more times​

Prosecutors claim that Trump violated the gag order seven more times.

One of the posts in question links to an article referring to Michael Cohen. Another relates to Fox News host Jesse Watters claiming liberal jurors are trying to get on the jury.

 

[efil4]

Prosecutors: Trump violated gag order seven more times​

Prosecutors claim that Trump violated the gag order seven more times.

One of the posts in question links to an article referring to Michael Cohen. Another relates to Fox News host Jesse Watters claiming liberal jurors are trying to get on the jury.

Did you see his short rant about the "10 strikes" rule? How he was saying " i thought it was unlimited, but the court only gave us 10 " lolol

its NY law. Not at the discretion of the court. His lies are becoming more simple and refutable.

 

[superchuck500]

Did you see his short rant about the "10 strikes" rule? How he was saying " i thought it was unlimited, but the court only gave us 10 " lolol

its NY law. Not at the discretion of the court. His lies are becoming more simple and refutable.

I think that's just ignorace.

Strikes for cause are unlimited - but they have to be for a recognized reason for cause (e.g. the juror used to work for the DA's office or the juror's father was wrongfully incarcerated), and not Trump reasons like "he reads the NYT!" or "she's Asian!" He'd be striking every juror except for self-proclaimed MAGAs and attractive women, lol.

The ones you can use without a reason are limited, and limited to 10 in this case (by rule, yes).

 

[superchuck500]

Trump shakes his head as indictment read​

The 96 prospective jurors from Tuesday are now entering the courtroom.

Trump did not stand up to face the jurors as they walked in, like his legal team did, Newsweek's Katherine Fung reports. The former president looked down and shook his head when Merchan read the indictment.

 

[MT15]

The juror went home after one day and friends and acquaintances had figured out she might be a juror. It was a big mistake to give out that much information about them, obviously.

 

[superchuck500]

Trump did not stand up to face the jurors as they walked in, like his legal team did, Newsweek's Katherine Fung reports. The former president looked down and shook his head when Merchan read the indictment.

When the jury is actually empaneled and enter the room, the bailiff will call for all to rise. That might not happen in this courtroom when the pool jurors enter, they're not yet empaneled jurors - but I think it's still highly uncommon and disrespectful for the defendant to not rise like everyone else when the pool jurors enter.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Trump faces grilling about sexual abuse and fraud if he testifies in hush money trial

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said he intends to use this information at the hush money trial ‘to impeach the credibility of’ the former president

www.independent.co.uk

I want him to testify. his huge ego needs it. lets get it followers to ask him ot testify.

 

[superchuck500]

I want him to testify. his huge ego needs it. lets get it followers to ask him ot testify.

He already said he's going to testify "because I tell the truth" - which is of course hilarious because he's America's most notorious and prolific living liar, but also he promises to do a lot of things that of course he never ends up doing.

It's going to be interesting because I think he thinks he can use this as sort of a platform to get his word out and on the record in this case. The problem is that whether he believes it or not, it's simply not possible to imagine him taking the stand and providing truthful testimony. And because his credibility will be at issue, most of that other material will be in play. It's completely not advisable for him to do it.

He's so narcissistic that he might still insist on doing it. And we can't say that it wouldn't ultimately be helpful for him - he does have a certain quality of being able to talk a bunch of bullshirt, avoid repercussion, and enhance his image among his support. I'd say the odds are against that and that it would likely to disaster or near disaster but who knows.

 

[Optimus Prime]

He already said he's going to testify "because I tell the truth" - which is of course hilarious because he's America's most notorious and prolific living liar, but also he promises to do a lot of things that of course he never ends up doing.

It's going to be interesting because I think he thinks he can use this as sort of a platform to get his word out and on the record in this case. The problem is that whether he believes it or not, it's simply not possible to imagine him taking the stand and providing truthful testimony. And because his credibility will be at issue, most of that other material will be in play. It's completely not advisable for him to do it.

He's so narcissistic that he might still insist on doing it. And we can't say that it wouldn't ultimately be helpful for him - he does have a certain quality of being able to talk a bunch of bullshirt, avoid repercussion, and enhance his image among his support. I'd say the odds are against that and that it would likely to disaster or near disaster but who knows.

I assume his legal team will do everything in their power to keep him from testifying