No Spin Ag said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

jja79 said:

---

People just want equal enforcement and in this banana republic that isn't happening. We have a lying, cheating grifter in the white house. Less than a year ago cocaine was found in the white house, the most surveilled building on earth with a cocaine addicted resident and that went away. That's the issue.

---

I get that. What I don't get is his supporters not being able to admit that Trump is not the type of person they claim to be themselves.

---

People have no choice. Both candidates are flawed men. This election is for keeps. We will have no rights left if the marxists get another shot at it.

---

I respect your honesty. I will add that there were other choices for the GOP, and even when other candidates had nowhere near the amount, or types, of flaws Trump does, they still chose Trump.

Regardless, whatever happens after the next election, I hope that things start turning for the better for everyone. And if it happens with Trump in office, that's fine. It just needs to happen.

---

I don't think people necessarily HAVE to have Trump. I think people are tired of getting run roughshod over. At least I know I am. There are two different standards for people in this country. And Trump talks a good game at saying what people want their politicians to say.

We have people who spent the summer of 2020 rioting around the WH and Minneapolis, and other places who destroyed buildings, people were killed, etc. 1500 buildings damaged, $550+ million in damages 604 people arrested, 25 people killed.

We have people who spent Jan 6 rioting at the capitol. $1.5 million in damages, 1 person killed, almost 1,200 people arrested.

President Biden keeping documents for years and years. Nothing... Too old and feeble to prosecute.

Trump, kept documents when he left office. Multiple cases and the book being thrown at him.

I would guess the VAST majority of people want their to be EQUAL justice. Not the "justice" we have now. We have all of these cases where if you are on the liberal side of things, nothing much happens. But if you are conservative in your views they try to ruin you.

Trump is not a saint, nor anywhere close. But he at least tries to put up a fight.

If you replace Trump with practically any other Republican they would have wilted long ago for lack of money(probably). A Ron Desantis doesn't have the money to defend himself against an onslaught such as this. Not many people have the ability to stand up to the government machinery. And now that one does... You can see the government move against him with multiple different machines.

Gigem314 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

jja79 said:

---

People just want equal enforcement and in this banana republic that isn't happening. We have a lying, cheating grifter in the white house. Less than a year ago cocaine was found in the white house, the most surveilled building on earth with a cocaine addicted resident and that went away. That's the issue.

---

I get that. What I don't get is his supporters not being able to admit that Trump is not the type of person they claim to be themselves.

Maybe they're also not of the "family values" type, and that's why they can't see the faults in Trump. If he's a representation of what they believe in, then what we see as negatives they see as acceptable because they're the same way. Who knows, but it is interesting to see.

---

I don't need a Sunday school teacher as president. Do you? Is Biden your guy? I need a strong country not a socialist country. What do you need?

---

What DeSantis would be able to do, which is do things what wouldn't be undone the second a Democrat became president. Trump is going to have all of his, "So. Much. Winning." EOs, all of which will mean nothing the second he's gone. Then we're back to where things were before he got it.

ETA: For those who say they don't want something like, "I don't want a Sunday School teacher, or whatever example x" does that mean that you're not a family values type person yourself? Or does that mean you are but you don't care if others are if they're on your side?

---

Didn't you once say that Ted Cruz was too "Jesusy" for you?

Maybe pick a narrative and at least stick with it.

---

Holding to moral standards is for other people. Alinsky said so.

If your guy wins it's over. Look at the world today. The weakness America presents has enabled all the bad characters to pounce wherever they choose. The country is in shambles, the economy is on the brink and the president is ignoring the train wreck.

So why not plead no contest and just write a check for the $102,000 in fines? Just make it go away?

Quote:

---

I get that. What I don't get is his supporters not being able to admit that Trump is not the type of person they claim to be themselves.

---

Nixon was not the type of person I claim to be
Ford was not the type of person I claim to be
Carter was not the type of person I claim to
Reagan was not the type of person I claim to
Neither of the Bushes were not the type of person I claim to be
Clinton was not the type of person I claim to be
Obama was not the type of person I claim to be
Dip**** POTUS now is not the type of person I claim to be

I would never say anyone was the type of person I claim to be

You see, everyone is different. We all have faults as nobody is perfect. You would think this is a pretty "WELL DUH" statement, but I guess I'm surprised every day.

The fact that this somehow bothers you is strange.

No Spin Ag said:

---

texsn95 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

one thing we can all agree on: trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p*** star

---

And the party of "family values" sees nothing wrong with it. Then again, even if he shot someone on fifth Avenue he wouldn't lose one of them, so what's the big deal about this.

---

How ironic, considering your man's "family values" consist of perpetually not-recognizing his own grand-daughter for 4 years and showering with his niece. But hey, that's ok with your side.

---

I never said it was okay. That's wrong just as what Trump did was wrong.

That was easy to say, yet for some reason Trump has many supporters who won't even say what he's done is wrong. It's really not that hard.

---

I think you're confusing something, here. Trump is on trial today.

Has he done things wrong? Absolutely. Everyone does. But were they CRIMINAL?

My point is, that you seem to think that people defending Trump today are whitewashing everything he's ever done simply because they are not falling in behind what is clearly a politically motivated prosecution. It's a false equivalency.

HTH.

In case anyone actually wants to know what is happening inside the courtroom other than this massive thread derail...

Quote:

---

The identities of the jurors will remain anonymous, but will be known to the attorneys on both sides.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked Judge Juan Merchan how attorneys will get the names of the jury pool. Merchan said he will give them copies of jury lists with just numbers and a single copy with names and numbers. He told the lawyers the jurors are not to be photographed.
"We're all working this out" and "figuring this out as we go," the judge said.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan said they will have a Sandoval hearing tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. ET.

About a Sandoval hearing: During a Sandoval hearing, a judge is asked whether previous bad acts can be brought up and the judge is expected to weigh the probative value versus prejudicial effect of doing so, according to CNN legal analyst Karen Friedman Agnifilo.

---

Quote:

---

The jury of 12, along with six alternates, will be chosen from hundreds of New Yorkers after an exhaustive jury selection process that could stretch beyond the first week of the trial.
Court officials expect about 500 new jurors to appear each day beginning Monday to be available for the selection process. About 100 prospective jurors at a time will be brought into Judge Juan Merchan's courtroom to be vetted.
The judge released the questionnaire that will be presented to potential jurors, which contains multiple questions that could signal political views to the lawyers on both sides.
Here's what potential jurors could be asked about:

• News consumption.
• Affiliations with groups like the Proud Boys, QAnon and Antifa.
• Whether they or anyone in their circle attended a Trump rally or an anti-Trump event.
• If they've ever read books or listened to podcasts from Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and a key witness for the district attorney.
• If they've read any of Trump's own books.
• If they have views on whether a former president can be charged in state court.
• If they have views on how Trump is being treated in this case.

Why does this matter: The questions will be used for the judge to strike jurors at the outset, if they don't believe they can render a verdict fairly. They will also be used by lawyers for both sides to strike jurors for any reason a key part of the jury selection process.

---

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

I get that. What I don't get is his supporters not being able to admit that Trump is not the type of person they claim to be themselves.

---

Nixon was not the type of person I claim to be
Ford was not the type of person I claim to be
Carter was not the type of person I claim to
Reagan was not the type of person I claim to
Neither of the Bushes were not the type of person I claim to be
Clinton was not the type of person I claim to be
Obama was not the type of person I claim to be
Dip**** POTUS now is not the type of person I claim to be

I would never say anyone was the type of person I claim to be

You see, everyone is different. We all have faults as nobody is perfect. You would think this is a pretty "WELL DUH" statement, but I guess I'm surprised every day.

The fact that this somehow bothers you is strange.

---

This actually says a lot about leftists and how they are controlled by feelings vs common sense and logic.

dmart90 said:

---

So why not plead no contest and just write a check for the $102,000 in fines? Just make it go away?

---

He also faces jail time (theorectically). So you can't just pay the fine portion and make it go away.

Quote:

---

In case anyone actually wants to know what is happening inside the courtroom other than this massive thread derail..

---

THANK YOU!!!

Keep up the posting please!


For those that are interested in what the jury is being asked, here are the questions:

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/Letter-re-jury-selection-4-8-24.pdf

TexAgs91 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

one thing we can all agree on: trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p*** star

---

Can we agree that many politicians would do that and that only Trump is being put through this BS?

---

donald trump is not on trial for cheating on his wife with a p*** star.

at least not right now, I imagine when he dies and faces judgment that'll be near the top of the list of reasons jesus kicks him down to hell.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

In case anyone actually wants to know what is happening inside the courtroom other than this massive thread derail..

---

THANK YOU!!!

Keep up the posting please!


For those that are interested in what the jury is being asked, here are the questions:

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/Letter-re-jury-selection-4-8-24.pdf

---

LOL

Quote:

---

\7hich of the following print publications, cable and or network programs, or online media such as websites, blogs, or social media platforms do you visit, read, or watch? (Read aloud)
- New York Times
- NTall StreetJournal
- USA Today
- New York Post
- New York Daily News
- Newsday
- Huffington Post
- \X/ashington Post
- CNN
- Fox News
- MSNBC
- Newsmax
- MSN
- Google
- Yahoo
- Facebook
- Truth Social
- X
- Tik Tok
- Other
- I do not follow the news

---

Is there a person on earth that say they don't read ANY of these, including "other"?

Is there a penalty for lying on a jury questionaire?

Im Gipper said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

So why not plead no contest and just write a check for the $102,000 in fines? Just make it go away?

---

He also faces jail time (theorectically). So you can't just pay the fine portion and make it go away.

---

Leftist fascists want Trump thrown in prison and this is probably their best chance of achieving that goal. They haven't worked out a plea deal because they don't want a plea deal. They want a trial and hopefully a conviction with prison time.

Just look at the Carroll case for how the DA and citizens of this jurisdiction are biased.

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

I get that. What I don't get is his supporters not being able to admit that Trump is not the type of person they claim to be themselves.

---

Nixon was not the type of person I claim to be
Ford was not the type of person I claim to be
Carter was not the type of person I claim to
Reagan was not the type of person I claim to
Neither of the Bushes were not the type of person I claim to be
Clinton was not the type of person I claim to be
Obama was not the type of person I claim to be
Dip**** POTUS now is not the type of person I claim to be

I would never say anyone was the type of person I claim to be

You see, everyone is different. We all have faults as nobody is perfect. You would think this is a pretty "WELL DUH" statement, but I guess I'm surprised every day.

The fact that this somehow bothers you is strange.

---

It doesn't bother me. Politics is at best entertainmentt for me.

I love seeing people for who they truly are, and those that support the man yet still admit he's not the type of person they strive to be themselves is refreshing. It's also telling about those who can't even do that, or find reasons why how he is is acceptable.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

As AH said, these charges seem quite weak. BUT - it is a New York jury that could have a strong TDS bent

The classified papers trial is the one in which Trump faces the greatest danger. He had papers with the correct markings stored illegally. He was no longer President, so he no longer possessed the power to change those classifications. And there was no record of him doing so while he was president, either.

Back to the trial - judge is making several rulings in Trump's favor against highly prejudicial evidence.

---

Clinton and Biden got away with far worse.

---

They have the good sense to commit their crimes in deep blue jurisdictions overseen by a blue federal bureaucracy though.

Quote:

---

Is there a person on earth that say they don't read ANY of these, including "other"?

---

No one is claiming any person doesn't.

The question is designed to see which the person reads.

All true, but Trump also does not want a plea deal!

Quote:

---

96 jurors are ready to be brought in, judge says
Judge Juan Merchan said there are 96 jurors ready to be brought into the courtroom.
There are 200 jurors total in the courthouse, he noted.

---

Quote:

---

Lawyers on both sides will gain valuable information about potential jurors based on their answers to a list of questions, but that's not the only thing they will be assessing in the courtroom, a CNN legal analyst says.

Quote:

---

"You're going to have the facts the juror discloses, but as a lawyer a prosecutor or a defense lawyer you are analyzing and assessing everything about that juror," CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said.

---

This could include everything from how they dress to their mannerisms, he added.

Honig said the lawyers also have the names of all of the potential jurors and they are allowed to search them on social media.

"Think about how revealing someone's Facebook page or Instagram page can be about them," he said. "So I guarantee they are going through those now."

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

I respect your honesty. I will add that there were other choices for the GOP, and even when other candidates had nowhere near the amount, or types, of flaws Trump does, they still chose Trump.

Regardless, whatever happens after the next election, I hope that things start turning for the better for everyone. And if it happens with Trump in office, that's fine. It just needs to happen.

---

I'd say the blue collar types largely made the choice. The race was over long before it got to Texas.

Regardless, the alternative is full-blown marxism.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan has rescheduled the April 24 hearing on social media posts that prosecutors allege violate the gag order against former President Trump.

The hearing will now take place on Tuesday, April 23rd, at 9:30 a.m. ET.

There will not be court on Wednesday, as per the trial schedule previously laid out.

---

Old McDonald said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

one thing we can all agree on: trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p*** star

---

Can we agree that many politicians would do that and that only Trump is being put through this BS?

---

donald trump is not on trial for cheating on his wife with a p*** star.

at least not right now, I imagine when he dies and faces judgment that'll be near the top of the list of reasons jesus kicks him down to hell.

---

Ah, so you're one of them judgmental bible thumpers right? I'm just voting on policy. Apparently you're voting for continued drug and human trafficking on a global scale. You do you.

Quote:

---

at least not right now, I imagine when he dies and faces judgment that'll be near the top of the list of reasons jesus kicks him down to hell.

---

That isn't how salvation works. Thank God.

aggiehawg said:

---

In case anyone actually wants to know what is happening inside the courtroom other than this massive thread derail...

Quote:

---

The identities of the jurors will remain anonymous, but will be known to the attorneys on both sides.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked Judge Juan Merchan how attorneys will get the names of the jury pool. Merchan said he will give them copies of jury lists with just numbers and a single copy with names and numbers. He told the lawyers the jurors are not to be photographed.
"We're all working this out" and "figuring this out as we go," the judge said.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan said they will have a Sandoval hearing tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. ET.

About a Sandoval hearing: During a Sandoval hearing, a judge is asked whether previous bad acts can be brought up and the judge is expected to weigh the probative value versus prejudicial effect of doing so, according to CNN legal analyst Karen Friedman Agnifilo.

---

Quote:

---

The jury of 12, along with six alternates, will be chosen from hundreds of New Yorkers after an exhaustive jury selection process that could stretch beyond the first week of the trial.
Court officials expect about 500 new jurors to appear each day beginning Monday to be available for the selection process. About 100 prospective jurors at a time will be brought into Judge Juan Merchan's courtroom to be vetted.
The judge released the questionnaire that will be presented to potential jurors, which contains multiple questions that could signal political views to the lawyers on both sides.
Here's what potential jurors could be asked about:

• News consumption.
• Affiliations with groups like the Proud Boys, QAnon and Antifa.
• Whether they or anyone in their circle attended a Trump rally or an anti-Trump event.
• If they've ever read books or listened to podcasts from Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and a key witness for the district attorney.
• If they've read any of Trump's own books.
• If they have views on whether a former president can be charged in state court.
• If they have views on how Trump is being treated in this case.

Why does this matter: The questions will be used for the judge to strike jurors at the outset, if they don't believe they can render a verdict fairly. They will also be used by lawyers for both sides to strike jurors for any reason a key part of the jury selection process.

---

---

Hawg, if I'm on the prospective jury panel, is it fair in your opinion, or strikeworthy to have and verbalize an expectation of understanding of the properness of the charges against the accused.

In other words, If I was asked about the fairness of how Trump is being treated in this case, my response would have to go something like this:

"I am concerned about how Trump is being treated in this case. To be more accurate, I'm confused. This defendant - a national political figure - is on trial on felony charges that I truly don't understand what the charges are. In other words, the charges don't appear to fit whatever crime he is accused of. As payment of hush money, though unseemly, is not illegal; and, a campaign finance violation has not been alleged in the indictment, I'm having trouble understanding what we're trying this defendant for. This, coupled with the prosecutor's prior statements against this specific individual in his campaign efforts, concern me greatly that this prosecution is political in nature rather than a law enforcement action."

So would this judge preemptively strike me? With cause?

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan told the group of potential jurors: "The name of this case is the People of the State of New York vs Donald Trump."

He went on to explain the case: "The allegations are in substance, that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election."

---

Wait...what?

So let's say he's found guilty which is to me a high probability given the location and likely makeup of the jury.

What then? Is the other poster correct that its just Class E felonies where payment of fines is required? Or is jail time on the table associated with guilty verdicts in this case?


(EDIT: In the end, it doesn't matter to Dems, they want him convicted of felonies and embarrassed and inconvenienced)

Quote:

---

So would this judge preemptively strike me? With cause?

---

No, he would (or is supposed to) tell you something like:

You have not heard any evidence at this point. If there is something you have heard in the media or otherwise that makes you biased to one side or the other, and you are unable to put aside that bias and render a verdict on the evidence you hear and instructions I give you, we need to know that.

Science Denier said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

In case anyone actually wants to know what is happening inside the courtroom other than this massive thread derail..

---

THANK YOU!!!

Keep up the posting please!


For those that are interested in what the jury is being asked, here are the questions:

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/Letter-re-jury-selection-4-8-24.pdf

---

LOL

Quote:

---

\7hich of the following print publications, cable and or network programs, or online media such as websites, blogs, or social media platforms do you visit, read, or watch? (Read aloud)
- New York Times
- NTall StreetJournal
- USA Today
- New York Post
- New York Daily News
- Newsday
- Huffington Post
- \X/ashington Post
- CNN
- Fox News
- MSNBC
- Newsmax
- MSN
- Google
- Yahoo
- Facebook
- Truth Social
- X
- Tik Tok
- Other
- I do not follow the news

---

Is there a person on earth that say they don't read ANY of these, including "other"?

Is there a penalty for lying on a jury questionaire?

---

I don't and haven't " read" any of those. I have watched CNN, or at least I should say it's on in our house.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan told the group of potential jurors: "The name of this case is the People of the State of New York vs Donald Trump."

He went on to explain the case: "The allegations are in substance, that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election."

---

Wait...what?

---

I'm no legal expert but seems like the judge is being prejudicial from the outset ascribing motives to Trump's alleged concealment of hush money.

rgag12 said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

So of course the trial isn't about paying hush money - it's about using campaign money for hush money and falsifying records documenting that.

Can you imagine being in this jury pool? My employer pays us for jury duty so I'd be angling like a big dog to get on this jury so I could hang it.

---

So how exactly does the prosecution wanting to play the Access Hollywood tape tie into a financial crime?

There obviously must be some link there -- otherwise it's just the prosecution trying to assassinate his character.

Please explain what it is we're missing?

---

Many cases are won and lost by emotion. Painting Trump as a sexist scumbag that deserves what's coming to him would be an effective strategy to get any impartial jurors that snuck onto the jury to look past the state's shortcomings on the legal side of things.

---

So you're saying it's NOT about whether Trump broke the law?

Thought so.

It is not the Judge ascribing motive, it is the Judge telling the venire panel what New York alleges the motive is.

Im Gipper said:

---

It is not the Judge ascribing motive, it is the Judge telling the venire panel what New York alleges the motive is.

---

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

will25u said:

---

Addendum to this point...

• 
  

  Quote:

  ---

  Merchan said he still believes the "Access Hollywood" video in which Trump brags about groping women should not be shown to jurors because it's so prejudicial.

  ---

Prosecution can use the words the Trump said in the Access Hollywood video, but they cannot hear the actual tape of Trump using those words.

---

Because again, that really has so much to do with how a financial expense was labeled.

This is the abuse of our judicial system to facilitate character assassination, pure and simple.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan told the group of potential jurors: "The name of this case is the People of the State of New York vs Donald Trump."

He went on to explain the case: "The allegations are in substance, that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election."

---

Wait...what?

---

So he just outright admitted that this is a political prosecution. And that Merchan is in on it.

Wonderful.

This was what I was getting at in my question to you above. They're going to seat a jury, give them a bunch of easy facts to convict on, (Did money go to Stormy? Yes. And were they booked as legal fees? Yes...) and Voila! get their conviction. A conviction that will later be overturned on appeal, but by then the damage is expected to be done.

The jury will be useful idiots in a political scheme played out in the courtroom.

Quote:

---

Many prospective panelists who just filed into Judge Juan Merchan's courtroom, and sat in the back rows, stretched their necks and lifted their heads to get a look at Donald Trump once in their seats.

One woman in the second row from the back on the right, giggled and put her hand over her mouth, looking at the person seated next to her with raised eyebrows.

There was no discernible reaction from potential jurors when Merchan said the name of the case.

Several of the potential jurors seated in the jury box also appeared to frequently stare at Trump while the judge introduced the case.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump stood and turned around when he was introduced as the defendant, giving the prospective jurors a tight-lipped smirk, according to pool reports.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan told the jury pool they alone are the judges of facts in this case.

Quote:

---

"It is not my responsibility to judge the facts here. I do not decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. You alone are the judges of the facts and you alone are responsible for deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty," he said.

---

He went on to explain that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that Trump is not required to prove anything.

---

Quote:

---

The jury selection process for the hush money trial against former President Donald Trump will be tedious and the questionnaire involved is a key tool in weeding out potential bias, CNN legal analysts said.
"A lot of it is very typical in terms of where you're from, etcetera, but not questions about who you voted for," CNN chief legal analyst Laura Coates said.
Attorneys do want to know the jurors' views on the case and also their media sources, she noted which could be pretty reflective of who they are, their beliefs are on a particular issue and also their political activity, "whether you or someone in your actual circle, not just you alone, has attended a rally either for Trump or anti-Trump."
Potential jurors can be removed based on strikes and challenges to answers to the lengthy questionnaire. Also each party involved in the case will have the opportunity to dismiss 10 jurors based on a peremptory challenge meaning they can remove a juror without any reason or explanation, Elie Honig, former assistant US attorney for the Southern District of New York, explained to CNN.

Quote:

---

And finally, the big elephant in the room will be the election. "This is a tough jury pool for Donald Trump," Honig noted. "This is a jury pool loaded against Donald Trump politically." Honig continued that in Manhattan, New York County, Trump only got 12.3% of the vote in 2020. "Important to remember, no Bronx, no Queens, no Staten Island, no Brooklyn here. This is Manhattan and Manhattan only."

---

---

Is that standard?

Quote:

---

As the judge is reading instructions to the potential jurors, Donald Trump is sitting back in his chair with his arms folded across his body.

---