aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But isn't a charge/conviction of the underlying allegation a prerequisite for the lesser included charges? It doesn't make sense otherwise.

---

This case is bassackwards proceduraly because Bragg did not delineated which federal crime he claims Trump was trying to cover up that converted misdemeanor business charges to felonies and thu extending the statute of limitations. The misdemeanor charges would be time barred.

Further, I noticed that Judge Merchan was similarly vague when first instructing the jury panel about these charges in this case, only saying it was connected to "election interference" in the 2016 election. Is that a campaign finance violation? Some other type of election interference such as censorin the news with the catch and capture of unfavorable news stories with the National Enquirer (which is not illegal)?

Have no idea if there is a unified narrative on what actually is being alleged as the predicate crime here. Neither does the judge it would appear.

---

Isn't that kind of important for the judge to know? I mean, he rejected the motion to dismiss, so how can he rule to not dismiss if he doesn't even understand the charges?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But isn't a charge/conviction of the underlying allegation a prerequisite for the lesser included charges? It doesn't make sense otherwise.

---

This case is bassackwards proceduraly because Bragg did not delineated which federal crime he claims Trump was trying to cover up that converted misdemeanor business charges to felonies and thu extending the statute of limitations. The misdemeanor charges would be time barred.

Further, I noticed that Judge Merchan was similarly vague when first instructing the jury panel about these charges in this case, only saying it was connected to "election interference" in the 2016 election. Is that a campaign finance violation? Some other type of election interference such as censorin the news with the catch and capture of unfavorable news stories with the National Enquirer (which is not illegal)?

Have no idea if there is a unified narrative on what actually is being alleged as the predicate crime here. Neither does the judge it would appear.

---

Even if they did specify the alleged crime, wouldn't he need to be charged and convicted of said crime in order to these charges to apply? Seems like there's some serious 5th Amendment issues at play here.

Science Denier said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Susan Necheles, part of Donald Trump's legal team, said they need more time to go over the juror strikes with the former president.

She wanted to wait until after lunch to strike the jurors, saying by the time they get to their room across the hall, it will be lunchtime. Judge Juan Merchan reiterated their room is right across the hall and said, "you're wasting time right now" and "why don't you go get started?"

---

Quote:

---

A prospective juror who works with seniors said Donald Trump "speaks his mind" and "stirs the pot."
"You can't judge him because he speaks his mind. I mean the way everyone wants to judge him for speaking his mind. … I know what's right and what's wrong," she said.

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche pressed her to explain what she thought of that behavior.

"I mean, he speaks his mind, come on, what can you say about that? If I told you all the time what I thought about people I want to say some things to people, but my momma said be nice."

---

Quote:

---

A prospective juror said that as a person of color, she has friends who have strong opinions on former President Donald Trump, but she does not consider herself not a political person, according to pool reporters.
She said she tries to avoid political conversations and doesn't really care for the news.
She added that 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 said.
Most of the jurors in the box raised their hand when Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked if they are aware Trump is charged in other criminal cases. This juror was the only person to raise her hand to say she is just now learning that for the first time, according to the pool.

---

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump is back inside the courtroom.
He gave a thumbs up and is now whispering with his attorney Todd Blanche.

---

Quote:

---

Defense attorney Todd Blanche said they need more time, so Judge Juan Merchan said they will go through the list of potential jurors and remove some after lunch.

---

---

They send jury summonses to people living under rocks? Or in solitary confinement with no access to the outside world?

---

Or they lie because they think that will get them on the jury.

---

Nooooooooo, impossible!

I think it was the Chauvin trial where a potential juror had all sorts of social media posts saying they hate cops etc. and when pressed they said they could be impartial and give the cop a fair shake. The attorney pleaded with the judge that it was obvious to anybody with two brain cells that this person was anything but impartial but the judge just said they said they could be impartial so he had to waste a peremptory challenge to get rid of that potential (extremely biased) juror.

Quote:

---

Isn't that kind of important for the judge to know? I mean, he rejected the motion to dismiss, so how can he rule to not dismiss if he doesn't even understand the charges?

---

Guess he figures he'll address that at the jury instruction phase.

If you remember down in Florida, Judge Cannon asked the parties to draft jury instructions at an early stage precisely because she wa trying to understand SC Smith's theory of the case. Get him on the record.

Merchan is not that detail oriented, it seems.

Quote:

---

wouldn't he need to be charged and convicted of said crime in order to these charges to apply?

---

No, as the charge is "with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime," so actual commission of the other crime is not an element.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Isn't that kind of important for the judge to know? I mean, he rejected the motion to dismiss, so how can he rule to not dismiss if he doesn't even understand the charges?

---

Guess he figures he'll address that at the jury instruction phase.

If you remember down in Florida, Judge Cannon asked the parties to draft jury instructions at an early stage precisely because she wa trying to understand SC Smith's theory of the case. Get him on the record.

Merchan is not that detail oriented, it seems.

---

Seems to me it may be just a tad more than that. lol

AggieUSMC said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But isn't a charge/conviction of the underlying allegation a prerequisite for the lesser included charges? It doesn't make sense otherwise.

---

This case is bassackwards proceduraly because Bragg did not delineated which federal crime he claims Trump was trying to cover up that converted misdemeanor business charges to felonies and thu extending the statute of limitations. The misdemeanor charges would be time barred.

Further, I noticed that Judge Merchan was similarly vague when first instructing the jury panel about these charges in this case, only saying it was connected to "election interference" in the 2016 election. Is that a campaign finance violation? Some other type of election interference such as censorin the news with the catch and capture of unfavorable news stories with the National Enquirer (which is not illegal)?

Have no idea if there is a unified narrative on what actually is being alleged as the predicate crime here. Neither does the judge it would appear.

---

Even if they did specify the alleged crime, wouldn't he need to be charged and convicted of said crime in order to these charges to apply? Seems like there's some serious 5th Amendment issues at play here.

---

This is the question I've had for a while now. Do the jurors have to convict on the underlying predicate crime for this to remain a felony without being reduced down to misdemeanor?

AggieUSMC said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But isn't a charge/conviction of the underlying allegation a prerequisite for the lesser included charges? It doesn't make sense otherwise.

---

This case is bassackwards proceduraly because Bragg did not delineated which federal crime he claims Trump was trying to cover up that converted misdemeanor business charges to felonies and thu extending the statute of limitations. The misdemeanor charges would be time barred.

Further, I noticed that Judge Merchan was similarly vague when first instructing the jury panel about these charges in this case, only saying it was connected to "election interference" in the 2016 election. Is that a campaign finance violation? Some other type of election interference such as censorin the news with the catch and capture of unfavorable news stories with the National Enquirer (which is not illegal)?

Have no idea if there is a unified narrative on what actually is being alleged as the predicate crime here. Neither does the judge it would appear.

---

Even if they did specify the alleged crime, wouldn't he need to be charged and convicted of said crime in order to these charges to apply? Seems like there's some serious 5th Amendment issues at play here.

---

They've eluded to revealing the underlying felony at trial and somehow that's survived a motion to dismiss. I'm not sure how you can prepare your defense when the prosecutor refuses to tell you what you've been charged with before trial.

Quote:

---

I think it was the Chauvin trial where a potential juror had all sorts of social media posts saying they hate cops etc. and when pressed they said they could be impartial and give the cop a fair shake. The attorney pleaded with the judge that it was obvious to anybody with two brain cells that this person was anything but impartial but the judge just said they said they could be impartial so he had to waste a peremptory challenge to get rid of that potential (extremely biased) juror.

---

Judge Cahill was also accepting jurors who said they were not sure they could be impartial but promised "to try."

I was tearing my hair out during that voir dire.

can anyone explain in simple terms exactly what Trump is charged with? No spin please. Is this somehow tax evasion? Is it some kind of candidate financial violation? How is false reporting hush money a crime?

Quote:

---

Do the jurors have to convict on the underlying predicate crime for this to remain a felony without being reduced down to misdemeanor?

---

No

aggiejayrod said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But isn't a charge/conviction of the underlying allegation a prerequisite for the lesser included charges? It doesn't make sense otherwise.

---

This case is bassackwards proceduraly because Bragg did not delineated which federal crime he claims Trump was trying to cover up that converted misdemeanor business charges to felonies and thu extending the statute of limitations. The misdemeanor charges would be time barred.

Further, I noticed that Judge Merchan was similarly vague when first instructing the jury panel about these charges in this case, only saying it was connected to "election interference" in the 2016 election. Is that a campaign finance violation? Some other type of election interference such as censorin the news with the catch and capture of unfavorable news stories with the National Enquirer (which is not illegal)?

Have no idea if there is a unified narrative on what actually is being alleged as the predicate crime here. Neither does the judge it would appear.

---

Even if they did specify the alleged crime, wouldn't he need to be charged and convicted of said crime in order to these charges to apply? Seems like there's some serious 5th Amendment issues at play here.

---

They've eluded to revealing the underlying felony at trial and somehow that's survived a motion to dismiss. I'm not sure how you can prepare your defense when the prosecutor refuses to tell you what you've been charged with before trial.

---

Well, if that's the case, then we have some 6th Amendment issues at play as well.

Quote:

---

Even if they did specify the alleged crime, wouldn't he need to be charged and convicted of said crime in order to these charges to apply? Seems like there's some serious 5th Amendment issues at play here.

---

Actually, no. They can be charged together as one is the inchoate crime.

Quote:

---

An inchoate offense is a type of crime that is committed by taking a punishable step towards the commission of another crime. The three basic inchoate offenses are attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy.

The crime allegedly intended is referred to as the target offense. Inchoate offenses involve actions taken with the intent to commit a target offense.

Attempt is an inchoate offense that occurs when an individual takes a substantial step towards the commission of a target offense, but ultimately fails to complete the crime. For example, an individual who attempts to rob a bank but is unsuccessful in doing so has committed the inchoate offense of attempted robbery.

---

LINK

Clear as mud, I know.

2040huck said:

---

can anyone explain in simple terms exactly what Trump is charged with? No spin please. Is this somehow tax evasion? Is it some kind of candidate financial violation? How is false reporting hush money a crime?

---

More or less misreporting his business expenses in classifying paying a non disclosure agreement as "legal fees" in order to influence the 2016 election. Which somehow also includes business expenses in 2017…to influence the 2016 election…

Quote:

---

If you're just joining us, here's what to know about how the case has played out this morning.
Donald Trump appeared outside court, where he railed against his trial and said he should instead be campaigning in Pennsylvania.
The former president took his seat between his attorneys as jury selection resumed for the second day. As jurors spoke, the former president was frequently seen flipping through the jury questionnaire, often leaning back in his chair.
Throughout the morning, at least eight potential jurors were excused. Here are some of the reasons why:

• One said it was "probably going to be tough" to be impartial. He acknowledged he was from Texas and had lots of Republican friends.
• A few potential jurors said they didn't think they could be fair and impartial including one woman who said she subscribed to anti-Trump newsletters at one point.
• Others listed concerns about the strain jury duty would put on their work.

Eighteen potential jurors made it through the questionnaire phase in which they were questioned by the district attorney's office and Trump's lawyers.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked the potential jurors whether they thought it was possible to not hold witnesses to "unrealistic standards." Trump attorney Todd Blanche said he was going to test whether the potential jurors could be fair and impartial, since this was unlike any other case.
Trump was asked to leave the room, and his team said they needed more time to discuss with the former president whom they would strike from the jury.
Separately from jury selection, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office said Trump's social media posts violated the gag order imposed by Judge Juan Merchan. The prosecutors are asking the court to fine Trump $1,000 per violation. Merchan scheduled a hearing on the district attorney's motion on April 23 at 9:30 a.m. ET.
Court will resume at 2:15 p.m. ET.
What comes next: Merchan said the two parties will review the list of potential jurors and remove some after lunch. Merchan said he'll use the last six potential jurors who have been sitting in the gallery to backfill whoever is dismissed. There are still six potential jurors in this group who have not been questioned. After they are questioned, Merchan said he wants to bring in a second panel of prospective jurors today.

---

Quote:

---

More or less misreporting his business expenses in classifying paying a non disclosure agreement as "legal fees" in order to influence the 2016 election. Which somehow also includes business expenses in 2017…to influence the 2016 election…

---

Further, no campaign funds were ever used to pay Cohen.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Even if they did specify the alleged crime, wouldn't he need to be charged and convicted of said crime in order to these charges to apply? Seems like there's some serious 5th Amendment issues at play here.

---

Actually, no. They can be charged together as one is the inchoate crime.

Quote:

---

An inchoate offense is a type of crime that is committed by taking a punishable step towards the commission of another crime. The three basic inchoate offenses are attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy.

The crime allegedly intended is referred to as the target offense. Inchoate offenses involve actions taken with the intent to commit a target offense.

Attempt is an inchoate offense that occurs when an individual takes a substantial step towards the commission of a target offense, but ultimately fails to complete the crime. For example, an individual who attempts to rob a bank but is unsuccessful in doing so has committed the inchoate offense of attempted robbery.

---

LINK

Clear as mud, I know.

---

1. He wasn't charged together in this case

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

More or less misreporting his business expenses in classifying paying a non disclosure agreement as "legal fees" in order to influence the 2016 election. Which somehow also includes business expenses in 2017…to influence the 2016 election…

---

Further, no campaign funds were ever used to pay Cohen.

---

Further "influencing the 2016 election" does not constitute a crime.

Quote:

---

1. He wasn't charged together in this case

---

I'm aware.

That is most likely due to Bragg not having the jurisdiction to enforce federal laws. Hadhe specified it, could have been tossed for that lack of jurisdiction. Instead Merchan just stuck his fingers in his ears and sand Lalalalalalalala on that part.

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?

---

Other is if you follow the "Fake News"

Quote:

---

When court resumes, prosecutors and Donald Trump's defense team will each be able to use 10 peremptory strikes to remove a juror from the pool no questions asked. Both sides have 10 strikes to use throughout the entire jury process.
This process is a lot like a game of 3D chess, Richard Gabriel, a jury consultant, told CNN.

Quote:

---

"There are some people that you think, maybe the other side is going to strike them, therefore, I can spare my strike. Truly, you're picking a jury ... of only a few people who are going to be the opinion leaders. So you're prioritizing who are your most high-risk individuals, and then trying to eliminate them to basically reshape the pool a little bit, so you get the most advantageous hearing," he said.

---

Both sides are looking for different things, Gabriel added. He said the prosecution is looking for a consensus jury a group of people that will get along and come to a unanimous verdict. Meanwhile, the defense is looking for high-conflict jury one that will not get along because even if one juror doesn't agree with the verdict, it's a win for Trump, Gabriel said.

---

We should be reconvening anytime now.

Quote:

---

Donald Trump returned to the courtroom following the court's lunch break. He did not say anything to reporters as he entered.

---

Quote:

---

prosecutors and Donald Trump's defense team will each be able to use 10 peremptory strikes to remove a juror from the pool no questions asked

---

Batson v. Kentucky would like a word!

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

prosecutors and Donald Trump's defense team will each be able to use 10 peremptory strikes to remove a juror from the pool no questions asked

---

Batson v. Kentucky would like a word!

---

Sshh! Don't give the prosecutors any suggestions.

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump's attorney Todd Blanche said that there are social media posts from potential jurors that are "very much contrary" to the answers they have given.

Blanche has not offered any specifics yet.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors said they don't have any challenges for cause for the potential jurors in seats 1 through 12.
However, Trump attorney Todd Blanche is challenging the prospective juror in seat 1 for cause.
"Juror No. 1 has a series of extraordinarily hostile Facebook posts," he said.

---

DenverAg91 said:

---

Republicans are a little too honest for their own good


You would never hear a liberal saying "I've attended several BLM rallies and it would be too hard for me to put Aside my personal views in the trial of a police officer "

---

Including the foreman of the Derek Chauvin jury.

Here is the NY Model Instructions for Juries.

17.10 is the relevant section here. Notice, the "other crime" does not have to be identified in the indictment. The prosecution will have to explain what it is though.

Quote:

---

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

---

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/art175hp2.shtml

Quote:

---

That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

---

Then the "intent to commit another crime" becomes problematical for the jury to find as a matter of fact, not the law.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is reviewing the social media posts, wondering what the issue is because there's no obvious reference to former President Donald Trump.

"Show me the bias," he said.

---

Quote:

---

The Facebook post that Judge Juan Merchan is reviewing appears to be from 2020, where the potential juror is in a Facebook post about being in a car "spreading the honking cheer" on the date of the election or the day that President Joe Biden was declared the winner.

"I'm trying to understand what I'm looking at here; how does it call into question what the juror said?" Merchan asked.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's attorneys are seeking to have the first juror dismissed for cause which, if successful, means they would not have to use one of their 10 strikes.

Attorney Todd Blanche argued it was important enough to the prospective juror when Trump lost the election to take a video and join in a celebration of his loss.

Judge Juan Merchan asked to see the video in question for context.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked the prospective juror whether anyone felt the prosecutors should have to prove more because of former President Donald Trump's position. He specifically asked this juror now in question.

"I don't think it matters what my political beliefs are," she said in response.

---

She has a point and courts will not allow lawyers to ask who a prospective juror voted for in general.

But this is solely a political case, so a juror's political views can be a factor. And there is a way to ask a gotcha question of this juror. Ask the hypothetical if she thought it would be fair to have a jury predominated by Trump and MAGA supporters?

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan said he wants to question a potential juror who posted a video to Facebook around the 2020 election.

"This is clearly an anti-Trump event," Donald Trump's attorney Susan Necheles said of the post.
Merchan agreed: "I would agree with you that it would appear that it is."

Merchan says there's enough there that he wants to ask the juror about the video in question. She's now being brought into the courtroom.

---

Quote:

---

The prospective juror that Trump attorneys want to dismiss for cause, over a video the individual posted around the 2020 election is in the courtroom.

"Counsel has some follow up questions for you," Judge Juan Merchan tells the prospective juror.

---

Sounds like this juror was wearing a pink p***y hat?

aggiejayrod said:

---

2040huck said:

---

can anyone explain in simple terms exactly what Trump is charged with? No spin please. Is this somehow tax evasion? Is it some kind of candidate financial violation? How is false reporting hush money a crime?

---

More or less misreporting his business expenses in classifying paying a non disclosure agreement as "legal fees" in order to influence the 2016 election. Which somehow also includes business expenses in 2017…to influence the 2016 election…

---

On INTERNAL documents, no less. Documents that never would have seen the light of day had they not be subpoenaed by the prosecution.

Quote:

---

The potential juror said a Facebook video of people celebrating after the 2020 election that is being reviewed "was just a New York celebratory moment."

"I think I went to the car to alternate side parking or something like that and there were people dancing in the street and stuff," she said.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump was gesturing and audibly speaking in the direction of the potential juror who was being questioned, Judge Juan Merchan said after the juror left the courtroom.

"Your client was audibly uttering," he told Trump's lawyers. "I will not have any jurors intimidated in the courtroom."

---

That's not jury intimidation. Trump has the right to participate in his defense, that includes during jury selection.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan said he wants to question a potential juror who posted a video to Facebook around the 2020 election.

"This is clearly an anti-Trump event," Donald Trump's attorney Susan Necheles said of the post.
Merchan agreed: "I would agree with you that it would appear that it is."

Merchan says there's enough there that he wants to ask the juror about the video in question. She's now being brought into the courtroom.

---

Quote:

---

The prospective juror that Trump attorneys want to dismiss for cause, over a video the individual posted around the 2020 election is in the courtroom.

"Counsel has some follow up questions for you," Judge Juan Merchan tells the prospective juror.

---

Sounds like this juror was wearing a pink p***y hat?

---

My Trump voting wife made so much money that year selling those pink hats to the looneys. Little did they know who they were helping out

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is fighting the defense's motion to dismiss the potential juror on cause.

"I fail to see how posting a video of other people celebrating, and even indicating a favorable view of other people celebrating, implicates this juror's" ability to be fair, Steinglass argued.

---