Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says that he does not want people on the jury who lie or mislead, and that's why he brought the potential in to have her explain the Facebook posts. He says that the she "provided what I believe were reasonable explanations for both."

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

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan denied the defense team's challenge for cause.

---

Use a peremptory on her would be my recommendation.

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

---

That is so dumb. He would be all over a pro trump video in the same situation.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan denied the defense team's challenge for cause.
"Juror No. 1 is denied, who's your next?" he told Trump lawyer Todd Blanche.
Blanche responded: "Juror No. 2."
What this means: Trump's attorneys are seeking to have some potential jurors dismissed for cause which, if successful, means they would not have to use one of their 10 strikes.

---

LOL.

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump's attorney Todd Blanche is now challenging another potential juror.

Trump's team found social media posts from the juror referencing Trump that say, "Get him out" and "Lock him up."

---

Jury consultants can be worth their weight in gold.

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

---

That is so dumb. He would be all over a pro trump video in the same situation.

---

It may be dumb, but legally he is correct. (At least in Texas and Federal Court).

Without more, the quoted portion is not enough to get a strike for cause as a matter of law. It would be in the judge's discretion here, which he is going to lean for the prosecution and lean against strikes for cause so he does not bust this panel!

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

Wow. Even on Day 2, this judge can't help but show his OWN personal bias against Trump.

Quote:

---

Trump's team found social media posts from the juror referencing Trump that say, "Get him out" and "Lock him up."

---

Now this is enough to strike for cause as a matter of law!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan denied the defense team's challenge for cause.
"Juror No. 1 is denied, who's your next?" he told Trump lawyer Todd Blanche.
Blanche responded: "Juror No. 2."
What this means: Trump's attorneys are seeking to have some potential jurors dismissed for cause which, if successful, means they would not have to use one of their 10 strikes.

---

LOL.

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump's attorney Todd Blanche is now challenging another potential juror.

Trump's team found social media posts from the juror referencing Trump that say, "Get him out" and "Lock him up."

---

Jury consultants can be worth their weight in gold.

---

sure he wants Trump locked up for "something" but he said he can be impartial so we're good right?

Quote:

---

Before the other juror is brought in, Judge Juan Merchan says that the question that the former president's attorney Todd Blanche posed to the jurors "What is your opinion of Donald Trump?" was problematic.

"That's another way of saying do you like or don't like Donald Trump," Merchan says, noting that people could base that on the way he dresses, the way he speaks or his job as president.

---

Quote:

---

The potential juror being questioned now was a middle-aged man who lives in Midtown and works as a creative director.
The juror confirmed the social media account in question is his.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked whether he has recollection of this post. The man said he does not but it's on his account so it's his post.

---

Quote:

---

The prospective juror whose Facebook posts are in question said he can "set all the prior feelings aside" about the former president.

---

Quote:

---

The judge is striking potential juror No. 2 for cause.

Trump's team found social media posts from the juror referencing Trump that say, "Get him out" and "Lock him up."

---

Buh-bye.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says that the potential juror's social media post about the travel ban being unlawful was acceptable, but it also contained the language "lock him up."

"This is a person who expressed ... a desire that Donald Trump be locked up," Merchan says, even though he notes that it was a few years ago.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

---

How are the lawyers seeing Facebook posts if your page is private?

"Lock him up" for the travel ban? Wow! Now that person is a certified NUT!

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's team is now challenging juror No. 3.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche raised three social media posts of memes. One of the posts is a picture of Trump and Obama from 2016, with the caption: "I don't think this is what they meant when they said orange is the new black."

---

One by one.

aggiejayrod said:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

Ok, but won't Bragg have to prove that there was an underlying crime committed? How is he going to justify a federal crime being committed when he doesn't have authority to charge that crime and the Feds haven't charged it?

How does he get around this?

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said that the social media posts in question are jokes and not an indication of bias.

"It is not necessarily as weighty as it's being suggested," he says.

---

That's being quite disingenuous because you know they would move to strike any potential juror having a bunch of MAGA stuff all over their social media.

Quote:

---

Ok, but won't Bragg have to prove that there was an underlying crime committed

---

No.

He does not have to prove another crime was committed.

He has to prove Trump acted with the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Not that the other crime was actually committed.

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

What if the judge rules that "trying to influence an election" is in fact a crime? Can the jury tell him he's a ****ing crook and rule not guilty?

Of course, then I guess any commercial put on by any candidate would meet that criteria, right?

Quote:

---

How does he get around this?

---

No idea. Should have been immediately fatal to the case when the indictment came down.

Point to remember, this case was not the one that Bragg was led to believe would go to trial first among the criminal trials. When they daisy chained these indictments, either the DC case or the Florida case were expected to be tried first. On Chutkan's rocket docket, that nearly happened until SCOTUS agreed to hear the immunity issue and on the side, the Fischer Jan 6th case, since that involves the same statute used in the DC case against Trump.

Quote:

---

What if the judge rules that "trying to influence an election" is in fact a crime? Can the jury tell him he's a ****ing crook and rule not guilty?

---

Overly broad and vague. Would not hold up on appeal if he did that. Screw up jury instructions like that and areversal is coming down the pike.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan declines to dismiss a potential juror for cause or bring her in for questioning.
"These are posts from over 8 years ago, not involving the juror, involving the juror's husband," he says.

Quote:

---

"Honestly, if this is the worst thing that you were able to find about this juror that her husband posted this humor, albeit not very good humor, from 8 years ago it gives me confidence this juror can be fair," Merchan says.

---

"I'm not going to make further inquiry," Merchan said.
Former President Donald Trump is leaning back in his chair. He turned to his lawyer Emil Bove and made a remark when Merchan made that ruling.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's team is now challenging potential juror No. 6.
Judge Juan Merchan read a social media post Trump's team flagged from the juror.
"Want to beat Trump in 2024?" Merchan read the post in part. There's also a photo of display tables with a Biden-Harris poster on it.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche also raised two social media posts on Facebook from yesterday from this juror, where he was asked if he got picked and he said, "I have to go back tomorrow."

---

Quote:

---

Potential juror No. 6 acknowledged he reposted a negative AI video about Trump in March earlier this year.
"I don't recall watching it," the juror said, when questioned in court.
He reiterated his views of Trump "outside of this room" do not weigh on how he'd conduct himself as a juror.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan granted the defense team's challenge for cause and struck potential juror No. 6.

Merchan said that the social media posts on their own aren't reason to dismiss, but combined with his demeanor and some of the answers he gave, "I'm having a hard time crediting some of his responses."

---

Sorry folks but I have an appointment and will not be able to post for the next hour or so.

Can someone follow the CNN live blog and post for me? TIA.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What if the judge rules that "trying to influence an election" is in fact a crime? Can the jury tell him he's a ****ing crook and rule not guilty?

---

Overly broad and vague. Would not hold up on appeal if he did that. Screw up jury instructions like that and areversal is coming down the pike.

---

You know they don't care if the case is reversed on appeal. All they really care about is Biden campaigning on "Trump is a convicted felon"

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said that the social media posts in question are jokes and not an indication of bias.

"It is not necessarily as weighty as it's being suggested," he says.

---

That's being quite disingenuous because you know they would move to strike any potential juror having a bunch of MAGA stuff all over their social media.

---

We're going to have months of this nonsense.

I was thinking Trump was justified in feeling he's being harmed by being kept from the campaign trail throughout this trial.

However, seeing multiple miscarriages of justice playing out per day as this political circus masquerading as a judicial proceeding goes on, this will likely be an ongoing campaign commercial for Trump highlighting the dangers of a political class that is dead-set on destroying their opposition misusing the justice system to do so.

jrdaustin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said that the social media posts in question are jokes and not an indication of bias.

"It is not necessarily as weighty as it's being suggested," he says.

---

That's being quite disingenuous because you know they would move to strike any potential juror having a bunch of MAGA stuff all over their social media.

---

We're going to have months of this nonsense.

I was thinking Trump was justified in feeling he's being harmed by being kept from the campaign trail throughout this trial.

However, seeing multiple miscarriages of justice playing out per day as this political circus masquerading as a judicial proceeding goes on, this will likely be an ongoing campaign commercial for Trump highlighting the dangers of a political class that is dead-set on destroying their opposition misusing the justice system to do so.

---

But since he has a "gag order", if he campaigns on the trial, he will go to jail. Right?

fc2112 said:

---

I'd crawl through broken glass to get on that jury.

---

Science Denier said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said that the social media posts in question are jokes and not an indication of bias.

"It is not necessarily as weighty as it's being suggested," he says.

---

That's being quite disingenuous because you know they would move to strike any potential juror having a bunch of MAGA stuff all over their social media.

---

We're going to have months of this nonsense.

I was thinking Trump was justified in feeling he's being harmed by being kept from the campaign trail throughout this trial.

However, seeing multiple miscarriages of justice playing out per day as this political circus masquerading as a judicial proceeding goes on, this will likely be an ongoing campaign commercial for Trump highlighting the dangers of a political class that is dead-set on destroying their opposition misusing the justice system to do so.

---

But since he has a "gag order", if he campaigns on the trial, he will go to jail. Right?

---

That's my point. He's not going to have to campaign. These ideolouges from the prosecution to the bench - and ultimately, the jury - are doing it for him. The less Trump says, the better.

People who are for Trump will remain so. People who are against him will remain so. Therefore, the people that need to be reached are the few who still could go either way. If they pay any attention at all, they'll realize that this not a criminal trial, rather a political one. Trump is going to be convicted. Then the conviction will be overturned. The election will happen in between the conviction and the reversal.

The challenge is to make those on the fence understand how things are going to go in this trial, and why. Trump needs to let others make that case for him.

Quote:

---

Therefore, the people that need to be reached are the few who still could go either way. If they pay any attention at all,

---

The people that still go either way are not paying attention.

The "middle" is notoriously the least informed and most politically ignorant group out there.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Therefore, the people that need to be reached are the few who still could go either way. If they pay any attention at all,

---

The people that still go either way are not paying attention.

The "middle" is notoriously the least informed and most politically ignorant group out there.

---

This has been on display, clearly, in this very thread.

Im Gipper said:

---

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.

---

Mind reading required.

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

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

Quote:

---

• Donald Trump's team has used six of his 10 preemptive challenges.
• The district attorney's office has used four of its 10 challenges.

---

Im Gipper said:

---

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

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

---

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

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Ok, but won't Bragg have to prove that there was an underlying crime committed

---

No.

He does not have to prove another crime was committed.

He has to prove Trump acted with the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Not that the other crime was actually committed.

---

Does he have to say what other crime Trump intended to commit?