aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Thanks to you diligently posting from the blog, I have kept up with the proceedings and know all that.

Which has nothing to do with Trump laughingly "truthing" he has been denied his "unlimited" strikes.

---

He's a layman. The differences between challenges for cause and peremptory challenges is lost on him.

BTW, in the E. Jean Carroll cases, the juries were anonymous, even to Judge Kaplan. Voir dire with an anonymous jury? How the hell does that work?

---

I think you may be a little too used to Texas-style voir dire. Some of my colleagues from other states are outright shocked when they see the lawyers in the case talking directly to the panel.

As screwed up as politics are, I could care less who Trump or anyone or how its paid. Take a look around and campaign finance rules are a joke and what is and isn't a crime is a bigger joke. WGAS!!

Buck from Clay & Buck show thinks the goal here is to put Trump on house arrest so he can't campaign or raise money.

Covid allowed Paw the unprecedented ability to campaign from his basement in 2020.

Trump on house arrest pending appeal is a solution to the spectacle of Trump drawing huge crowds.

Hard to get away with speeches to a parking lot of Jeeps and a dozen people sitting inside lawn dart circles.

Instead of locking Americans down the goal is to lock Trump down.

Easier to do, levels the playing field and leads to a more equatable outcome for Paw.

The anonymous jury panel is very weird to me also!

I've also never heard of a judge, just taking a potential jurors word for it, that he was biased. Usually, there is some questioning to determine the validity of the claim or to see if they can be rehabilitated.. But in this case, it was probably an OK procedure to follow given its Trump.

Im Gipper said:

---

The anonymous jury panel is very weird to me also!

I've also never heard of a judge, just taking a potential jurors word for it, that he was biased. Usually, there is some questioning to determine the validity of the claim or to see if they can be rehabilitated.. But in this case, it was probably an OK procedure to follow given its Trump.

---

Agree. Judges will ask a few questions to sus out what the true issue is with the claim of bias but as you said this is Trump, a guy with 100% name recognition everybody has an opinion of him.

But the anonymous jury thing throws me for a loop. A litigator always wants to establish some trust, a rapport with the jury members and there are not that many opportunities to do so. I consider voir dire as a pre-suasion with opening and closing more persuasion. By pre-suasion I mean setting some parameters and expectations.

Like yesterday when the prosecutor was asking prospective jurors about Cohen's past as a serial perjurer and if they could put that aside in judging his credibility. (Had I been in court, I might have objected to that since that was not in evidence yet.) But nonetheless, that was an effective strategy in my view.

The more they try to stop Trump, the worst it gets for them.

Americans just don't go for this kind of crap.

aggiehawg said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is here
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].

Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.

---

Such BS. Should not have expected a real response, I guess.

FTR: Challenges for cause are unlimited. It is peremptory challenges that are restricted in number by the judge. He can increase those numbers in a high profile case in which seating a jury requires a very large panel of prospective jurors.

There is no such statutory crime as "election interference." Both the FEC and SDNY concluded there was no campaign finance violation, you know, the federal agencies charged with enforcing such matters to the exclusion of state prosecutions.

Even the CNN legal analyst believes this case is FOS.

---

Thank you for the information, helps clear up some misconceptions.

PA24 said:

---

The more they try to stop Trump, the worst it gets for them.

Americans just don't go for this kind of crap.

---

I wish I could believe that. Sadly..."Americans" doesn't mean what it used to.

Im Gipper said:

---

The anonymous jury panel is very weird to me also!

I've also never heard of a judge, just taking a potential jurors word for it, that he was biased. Usually, there is some questioning to determine the validity of the claim or to see if they can be rehabilitated.. But in this case, it was probably an OK procedure to follow given its Trump.

---

Merchan handled the Trump Org civil trial last year and said he found it painfully tedious to go through and "verify" self identified biases or to hear huge numbers of challenges for cause. So he just said let's skip it and move on to the remaining jurors.

The questionnaire for this case is long long long. I have a feeling nearly every juror self identified would get challenged for cause.

whatthehey78 said:

---

PA24 said:

---

The more they try to stop Trump, the worst it gets for them.

Americans just don't go for this kind of crap.

---

I wish I could believe that. Sadly..."Americans" doesn't mean what it used to.

---

But they believed that Obama was born elsewhere. They believed that the Clintons were pimping children out of the basement of a pizza parlor. They believed that the last election was rigged. So yes, apparently many Americans go for all kinds of crap.
Now they're even defending a guy who paid money to a porn star just before an election so as to not give voters that information to make an informed choice about him.

Opalka said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

PA24 said:

---

The more they try to stop Trump, the worst it gets for them.

Americans just don't go for this kind of crap.

---

I wish I could believe that. Sadly..."Americans" doesn't mean what it used to.

---

But they believed that Obama was born elsewhere. They believed that the Clintons were pimping children out of the basement of a pizza parlor. They believed that the last election was rigged. So yes, apparently many Americans go for all kinds of crap.
Now they're even defending a guy who paid money to a porn star just before an election so as to not give voters that information to make an informed choice about him.

---

Is that illegal? What is the law he broke to warrant reviving misdemeanors past statute?

You should take up that whole born elsewhere talking point with the Clinton campaign and Harvard.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/promotional-booklet/

GeorgiAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is here
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].

Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.

---

Kind of crazy how an ex-president can be so objectively wrong about everything he talks about.

"I was told I could have three judges! And I could pick them! And I was PROMISED the trial could take place by the pool at Mar-a-lago!"

Anonymous Source said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is here
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].

Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.

---

Kind of crazy how an ex-president can be so objectively wrong about everything he talks about.

"I was told I could have three judges! And I could pick them! And I was PROMISED the trial could take place by the pool at Mar-a-lago!"

---

I'd wager Trump knew and knows that post is wrong about juror strikes

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is here
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].

Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.

---

Kind of crazy how an ex-president can be so objectively wrong about everything he talks about.

"I was told I could have three judges! And I could pick them! And I was PROMISED the trial could take place by the pool at Mar-a-lago!"

---

I'd wager Trump knew and knows that post is wrong about juror strikes

---

Doesn't matter, because now 1/3 of America believes it.

This judge's antics make me think of this:

This is someone who was released for scheduling but claimed she can be unbiased

This is one of the prospective jurors who assured us she could be unbiased in the Trump trial.

She was dismissed due to scheduling conflicts. But she said this, while also assuring the court that she could have remained objective and unbiased. pic.twitter.com/2D4cp2WdBc

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) April 17, 2024

aggiejayrod said:

---

This is someone who was released for scheduling but claimed she can be unbiased

This is one of the prospective jurors who assured us she could be unbiased in the Trump trial.

She was dismissed due to scheduling conflicts. But she said this, while also assuring the court that she could have remained objective and unbiased. pic.twitter.com/2D4cp2WdBc

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) April 17, 2024

---

Yep, that's the kind of person who the judge can say "I looked into her eyes and believe she is telling the truth about being unbiased"

Everyone knows that this won't be a fair trial. The right is either resigned or pissed about it. The left is either indifferent or gleeful. The battle lines are entrenched and the rhetoric has been ratcheted up so high that there is no fall back position.

That's why it was so insane comparing McCain and Romney to Hitler. The only place to go after that is this. And of course it's a self fulfilling prophecy right? As soon as you get to this place, twisting the law (and it was twisted even if it could conform to the letter) to pin a Presidential candidate down, possibly imprison him, his people and confiscate businesses and properties etc. Where do you go from there?

If Trump wins he would be justified in going after the people that broke the law to go after him, to punish the people and systems that attacked him and have them investigated. Obviously looking at the track record for many of these people they have things to hide and the gross conflicts of interest are absolutely mind boggling. Growing up I never thought we would get to this level. Yes there is always a low level of corruption in any system, but really if Trump didn't go after some of these people he'd be the biggest idiot on the planet. And all of that comes with other problems, and that's just if he wins!

If he loses, no one who supports him or opposes the railroading will look at the election or the government as legitimate. It's very clear we have already entered an extrajudicial, extraconstitutional period. There are very clearly two justice systems depending on venue (location AND level). Reforming those types of things isn't easy either. Usually it comes in the form of scrapping the entire system and starting from scratch and that's really, really hard to pull off. I won't break any laws but you can be damn sure I won't cooperate with anything at the federal level. I travel to the NE frequently but I'll do significantly more remote to avoid putting money in the pockets of locals. If called for a Federal jury I won't convict in a criminal case.

We've come to a breaking point. And more and more people are coming, slowly, reluctantly, begrudgingly to that realization. Peaceful or unpeaceful is the real question because one side has so demonized the other that there is no possible coexistence. The unintended consequence of course is that they will become demonized by the ones they hate. And then the real fireworks start. If history teaches us anything it will be slowly, then all at once.

aggiejayrod said:

---

This is someone who was released for scheduling but claimed she can be unbiased

This is one of the prospective jurors who assured us she could be unbiased in the Trump trial.

She was dismissed due to scheduling conflicts. But she said this, while also assuring the court that she could have remained objective and unbiased. pic.twitter.com/2D4cp2WdBc

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) April 17, 2024

---

This lady is standard issue in 2024.

NPC, an autonomous drone of a person.

Probably works in corporate HR or is a teacher.

Sing songey voice. The laugh before responding to the question and up speak is a dead giveaway. They can't help themselves.

Anonymous Source said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is here
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].

Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.

---

Kind of crazy how an ex-president can be so objectively wrong about everything he talks about.

"I was told I could have three judges! And I could pick them! And I was PROMISED the trial could take place by the pool at Mar-a-lago!"

---

I'd wager Trump knew and knows that post is wrong about juror strikes

---

Doesn't matter, because now 1/3 of America believes it.

---

From where did you get that 1/3 of America? Please cite sources or did you make it up to derail the discussion?

Merchan orders a hearing on the show cause/contempt charges against Trump on April 23.

Quote:

---

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has raised over $800,000 since indicting former President Donald Trump over the payments that his 2016 presidential campaign made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the election.

State campaign finance data shows that Bragg has raked in $845,253 between March 30, 2023, and the latest reporting date, January 12, 2024. Donations from New York State accounted for an overwhelming majority, 72 percent, of the over 800 contributions he received over that time period. Only one of his 20 largest donations was an out-of-state contribution.

---

LINK

There's money in those OMB prosecutions.

.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is here
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].

Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.

---

Kind of crazy how an ex-president can be so objectively wrong about everything he talks about.

"I was told I could have three judges! And I could pick them! And I was PROMISED the trial could take place by the pool at Mar-a-lago!"

---

I'd wager Trump knew and knows that post is wrong about juror strikes

---

Don't tell these TDS'ers that. They will be going REEEEEEEE MORE ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!

So he really knows but is just lying on truth?

What's the strategy there?

Im Gipper said:

---

So he really knows but is just lying on truth?

What's the strategy there?

---

I have no idea.
Not do I GAF

Pretty clear to anyone that isn't a complete imbecile that he isn't referring to jurors strike limitations as election interference; it's a broader reference to the trial as a whole, and the multiple charges as a whole.

Strange how nobody has ever prosecuted Hillary for her campaign's payments to Fusion GPS labeled as "legal expenses" under the same law. I wonder why? Wonder why GeorgiAg isn't on that case?

He has, or should have, unlimited strikes for cause. Perhaps that's what he's referring to.

Opalka said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

PA24 said:

---

The more they try to stop Trump, the worst it gets for them.

Americans just don't go for this kind of crap.

---

I wish I could believe that. Sadly..."Americans" doesn't mean what it used to.

---

But they believed that Obama was born elsewhere. They believed that the Clintons were pimping children out of the basement of a pizza parlor. They believed that the last election was rigged. So yes, apparently many Americans go for all kinds of crap.
Now they're even defending a guy who paid money to a porn star just before an election so as to not give voters that information to make an informed choice about him.

---

The evangelicals dont give a crap They will just tell you that David wasnt perfect

Jack Boyette said:

---

Pretty clear to anyone that isn't a complete imbecile that he isn't referring to jurors strike limitations as election interference; it's a broader reference to the trial as a whole, and the multiple charges as a whole.

Strange how nobody has ever prosecuted Hillary for her campaign's payments to Fusion GPS labeled as "legal expenses" under the same law. I wonder why? Wonder why GeorgiAg isn't on that case?

He has, or should have, unlimited strikes for cause. Perhaps that's what he's referring to.

---

Just shows his brain is still TDS infected preventing rational or logical thought or comprehension. You'd think by now he would realize that everything he thinks about Trump is probably twisted logic and makes him look like that imbecile you referenced

2040huck said:

---

Opalka said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

PA24 said:

---

The more they try to stop Trump, the worst it gets for them.

Americans just don't go for this kind of crap.

---

I wish I could believe that. Sadly..."Americans" doesn't mean what it used to.

---

But they believed that Obama was born elsewhere. They believed that the Clintons were pimping children out of the basement of a pizza parlor. They believed that the last election was rigged. So yes, apparently many Americans go for all kinds of crap.
Now they're even defending a guy who paid money to a porn star just before an election so as to not give voters that information to make an informed choice about him.

---

The evangelicals dont give a crap They will just tell you that David wasnt perfect

---

Well he was an adulterer and a murderer.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan last week released the questionnaire that is being presented to potential jurors in court. It contains multiple questions that could signal political views to the lawyers on both sides.
A panel of 12 New Yorkers and six alternates need to be seated to decide whether to convict Donald Trump.
Here's a look at some of the topics of the questions:

• News consumption
• Affiliations with groups like the Proud Boys, QAnon and Antifa.
• Whether prospective jurors 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, or if they've read any of Trump's own books.

Those in the jury pool will also be asked if they have views on whether a former president can be charged in state court and how Trump is being treated in this case.
The questions are being used for the judge to strike jurors at the outset, if they don't believe they can render a verdict fairly. They are also being used by lawyers for both sides to strike jurors for any reason a key part of the jury selection process.

---

Day Three Live Blog HERE

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Anonymous Source said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

---

Define what is "illegal election interference"?

---

That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is here
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].

Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.

---

Kind of crazy how an ex-president can be so objectively wrong about everything he talks about.

"I was told I could have three judges! And I could pick them! And I was PROMISED the trial could take place by the pool at Mar-a-lago!"

---

I'd wager Trump knew and knows that post is wrong about juror strikes

---

so add his confusion about striking jurors to the list of 2,356 things that Trump is either ignorant about, or willfully lying about.

Nomenclature. Strikes and challenges are two separate things eventhough even lawyers tend too often to use them interchangeably, leading to confusion.