It is the weakest case against the former president, but like the bogus civil fraud case, it’s one where Trump could get screwed. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is arguing that Trump’s hush money arrangement with adult entertainment star Stormy Daniels, a supposedly critical piece of information for the wider public in the lead-up to the 2016 election. The former president is accused of falsifying records in what essentially is a super-sized campaign finance violation. It’s also a charge that district attorneys seldom bring to court. Those who do are rare cases, and in most cases where jail time was handed down, the sentence was no more than a month.
No jurors were selected yesterday, though around 100 were rejected due to partiality concerns. That was then, today, Judge Juan Merchan approved of a juror who reportedly posted a video of what is alleged to be an anti-Trump event in 2020. Judge Merchan looked into the eyes of this juror who thought “she could be fair.” Six jurors were selected for this circus today (via NBC News):
🚨Judge Merchan reportedly refused to dismiss a juror who was posting videos of what Trump's legal team believes were anti-Trump events around the 2020 election
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) April 16, 2024
Merchan said he "looked her in the eye and thought she could be fair"
This is RIDICULOUS pic.twitter.com/B8arJdmR5z
The first six jurors were selected for Donald Trump’s hush money trial Tuesday amid a battle over prospective jurors’ old Facebook posts and calls to “lock him up” and a judge’s warning that the former president should not try to intimidate the panelists who will be deciding his fate.
“I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. I want to make this crystal clear,” Judge Juan Merchan told Trump and his lawyer Todd Blanche outside of the juror's presence. The judge told Blanche his client was "audibly" saying something in the direction of the juror while she was "12 feet away from your client."
Merchan said he didn't know what Trump was saying, but that he'd been "muttering" and "gesturing" at the juror, and directed Blanche to talk to his client about his behavior. Blanche then whispered something into Trump's ear.
[…]
The current drama came on the second day of jury selection, as six jurors were selected for the case. The jury is anonymous so their names weren't used in open court, but panelists include a salesman, an oncology nurse, an IT consultant, a teacher and a software engineer. The six were sworn in and told to return to court on Monday.
[…]
There’s a number of the jurors that we have social media posts for that are very much contrary” to what they said while they were being asked if they could be impartial, Blanche told the judge, and he sought to have them struck for cause.
He noted one potential juror had posted a video from the day where Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election.
In the video, the woman says, “I have to get in the car and spread the honking cheers. There’s an actual dance party on 96th Street.”
Trump's lawyers contended the video would have been referring to an anti-Trump rally. The woman had denied taking part in any rally or campaign events during her initial round of questioning.
Called in for individual questioning, she said it was a "celebratory moment" in the city and that she could be impartial.
After chiding Trump for his behavior towards her, Merchan said he found her "credible" and refused to strike her for cause.
First, I love how we don’t know the names, but we do know their professions, which means their identities are probably going to be leaked eventually. It might not be as bad as the Ferguson grand jury, which leaked like a sieve, but it wouldn’t shock me if names were revealed. It’s how things go in these high-profile cases.
Second, did I read that right: the woman claimed she didn’t participate in any political gatherings or rallies, only to have a video of her celebrating in the streets upon news of Joe Biden’s win in 2020. So, she lied, but this is deep blue New York, the capital of jokester judges, where a quick glance from the bench could peer into people's very souls. You cannot make this stuff up.
It's the weakest case against Trump, but as we saw with the civil fraud case against the former president, we’re bound to witness lunacy on a grand scale.
