Bragg Manhattan DA charges tfg? Hush money. tfg “INDICATED!”

[raison de arizona]

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

Merchan said he "looked her in the eye and thought she could be fair"

This is RIDICULOUS

[raison de arizona]

[bob]

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

Merchan said he "looked her in the eye and thought she could be fair"

This is RIDICULOUS

That's fairly routine for jury selection.

The more interesting question is whether the defendant will burn a peremptory on this prospective juror.

[raison de arizona]

[raison de arizona]

NEW: Despite some ponderous moments, we have our first 6 jurors—and it’s only Tuesday afternoon. But we’ll need 18 total (12 jurors and 6 alternates). 1/
For now, Judge Merchan intends to bring back the original six on Monday, meaning he anticipates we could have all 18 by then.
In the meantime, it’s worth noting that Todd Blanche succeeded with challenges to two jurors for cause, both based on social media posts his team discovered. (Remember: The defense has the names of prospective jurors, a right conferred on them by law, but the public does not.) 3/
One of the prospective jurors they succcessfully challenged made a Facebook post about some of the conduct at issue in this case, as it was unfolding, and wrote, “Get him out and lock him up.” 4/
The other, who insisted his personal views were irrelevant and that he could “compartmentalize,” was struck for cause after the defense revealed he posted an AI-created video that mocks Trump’s smarts and touted Trump’s indictment in the Mar a Lago documents case, to which he added, “No one is above the law.” 5/

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1780 ... 31641.html

[sugar magnolia]

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

Merchan said he "looked her in the eye and thought she could be fair"

This is RIDICULOUS

trump's legal team believes a lot of stupid shit.

[sad-cafe]

those pus bags under dotard's eyes look like they would ooze if touched.

[raison de arizona]

I feel like this is sufficient info to out some of the jurors.
https://x.com/Mollyploofkins/status/1780362074347970703

Seven jurors have been seated in Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial so far today. Here's what we know about them:

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[sad-cafe]

In addition to some new nicknames (Sleepy Don, Don Snorleone, Rip van Stinkle) there's artwork:
GLPDNSAXwAAwYAy.jpeg
GLPJXWFW8AAVUTU.jpeg

according to facts-that dong is too big

[bob]

Two of the seven (so far) seated jurors are lawyers.

[Kendra]

Per reporting from Ari Melber, Fox jumped on the "judge won't let me go to my son's graduation" story, even though the judge said he'd rule later depending on how things play out.

[Kendra]

CNN, Erin Burnett just had the court artist on her show. Interesting, wish she'd had more time with her. Worth a watch if you can catch it.

[sad-cafe]

tfg already trying to intimidate jurors, that didn't take long.
https://x.com/lawofruby/status/1780308120713019584

NEW: Not even 2 days in, Judge Merchan calls out Trump’s conduct, telling Todd Blanche “while the juror was about 12 feet from client, your client was audibly saying something in her direction….I will not have any juror intimidated in this courtroom.”

OHHHH what was he saying??????

[northland10]

Donald Trump's lawyers told the court that former president changed his mind about wanting to be at sidebars.

He signed a form waiving his right to do so and confirmed that audibly to Judge Juan Merchan answering, "yes."

This is not surprising, as sidebars tend to be about objections. So they're "boring" and the defendant can't participate anyway.

So, I guess that means:

1. Sidebars are not discussions about how great Trump is.

2. They are not accompanied with a coloring book.

Maybe they can check with the national intelligence community on how to properly prepare sidebar discussions for Trump, as they have experience dumbing down briefings to Trump's attention spans.

On an unrelated subject of him having to be in court all day, this would mean he has to keep business hours and will likely end up sleeping during his prime Truthing time. I guess that is one way to reduce his ability to attack everybody involved in the trial (including whoever cleans the courtroom at night).

[p0rtia]

So, given the way voir dire is going for this trial, I'm pretty sure I would self-select off the jury.

There is no way I could put aside what I know about this case and focus only on the evidence presented. No way I wouldn't find this ass hat guilty.

Of course I think I can be "unbiased," but I don't think I can throw my take on this monster out the window. Is it "bias" to detest a rapist, demagogue and insurrectionist? Don't think so. But I think that's what they mean by "bias."

You guys? Anybody think they'd make a great juror in this one?

[raison de arizona]

You guys? Anybody think they'd make a great juror in this one?

I'd like to think I could put my biases aside and judge by the facts and the law, but I dunno

[raison de arizona]

Hey, just checking if Dershowitz is still crazy. Yup, shore is.

Dershowitz: The gag order is unconstitutional. You cannot prevent a defendant from attacking the witnesses…

[bob]

You guys? Anybody think they'd make a great juror in this one?

Great ... for whom?

Obviously, "justice," yes; sure. But "good" jurors are routinely bumped by one side or the other due to their perceived ability to "harm" the desired outcome.

Engineers, for example. Your typical engineer would say, "I'm trained to think logically, and apply rules, without bias toward the result."

A prosecutor would bump that person. Because someone well aware of the burden of proof and necessity of every proving each element could string together a series of AND operations and vote not guilty if even one element failed.

Which is technically correct, but perhaps too trees-for-forest for a typical prosecutor.

[p0rtia]

You guys? Anybody think they'd make a great juror in this one?

Great ... for whom?

Obviously, "justice," yes; sure. But "good" jurors are routinely bumped by one side or the other due to their perceived ability to "harm" the desired outcome.

Engineers, for example. Your typical engineer would say, "I'm trained to think logically, and apply rules, without bias toward the result."

A prosecutor would bump that person. Because someone well aware of the burden of proof and necessity of every proving each element could string together a series of AND operations and vote not guilty if even one element failed.

Which is technically correct, but perhaps too trees-for-forest for a typical prosecutor.

Thanks, Bob. Fascinating as always.

But me rephrase to make my interest clearer: Who here would answer "yes" to the question of whether or not they could put their biases aside.

[p0rtia]

Hey, just checking if Dershowitz is still crazy. Yup, shore is.

Dershowitz: The gag order is unconstitutional. You cannot prevent a defendant from attacking the witnesses…

Elon??? Is that you????

[raison de arizona]

You guys? Anybody think they'd make a great juror in this one?

Great ... for whom?

Obviously, "justice," yes; sure. But "good" jurors are routinely bumped by one side or the other due to their perceived ability to "harm" the desired outcome.

Engineers, for example. Your typical engineer would say, "I'm trained to think logically, and apply rules, without bias toward the result."

A prosecutor would bump that person. Because someone well aware of the burden of proof and necessity of every proving each element could string together a series of AND operations and vote not guilty if even one element failed.

Which is technically correct, but perhaps too trees-for-forest for a typical prosecutor.

Thanks, Bob. Fascinating as always.

But me rephrase to make my interest clearer: Who here would answer "yes" to the question of whether or not they could put their biases aside.

I would answer yes, as the engineer from Bob's example. I can respect the burden of proof. As much as it would pain me if I had to do the unthinkable and let tfg go, I think I could do it if the prosecution screwed the pooch.

[New Turtle]

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

Merchan said he "looked her in the eye and thought she could be fair"

This is RIDICULOUS

The judge called her back for interview and she said the video was something she filmed when parking her car and seeing people in the distance celebrating Biden victory. I saw one of those too, and I was in a solid red state. It was like that Friday or Saturday when one of those counting states was officially called. Anyway, the juror told the judge she filmed it and posted because she thought it was very New York.

[Frater I*I]

trump's legal team believes a lot of stupid shit.

Have I ever mentioned how much I love your way with the english language...

[AndyinPA]

I was doing a YouGov poll last night and was asked if I thought I could be impartial in the tfg trial. Yes. No. I'm not sure. I said I'm not sure because I'd like to think I could be fair, but in this case, that would be damned hard. I probably should have said No.

[zekeb]

I wish him the worst. I could be fair if I knew the exact law he was charged with and which side of that law he was standing on. I guess what I'm saying is that they'd have to prove to me that he's innocent.