Trump Jury Set, Opening Statements On Monday
An unknown person with an unknown motive set themselves on fire outside the courthouse right after the jury selection was completed.
The jury was finalized this morning.
Testimony to begin on Monday.
An unknown person with an unknown motive set themselves on fire outside the courthouse right after the jury selection was completed.
Tags
Who is online
471 visitors
Let the circus begin.
People piss and whine and lie and moan that the former 'president' can't get a fair trial. The former 'president' sure does/did his darndest to taint the jury pool because he refuses to shut his big fat ranting lying mouth and it's useless (because people piss and whine and lie and moan that the former 'president' isn't being treated fairly) to issue a gag order because the former 'president' threatens the judge and his family, and his cult continues to project, deflect, deny delude and defend the indefensible.
I am the god of hellfire! And I bring you
Fire
NBC News says the man who set himself on fire threw some papers related to a conspiracy into the air just before he set himself on fire. They didnt say what the conspiracy theory is.
Damn. Why didn't he just go to the front of the court house (across the street from it) and talk to CNN's Laura Coates. . .who is ridiculously reporting from their on a daily basis? Poor fool, missed a golden opportunity and his performance art will be for naught.
For the record, I don't think Ms. Coates should be 'parked' outside the court house every day reporting ("holding Court')-especially on jury selection (which ends today-Friday). The media is 'drowning' us with its good intentions to inform us even about the minutia.
Trump is constantly blathering about a "communist, fascist" take over. This guy is insane enough to be a die hard Trumpist.
Or not.
It is interesting to explore the astonishing level of ignorance of your comment.
Your ignorance of the meaning of the word "reactionaries" has been noted previously, yet you persist in its misuse. That is a notable failure in your comments.
As has been shown often, my application of the term "fascist" has been in exclusively correct and appropriate instances, based on the actual definition and appropriate historical context for the word, whereas you have no understanding or knowledge whatsoever of the meaning of the terms "fascist", or "fascism", or what fascism represents. Furthermore, you're not able to provide a single instance where I have ever used the word "fascist" incorrectly. In the highly unlikely circumstance that you might have at least a modicum of knowledge, your continued denial of the appropriateness of its use by me is an even more notable failure in your comments.
You're not capable of monitoring anything I post to determine what may or may not be correct.
Awesome, simply awesome. TRUTH
At least he didn't claim Earth was seeded by aliens
His protest method was environmentally irresponsible.
It will now be on one man to convince a jury that the former President is guilty of something.
total nonsense
What part is nonsense?
Isn't he the key witness?
Remind us again..what is the crime?
Do you believe Cohen committed a crime?
Of course he did. And he went to prison for it. You cannot commit perjury to Congress and expect to get away with it, or at least you shouldn't expect to.
That's not why he went to prison.
You are correct, he didn't go to prison for lying to Congress. But lying to Congress is still a crime and he did plead guilty to doing so. So your question was answered correctly, he did commit a crime.
How was Cohen guilty of these crimes, but trump somehow isn't?
Count
Charge
Maximum Penalty
1-5
Tax Evasion
5 years in prison
6
Making false statements to a federally insured bank
30 years in prison
7
Causing an unlawful corporate contribution
5 years in prison
8
Making an excessive campaign contribution
5 years in prison
Trump cannot be found guilty of those crimes because he's not been charged with any of those crimes. In the current NY case, he's charged with 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.
Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf (manhattanda.org)
Why did he falsify records?
There's no proof he did, that's what the trial is for.
Problem I have with the trial is that the initial charge for falsifying business records is a misdemeanor in New York and the Statute of Limitations on that has passed. In order to take this to trial, Bragg had to elevate it to a felony charge which means he needed to show the falsified business records where done in commission of another crime. To do that, he's going with campaign finance.
I think he's going to have a very hard time proving intent which will be needed, not to mention that the SEC and the DOJ both investigated and closed their investigations saying there was no campaign finance crime.
Ask the Judge. It would be a mistrial for the prosecution to tell the jury that Trump is guilty because Cohen plead guilty .
Believe me, if they had no proof that he did, there would be no trial.
Nope. They have evidence they believe points to it, they have the supposition that he did. But they have no proof that Donald Trump himself made the entries AND was using them as a campaign contribution which is what the bootstrap for raising the charges to a felony. They present their evidence in trial and hope that it convinces the jury to convict.
As I said, they have to do more than just show the business records, they also have to show the intent of Trump.
I bet if all things were the same and it was Hillary and not donny, you would have an entirely different view.
Wait...wait....wait...you mean "I think he did it, therefore he is guilty" is not evidence?
Maybe we should tell some of the leftists here that.
Nope, not at all. This case IMO is very flimsy considering it was investigated and passed over by the DOJ, the SEC and the NY DA's office before Bragg charged forward. I'll talk about it because it's relevant but I have little interest in the outcome.
Problem is they just won't believe it.
Whatever the rightists need to tell themselves.
Well again, we have what is the makings of states' rights "cheer and complain squad' grumbling and writing comments about state legal matters: those duties and responsibilities under its laws. I recommend supporters of states' rights don't complain when state legal systems act, and realize what inconsistency is on display when they are caught doing so. Or, make a case for why the state is wrong for bringing the charges. (And not every pending case of a famous (cult) figure can be labeled a 'hate-fest' of the chargee.)
He went to prison covering up the former 'president's' crimes - so the former 'president' is indeed GUILTY AS SIN.
Easy, the former 'president' is guilty.
Of course he falsified records. He banged a porn star who reminded him of Ivanka and the former 'president' had his fixer, Michael Cohen, pay her $130,000 to keep her mouth shut about how the former 'president' did her up the butt and then did her without a condom while Melania was home with their infant Barron. Also he had her spank him with a magazine with his picture on the front.
Did I say he only does women who remind him of Ivanka in some way?
We take the word of intelligent folks who have experience with the law like Gsquared - not cockroaches like the former 'president' [deleted][✘]
I'm all for states rights, but the FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House, Senate, Presidency and the Vice Presidency. The FEC has already investigated and said there were no campaign law broken and closed their case. Now we have Bragg using federal law as the bootstrap to raise these misdemeanor charges to felony charges. Cyrus Vance Jr was the Manhattan DA before Bragg, he had the same investigation and decided not to prosecute, why would Bragg then bring charges if Vance had closed the investigation?
Why don't you make a case for why a state should use federal law to bring charges when the federal agency that as the authority and responsibility to bring such charges has already investigated and closed their investigation stating to laws were broken?
I don't have to make any such case. . . the case has already been prepared and is being carried forward in a NY court of law. . . with a judge overseeing legalities. Now it all in the hands of the courts. . . and Donald, for all of his history with courts, has not been able to isolate a single reason why this judge should squash this case.
And with the above being the case, Donald's lawyers, will have to continue to show up in state court and make a defense for Donald.
Again, you appear to be at odds with state court taking this case. When if you are objective. . . your fundamental concern should be if justice is being served properly in a court of law.
In other words, it's ok because the NY DA's office has made a case. You make no other claim other than it's all ok because they did it. I can't help but think that the Nazi's would have loved to have you at Nuremburg.
Disprove that as being so.
By the way your comment remark. . .
"[M]ake a case for why a state should use federal law to bring charges when the federal agency that as (sic) the authority and responsibility to bring such charges has already investigated and closed their investigation."
. . .was stated by Donald in Monday's after court "round-up" where he chooses to speak to the press pool cameras and gives his spiel. So much for the claim that some here make about their ideas and comments being their own without an assist. Either Donald is quoting you or you are stating something you read along the way to commenting.
Has nothing to do with the question I asked you which you sidestepped. With your refusal to answer it loudly states that you are ok with it because after all the NY DA's office brought the case and made charges. ie, you willingly follow along and let them make the decision for you.
So you take the time to listen to everything Trump says? I don't. Simple matter is the fact that the state of New York is using federal law when the authority to prosecute under that law is the feds is common knowledge. That fact has been out there since before the indictments were handed down. That's a very sad attempt at deflection.
The DA of New York is not making any decision for me, because I am a bystander (as 99.9 percent of us are are on NT, looking at what the NY "system is doing in its court. As I don't know or have any plans to comprehensively learn NY state law—I have nothing to 'argue.' So its better that I observe the proceeding. And though you may not believe it I want Donald to have a fair trial. What I balk at is Donald trying to tie the court in knots or gain the system through legalese delays and "doomed to fail" obstructions.
Your single-mindedness on the "Fed" is noted. However, that clearly is the deflection occurring; Donald is on "Day 1" opening statements in his trial and that is a FACT! And it will keep "giving" for weeks to come!
In 7.1.18 you stated
I answered why it was wrong for the state to bring those charges. I then asked you to make a case for why the state is correct for bringing those charges. You continue to refuse to answer which only tells me that you fully agree with what the state is doing. You haven't said so, you have not provided any answer other than to deflect. It's obvious you don't want a discussion or an exchange of ideas. Have a nice day.
I give him an A for consistency.
You answered according to your understanding, which runs counter to the understanding of the OFFICIALS and the courts of New York.. As I explained to you at 7.1.28 I have no argument to make (as an observer) of NY state legal proceedings at this time.
Despite your observation and assertion. . . the case is proceeding rightly or in error. . . . If you are correct about federal and state provisions under the law, then someone will end it (a judge along the path to concluding the case). And, not me.
I have clearly stated before 7.1.24 that the DA and Court are in charge and because that is the case it continues. . . and we will have it to discuss!
Don't keep telling me I am deflecting when you have not provided a reasonable explanation for why the case is continuing its proceedings-despite your assertion.
What is the point of your comment?
I'm sure it has something to do with trump being treated unfairly
There’s no career criminal profession included. So unfair.
And no sexual abusers. Totally unfair.
How did Jurors 2, 3 and 11 get on the Jury?
That's just on the face of it.
Half the prospective jurors walked out on day 1 because they said they couldn't be unbiased. Two jurors were removed. One for possibly hiding facts about his own ideology and his wife's past criminal record. The other had family & friends with political views who somehow figured out that she was on the jury and began to reach out to her:
"The juror—a nurse identified only as “Juror 2”—told the court she believed she “definitely has concerns now” about whether she could be impartial in the case, CNN reports, citing the fact that friends, family and colleagues had reached out to her based on press reports to ask if she was involved with the case.
Juror 2 previously said during jury selection she “didn’t really” have an opinion of Trump and believed “no one is above the law. ”
Merchan excused the juror as a result, telling the press present in the courtroom that they should no longer report on jurors’ physical appearances or anything that isn’t on the record.
Another seated juror—an IT consultant who previously described Trump as “fascinating and mysterious”—also came under scrutiny Thursday, as prosecutors questioned whether the juror had lied on their questionnaire about not having previous experiences with the law. Someone with their same name was allegedly arrested in the 1990s for “tearing down political advertisements,” The New York Times reports , and the jurors’ wife was allegedly previously a participant in a corruption inquiry by the Manhattan district attorney’s office. It remains unclear if the juror will be excused, as they had not yet arrived in court."
Trump Trial: Juror Excused Over Bias Fears As Judge Merchan Restricts Press (forbes.com)
Neither side used a preemptory challenge and they weren't excused for cause. That's how it works.
According to the article the defense quickly used up all of its challenges. That kind of tells you something.
That's how it works.
No, this is not how American justice works.
In a case like this there would have been a change of venue.
It tells us that the defense wasn't being selective in their use of preemptories.
This is exactly how American justice works. How many juries have you picked?
There are absolutely no grounds for a change of venue in this case.
This is what pisses me off the most! MAGAs want the country's affections and actions bent in their direction—only. They don't care about fairness and justice just right-wing partisanship! We, this nation, has been through the 'fire' of conservative partisanship for centuries. . . and even now. . .conservatives band together to force division that leaves them collecting on the spoils of not sharing with "Others" in our nation.
You are staring into the abyss of conspiracies, surely at this late stage in the great unwinding you cannot be surprised the abyss is staring back at you.
I could translate this into Keats if you are unfamiliar with Nietzsche.
Wyoming would have been a good choice ... /S
Westchester NY would do fine.
It tells us that there was an overwhelming number of opinionated jurors.
It's best to keep the jurors anonymous as the conflicted judge has done. The people who know them might tell everybody what they normally say about Trump.
But it's happening in Manhattan and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it!
All of them are pointless.
No serial rapists or sexual assaulters
No, it doesn't. It's more likely that Trump's lawyer used their preemptories to excuse jurors that their client was prejudiced against.
I'll certainly take your knowledgeable truth on this matter over his cult of the defenders of the indefensible.
Wrong again. They looked at social media comments:
"Trump's lawyer Blanche: There are a number of the jurors that we have social media posts for very much contrary to what they said. We don't want to confront them openly," Russell Lee wrote on X.
In another post, Russell Lee said that Blanche brought up a Facebook post from one potential juror.
"When the juror was asked for her opinion of President Trump, she said nothing. But when he lost the election, they celebrated on Facebook - they got in the car and spread the honking cheer."
Donald Trump Lawyers Expose Potential Jurors' Social Media Posts (msn.com)
Does anyone still think this is a fair trial?
And when the Judge said it "it's a close call if a potential juror who called Trump a racist, sexist etc could serve on the jury it became obvious that Trump was going to get a bad jury, because the judge would force Trump to waste his peremptory challenges on jurors who the Judge should have eliminated as biased.
If you are vying to have Donald's case decided by a jury of his republicans, uh-uh, the courts will not allow it. If you attempting to "prejudice" the general public about the makeup of the jurists, I'll have you know this: Donald has unofficially "prejudiced" himself with all his social comments against court officials and potential jurists. Drop this one-sided perspective. . .if you are non-partisan.
Donald is getting better than he deserves as a day in court. Nobody can say he deserves more than he is getting, in my opinion. The man wants to be indulged by a court system that he decries and everyday in every way seeks to make inefficacious. There is no way in hell that Donald will get a jurist panel of conservatives to seat for himself. Nor should anybody wish for him to have it so-unless they are pathetically partisan.
No one except gullible cultists actually believes anything Trump's lawyers say.
Anyone with intelligence and common sense certainly does.
Yes. And I think it's hilarious that trump supporters are already making excuses for when he loses. Anything and I mean ANYTHING but admitting he is fucking guilty.
Let me guess, trump did well there in 2016? So you are admitting you want a biased jury.
Hey, the election was rigged, the trial is rigged, it's all rigged. When the "rigged" excuse stops convincing his cultists, Trump will blame everything on a bad hair day.
Can Trump get a fair trail in New York City? | Cuomo
Check out Chris Cuomo talking about the jury set in this "hush money" case. He, Cuomo, does not think Donald will be convicted over this case. . . and, it's telling-because just like some in the media that pontificates too much (when it would be better to hold one's opinion) Chris is making an uncalled for assertion. It is bizarre to me how sketchy (all of) the media can be. . . they build up a case for a trial. . . and then turn on it and tear down their earlier predilections. Two of his guest try to explain to him to take a wait and see approach to the seated jury members. . . Mark Geragos is not one of the two !
If Trump is not convicted will you suddenly think he had a fair trial and that the jury of New Yorkers was unbiased? And that everything is right with the world?
Yes, where all the rich, white, republicans live
They hold the former 'president' to absolutely no standards whatsoever.
Shocker!
Does the court have a supply of duct tape available?
Nothing else seems to have the ability to shut up that fat fuck.
Oh no! I really hope cable news does not plan to "hold court" everyday (or all day) on the air. It will be just too much coverage of this impossible man.
It reminds me of OJ coverage. If Trump is acquitted, he will be free to look for the real business records falsifier trying to conceal a hush money payment.
I remember the "OJ" coverage in the nineties, but I was not a news junkie back then. Now, I have had repeat cases where my idea of news coverage and cable news have ran afoul of each other. Sometimes, I just get so 'full' of the "pounding" it down our throats coverage that I want to figuratively vomit it up. (I don't know how news anchors and reporters do it - of course I do understand: It's a profession.) But, ugh.
As for Trump finding someone else to blame. . . he has had enough time to hire 'someone' to do just what you ask—he has not hired anybody that he has let the public know.
And now I am sure of it: The media has established a 'beachhead' in Donald's. . . . . . nose!
Like that 60’s movie, Fantastic Voyage? The special effects and Raquel Welch got me interested in biology at a young age.
That is too great.
Oh, it does.
Numbnuts Jesse Waters says Trump is being treated worse than the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
Fox News just paid out or are about to conclude paying out a large settlement for grandiose lying by its anchors. And it looks like the 'band' is playing on still!
He's a fraud and a liar.
Seriously, who are these people who can grift in plain sight on a network? Why are there not laws against dangerous and deliberate lying to the masses. . . and doing so for profit?! How is it even legal?! Why does Fox News get to keep its license.
One more thing: This line of questioning may be better for our lawyer friend. . . Gsquared.