News
Day 1 of Trump’s Criminal Trial: Five Takeaways
The ex-president is accused of felony charges related to the falsification of business records aimed at concealing a sexual scandal with a pornographic actress.
The criminal trial of Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States and the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, commenced on Monday as potential jurors gathered in a nondescript courtroom in New York City, with Trump in attendance.
Trump faces charges in Manhattan, a strongly Democratic area and his former residence, alleging the falsification of nearly thirty business records to conceal a payment made to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic actress who claims to have had a brief encounter with him in 2006.
Trump denies the encounter and asserts his innocence, alleging that the charges are politically motivated. He has criticized both the judge, Juan M. Merchan, and the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, a Democrat, who were present on the first day of the trial.
Facing 34 felony counts, Trump could potentially receive probation or up to four years of imprisonment.
The trial, expected to span several weeks, features a notable roster of potential witnesses including Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer who facilitated the payment; Karen McDougal, a Playboy model who alleges an affair with Trump; and Hope Hicks, a former aide to Trump. Stormy Daniels herself may also testify.
Before proceeding with the trial, the process of selecting a jury must be completed, which commenced on Monday.
Here are five key observations from Mr. Trump’s initial day in court:
- Justice Merchan maintains a stern demeanor, which hasn’t worked in favor of the defense. Justice Merchan, an experienced New York judge, has consistently rejected defense motions, including those related to the belated disclosure of documents by prosecutors and attempts to postpone or dismiss the case. On Monday, Justice Merchan continued his pattern of rejecting defense motions, including one attempting to compel his recusal. The defense had raised concerns, such as the fact that his daughter is a Democratic political consultant. Furthermore, Justice Merchan ruled in favor of prosecutors being allowed to present evidence regarding Trump’s collaboration with The National Enquirer to bolster his 2016 presidential campaign through publicity efforts. Despite Trump’s legal team characterizing this evidence as a distraction, they were unsuccessful in their argument. However, Trump’s lawyers did manage to persuade Justice Merchan that introducing sexual assault allegations against Trump following the release of the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump boasted about inappropriate behavior towards women, would unfairly prejudice the former president. Consequently, Justice Merchan deemed these allegations inadmissible during the trial, dismissing them as unfounded rumors and hearsay.
The trial encompasses more than just business records.- Justice Merchan’s rulings on Monday emphasized that the proceedings will delve into uncomfortable aspects of the former president’s life, including the Access Hollywood tape and other events that Trump attempted to suppress, such as an alleged affair with Ms. McDougal. Justice Merchan stated that both topics could be addressed during the trial. In a minor victory for the defense, the judge maintained that the actual Access Hollywood tape would not be played, but Trump’s exact words could be recounted in the court record. Nevertheless, the majority of Justice Merchan’s decisions suggested that the trial will feature revealing details from Trump’s personal history.
- Despite Trump’s claims of contentment, his demeanor indicates otherwise.
- Upon entering the courtroom, Mr. Trump expressed being “very proud to be here.”
- However, when facing Mr. Merchan, Mr. Trump appeared noticeably less enthusiastic. He displayed signs of disinterest, such as slouching, scowling, and scoffing. Moreover, he maintained an unusual silence, which contrasts with his usual demeanor characterized by sharp attacks and aggressive remarks that defined his political career.
- During the court session, the former president spoke only briefly, answering a few questions from Justice Merchan regarding procedural matters and acknowledging the consequences of disrupting the proceedings—possible removal from the courtroom or imprisonment. He did engage in whispered conversations with his lawyers. When the prosecution played a recording of him expressing respect for women, he silently affirmed the statement by mouthing the word “true.”
- However, overall, the experience seemed taxing for Mr. Trump; at one instance before lunch, he seemed to doze off.
- This trial may take a while.
- It’s easy to underestimate the time required for even small tasks in legal proceedings. On Monday, the morning session primarily consisted of strategic moves by both prosecutors and the defense, while prospective jurors remained on standby. By lunchtime, they were still awaiting further proceedings.
- The process of jury selection could extend over several days or even weeks, with the trial itself potentially lasting for two months. Justice Merchan noted that delays might occur due to the Passover holiday, although he suggested the possibility of compensating for lost time by scheduling court hearings on Wednesdays, which had initially been designated as a non-working day.
- We are on our way to picking a jury. Slowly.
- In the afternoon, prospective jurors eventually entered Justice Merchan’s courtroom. He greeted them warmly, introduced the lawyers and Mr. Trump, and provided them with an overview of the case.
- Justice Merchan inquired whether any prospective jurors believed they couldn’t impartially judge the former president. Out of the 96 individuals present, over 50 raised their hands and were promptly dismissed.
- The remaining jurors were subjected to a series of 42 questions each. By the conclusion of Monday, 11 jurors had been interrogated, and two more were excused: one woman who admitted bias and another man who cited a potential scheduling conflict with his child’s wedding.
Home
Alina Habba: They are prosecuting Trump because the can’t win the Elections
Alina Habba, a lawyer and spokesperson for former President Donald Trump, alleged that Democrats are targeting the Republican presidential nominee in court because they are unable to defeat him through electoral means.
“The fact that we have two courts, not one — criminal and civil — being used against one man because they cannot beat him in the polls is a disgrace to the American judicial system,” she said in remarks at the New York State Supreme Court Building in Manhattan after opening arguments in the hush money case.
Habba mentioned that she had recently attended another court session where Trump faced accusations of inflating his asset values to obtain advantageous loans, which he has since repaid. Initially, he was instructed to post a $454 million bond before appealing, but an appellate court later reduced it to $175 million. On Monday, New York Judge Arthur Engoron approved this bond, effectively preventing New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, from seizing his assets while the case is under appeal.
Habba accused Engoron of not understanding “basic principles of financing” and said he and James “had no idea what they were talking about.”
“I am sick of coming in front of the press and saying this, but you have to because you people need to understand what is going on. God forbid you put an accounting thing in for ‘legal counsel.’ … Because they’re afraid of 2024. And you know what? They should be because the American people are not stupid. They see what’s going on,” she said.
Home
The Charade of Donald’s Trump Hush Money Trial Begins with All Jurors Selected
Opening statements in the Manhattan trial of ex-President Donald Trump’s hush money case are for Monday, following the selection of a full jury of 12 members and six alternates on Friday.
Trump took to social media the night before, posting on Truth Social:
“Four years ago I was a very successful and popular President of the United States and, in November, went into an Election where I received more votes, by far, than any sitting President in the history of our Country. Unfortunately, the Election were Rigged and Stolen, and our once great Country has quickly become a Nation In Serious Decline. Tomorrow morning I report to a New York Criminal Court for a Trial on, somewhat ironically, ELECTION INTERFERENCE, ruled over by Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ, before a Corrupt and Highly Conflicted Judge, a failed Soros funded District Attorney who didn’t want to bring this case, which could have been brought eight years ago, but wasn’t, in an almost completely Democrat District. Virtually every Legal Scholar and Expert says that there is NO CASE, NO CRIME, NO NOTHING! IT IS A SHAM THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT, EXCEPT TO TRY AND DAMAGE BIDEN’S POLITICAL OPPONENT, ME. SEE YOU TOMORROW MORNING!”
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, has brought forth 34 felony charges against Trump, accusing him of falsifying business records. These charges stem from an alleged attempt to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment, facilitated by his then-lawyer Michael Cohen, to adult actress Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 election.
Bragg asserts that Trump’s classification of the payment as a legal fee was an effort to mask violations of campaign finance laws, elevating the offense to a felony rather than a mere regulatory infraction that might result in a fine. The jury, composed of seven men and five women, will ultimately determine the persuasiveness of this argument.
After a week-long selection process involving thorough questioning about potential biases and their ability to remain fair and impartial, the jurors and alternates were chosen. This process was crucial given the high-profile nature of the case, which also carries implications for the upcoming 2024 presidential election. With Trump currently leading in crucial swing states, the jury’s impartiality becomes all the more significant.
We are waiting to see where this charade goes
Home
Republicans want to defend America and to ban the foreign aid help because Democrats wont do it
A GOP lawmaker aims to limit the presence of foreign flags in the House chamber following Democrats’ waving of the Ukrainian flag in celebration of the $60.84 billion aid legislation passage. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) rebuked the display, calling it a breach of decorum. Now, Republicans are drafting legislation to ban the display of foreign flags on the floor entirely.
“Watching American representatives pass out & wave Ukrainian flags in the United States House of Representatives chamber infuriated me,” Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) said in a post on X. “If there is one room in our country that should only have the American flag present, it is this room.”
The timing for bringing the legislation to the floor remains uncertain, but Cammack’s team is currently drafting the text. Representatives won’t reconvene until April 29. Some lawmakers expressed dismay over the Ukrainian flag display, leading to a tense moment when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) urged Democrats to “put those damn flags away” during votes.
Johnson also admonished members, later issuing a statement referring to a “disturbance on the House floor.”
“In these extraordinary times, both in the House and globally, it’s crucial to maintain decorum,” Johnson remarked. “We should only wave one flag on the House floor, and I believe we all know which flag that is.”
Democrats defended their celebration, with some even engaging with pro-Ukrainian protesters post-vote. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) expressed gratitude to many in the crowd for their support.
A list of possible co-sponsors for Cammack’s bill is not yet known, although a handful of House Republicans criticized Democrats for the move, indicating substantial support among rank-and-file GOP lawmakers.
“Shouldn’t have any other flag but the American flag on the House floor,” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) said. “That’s ridiculous. … It’s inappropriate. It’s just lack of order.”
-
News10 months ago
Iran has carried out a significant escalation in the Middle East conflict by launching a drone strike targeting Israel.
-
Home10 months ago
Betrayal accomplished: Mike Johnson approves $61 billion in aid for Ukraine, disregarding the Hastert Rule
-
Home10 months ago
“Trump Accuses Political Adversaries of Attempting to Derail His Campaign Trail Presence”
-
Home11 months ago
Hello world!
-
Uncategorized9 months ago
On day five of the Trump trial Matthew Colangelo, a former Biden official gives statement
-
Home9 months ago
Alina Habba: They are prosecuting Trump because the can’t win the Elections
-
Home10 months ago
Biased Judge is Joe Bidens donor
-
Home10 months ago
“House Discontent with Johnson Surges due to Foreign Aid ‘Madness’ at the Expense of Southern Border Neglect”