The hush money trial: background and timeline
April 14, 2024 8:11 PM Subscribe
The first criminal trial of a former US president is set to begin on April 15. Attorney Teri Kanefield lays out the timeline of events and provides extensive background, with a special focus on Michael Cohen.
Kanefield is a former appellate defender and has written legal analyses for The Washington Post, USA Today, NBC News, and CNN. She is also a noted author of children's books.
Her lengthy posts on The Misinformation-Outrage Cycle and Internet Triggers, or Rage-Inducing Simplifications, maybe be helpful responses to the rage-inducing simplifications that often arise when we talk about the former president and his illegal acts, and I appreciate the conclusion of her Will someone please DO SOMETHING? post as well.
Some other posts of hers that have been recommended by various MeFites:
DOJ Investigation into the January 6 attack FAQs (in this thread)
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Spirit of Liberty (in this thread)
DOJ Investigation FAQ (in this thread)
If you're looking for other options:
Donald Trump’s hush-money trial: a timeline of the case The Guardian, Lauren Aratani
How we got here: A timeline of the Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels hush money case , CNN, Lauren del Valle, Kara Scannell, Annette Choi and Gillian Roberts
Trump will be first ex-president on criminal trial. Here’s what to know about the hush money case, AP (no author byline)
Finally: it's not a hush-money case. It's an election interference case, and a falsifying documents case.
Kanefield is a former appellate defender and has written legal analyses for The Washington Post, USA Today, NBC News, and CNN. She is also a noted author of children's books.
Her lengthy posts on The Misinformation-Outrage Cycle and Internet Triggers, or Rage-Inducing Simplifications, maybe be helpful responses to the rage-inducing simplifications that often arise when we talk about the former president and his illegal acts, and I appreciate the conclusion of her Will someone please DO SOMETHING? post as well.
Some other posts of hers that have been recommended by various MeFites:
DOJ Investigation into the January 6 attack FAQs (in this thread)
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Spirit of Liberty (in this thread)
DOJ Investigation FAQ (in this thread)
If you're looking for other options:
Donald Trump’s hush-money trial: a timeline of the case The Guardian, Lauren Aratani
How we got here: A timeline of the Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels hush money case , CNN, Lauren del Valle, Kara Scannell, Annette Choi and Gillian Roberts
Trump will be first ex-president on criminal trial. Here’s what to know about the hush money case, AP (no author byline)
Finally: it's not a hush-money case. It's an election interference case, and a falsifying documents case.
surely… this?
posted by DoctorFedora at 1:07 AM on April 15 [6 favorites]
posted by DoctorFedora at 1:07 AM on April 15 [6 favorites]
Shirley says "no, not this," and Kanefield makes it clearer: in response to "do something" outrage tweets (and cited above under Will Someone Please Do Something), the people who gain from Trump blasting past long-held political connections aren't going to disappear because of a conviction, the Overton Window has moved and emboldened then to find other people with aligned interests. The fix: collective, communal, collaborative citizen action to use voter registration, voter attendance and ballot defeat to move the Overton Window back.
I was hoping outrage would be enough, it's not. It's also not enough to watch The West Wing and dream, but Jed Bartlett's words come to mind: "What's next?"
posted by k3ninho at 1:46 AM on April 15 [11 favorites]
I was hoping outrage would be enough, it's not. It's also not enough to watch The West Wing and dream, but Jed Bartlett's words come to mind: "What's next?"
posted by k3ninho at 1:46 AM on April 15 [11 favorites]
Always comes down to Vote Harder, doesn't it
posted by Jacen at 1:51 AM on April 15 [12 favorites]
posted by Jacen at 1:51 AM on April 15 [12 favorites]
Vote harder ... on an individual level, but the sneaky idea that you're only an individual is masking the amplifying power of collective action. So 'removing obstacles for others to vote harder', how does that sound?
posted by k3ninho at 2:01 AM on April 15 [17 favorites]
posted by k3ninho at 2:01 AM on April 15 [17 favorites]
Kanefield is right about saving democracy, but I feel it is also important that criminals are brought to justice, and unlike her, I think it does make some people stop and think. Not all of them, all of the time. Just some of them some of the time, but in elections "some" can mean a lot.
Here in Denmark, we have our own orange racist, who was impeached in 2021. She started her own party, which makes it easy to see how many followers she has: right now it's just above 10 %. There's another racist party with 3,4 %, but that's the end of that. Støjberg's politics are very similar to Trump's albeit transplanted to a Danish context. Literally no-one here does not support the welfare state and the high taxes. Not even the libertarians. She is all about rural resentment, big rallies, climate skepticism, cruelty towards immigrants etc. And her followers adore her like a cult leader.
Some pundits and politicians speculated that she would become a martyr if she was indicted, and she did, but only for this small part of the electorate. The other right leaning voters are mainly moving towards the libertarian party that has a charismatic leader who is not criminal or interested in criming.
Obviously, the US isn't Denmark and there is the whole problem of the electoral vote thing in the US. But I think most people in most democracies believe the rule of law an important foundation. I think getting Trump convicted will make a difference, even if he is just fined in this case. Shrugging away election fraud is demoralizing and opens the gates to even more corruption.
Trump is proudly corrupt. He has told us so, many times. He only veils it very thinly. His endless projection comes from his deeply held belief that "everyone does it". Every politician is corrupt, every man who has the opportunity cheats on his wife, every businessman cheats and lies. If we minimize corruption by insisting that "the voters must decide" in this age of misinformation, there will soon be no democracy.
(I understand that Kanefield probably agrees with me on this and I agree with her criticism of Michael Cohen. But I find her nuance muddies the water in exactly the same way as Ty Cobb's nuance, though he is a partisan hack).
posted by mumimor at 2:23 AM on April 15 [23 favorites]
Here in Denmark, we have our own orange racist, who was impeached in 2021. She started her own party, which makes it easy to see how many followers she has: right now it's just above 10 %. There's another racist party with 3,4 %, but that's the end of that. Støjberg's politics are very similar to Trump's albeit transplanted to a Danish context. Literally no-one here does not support the welfare state and the high taxes. Not even the libertarians. She is all about rural resentment, big rallies, climate skepticism, cruelty towards immigrants etc. And her followers adore her like a cult leader.
Some pundits and politicians speculated that she would become a martyr if she was indicted, and she did, but only for this small part of the electorate. The other right leaning voters are mainly moving towards the libertarian party that has a charismatic leader who is not criminal or interested in criming.
Obviously, the US isn't Denmark and there is the whole problem of the electoral vote thing in the US. But I think most people in most democracies believe the rule of law an important foundation. I think getting Trump convicted will make a difference, even if he is just fined in this case. Shrugging away election fraud is demoralizing and opens the gates to even more corruption.
Trump is proudly corrupt. He has told us so, many times. He only veils it very thinly. His endless projection comes from his deeply held belief that "everyone does it". Every politician is corrupt, every man who has the opportunity cheats on his wife, every businessman cheats and lies. If we minimize corruption by insisting that "the voters must decide" in this age of misinformation, there will soon be no democracy.
(I understand that Kanefield probably agrees with me on this and I agree with her criticism of Michael Cohen. But I find her nuance muddies the water in exactly the same way as Ty Cobb's nuance, though he is a partisan hack).
posted by mumimor at 2:23 AM on April 15 [23 favorites]
If Kanefield only knew that AMI's publication was called the National Enquirer.
posted by yclipse at 3:40 AM on April 15
posted by yclipse at 3:40 AM on April 15
the proud man's contumely. . . the law's delay.
Don’t forget “the insolence of office,” which also seems apt.
posted by wabbittwax at 4:02 AM on April 15 [4 favorites]
Don’t forget “the insolence of office,” which also seems apt.
posted by wabbittwax at 4:02 AM on April 15 [4 favorites]
Happy Patriot's Day!
posted by whuppy at 4:10 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]
posted by whuppy at 4:10 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]
Kanefield is right about saving democracy, but I feel it is also important that criminals are brought to justice, and unlike her, I think it does make some people stop and think.
I agree with Kanefield that bringing Trump to justice is not sufficient to save democracy when there's so much authoritarian personality out there to harvest. But it is at least a necessary condition; people have to believe the system works.
posted by whuppy at 5:00 AM on April 15 [9 favorites]
I agree with Kanefield that bringing Trump to justice is not sufficient to save democracy when there's so much authoritarian personality out there to harvest. But it is at least a necessary condition; people have to believe the system works.
posted by whuppy at 5:00 AM on April 15 [9 favorites]
Happy Patriot's Day!
Listen, my children, and you shall moan
At the midnight ride of Michael Cohen . . .
posted by dannyboybell at 5:18 AM on April 15 [9 favorites]
Listen, my children, and you shall moan
At the midnight ride of Michael Cohen . . .
posted by dannyboybell at 5:18 AM on April 15 [9 favorites]
His feet are heavy and plodding. He never sleeps. He says that he will never die. He grifts in light and in shadow and he is a great favorite. He never sleeps, the Trump. He is grifting, grifting. He says that he will never die.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:32 AM on April 15 [7 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:32 AM on April 15 [7 favorites]
Trump is proudly corrupt. He has told us so, many times. He only veils it very thinly. His endless projection comes from his deeply held belief that "everyone does it". Every politician is corrupt, every man who has the opportunity cheats on his wife, every businessman cheats and lies. If we minimize corruption by insisting that "the voters must decide" in this age of misinformation, there will soon be no democracy.
What is so weird to me, and I just don't really get, is that for a noticeable percentage of voters, this exact thing, his open corruption, is a major part of the attraction. And this isn't limited to Trump; in plenty of places the kleptocrats not only don't feel a need to hide it, but openly flaunt it with new superyachts or absurd mansions or whatever.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:16 AM on April 15 [8 favorites]
What is so weird to me, and I just don't really get, is that for a noticeable percentage of voters, this exact thing, his open corruption, is a major part of the attraction. And this isn't limited to Trump; in plenty of places the kleptocrats not only don't feel a need to hide it, but openly flaunt it with new superyachts or absurd mansions or whatever.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:16 AM on April 15 [8 favorites]
Well, they agree with him and aspire to be like him. It's probably that simple.
posted by mumimor at 6:18 AM on April 15 [5 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 6:18 AM on April 15 [5 favorites]
"His feet are heavy and plodding. He never sleeps. He says that he will never die. He grifts in light and in shadow and he is a great favorite. He never sleeps, the Trump. He is grifting, grifting. He says that he will never die."
...If only Trump had the wisdom, grace, and good looks of the character referenced.
(I need to read that book again)
posted by JohnFromGR at 6:21 AM on April 15
...If only Trump had the wisdom, grace, and good looks of the character referenced.
(I need to read that book again)
posted by JohnFromGR at 6:21 AM on April 15
Convicting Trump won't save democracy. He's the symptom, not the disease.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:22 AM on April 15 [3 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:22 AM on April 15 [3 favorites]
What is so weird to me, and I just don't really get, is that for a noticeable percentage of voters, this exact thing, his open corruption, is a major part of the attraction.
Maybe it's like a Huey Long thing where they expect a patronage relationship and imagine that their failson could be the next Stephen Miller.
posted by Selena777 at 6:45 AM on April 15 [2 favorites]
Maybe it's like a Huey Long thing where they expect a patronage relationship and imagine that their failson could be the next Stephen Miller.
posted by Selena777 at 6:45 AM on April 15 [2 favorites]
Some of them think his corruption only negatively impacts Those People, some of them are in so deep the don't even believe he's corrupt, some of them are cool with corruption and wish they could live that way, free of consequences.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:48 AM on April 15 [8 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:48 AM on April 15 [8 favorites]
a noticeable percentage of voters, this exact thing, his open corruption, is a major part of the attraction. And this isn't limited to Trump; in plenty of places the kleptocrats not only don't feel a need to hide it,
Ronald Reagan. We've had nearly 50 years of conservative propaganda (which very much includes mainstream media treating it like a serious policy worth considering and discussing) pushing the idea that "taxation is theft" and that the purpose of government is to take your hard-earned money and do something stupid with it. Meaning that it's entirely understandable for you as an individual to do whatever it takes to keep more of your money by hook or by crook. People who don't do that are fools and losers and suckers.
And since said "trickle-down economics" has created a world where money actually funnels upwards to the rich, it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle, where the funnel upwards has caused real wages to not keep pace with the cost of living, so people see a higher and higher percentage of their incomes go to various taxes, which just reinforces the idea that the government is stealing your money, and you're stupid if you don't try to hang on to it, even by illegal or questionable means. Trump's corruption serves as proof that he knows how to game the system in ways that - according to conservatives - we're all supposed to be using.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:50 AM on April 15 [16 favorites]
Ronald Reagan. We've had nearly 50 years of conservative propaganda (which very much includes mainstream media treating it like a serious policy worth considering and discussing) pushing the idea that "taxation is theft" and that the purpose of government is to take your hard-earned money and do something stupid with it. Meaning that it's entirely understandable for you as an individual to do whatever it takes to keep more of your money by hook or by crook. People who don't do that are fools and losers and suckers.
And since said "trickle-down economics" has created a world where money actually funnels upwards to the rich, it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle, where the funnel upwards has caused real wages to not keep pace with the cost of living, so people see a higher and higher percentage of their incomes go to various taxes, which just reinforces the idea that the government is stealing your money, and you're stupid if you don't try to hang on to it, even by illegal or questionable means. Trump's corruption serves as proof that he knows how to game the system in ways that - according to conservatives - we're all supposed to be using.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:50 AM on April 15 [16 favorites]
Or to put it another way, they've taken the anti-Communist phrase "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" and shifted it slightly to include "Extremism in defense of your bank account is no vice."
posted by soundguy99 at 6:58 AM on April 15 [2 favorites]
posted by soundguy99 at 6:58 AM on April 15 [2 favorites]
A crypto project that literally promised to rug pull raised $29K earlier this month as the creator told people repeatedly that it was a scam and they would lose their money. Some people seem to have a high tolerance for grift directed at them. Maybe this accounts for part of the popularity of the obviously fraudulent?
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:00 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:00 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]
I have asked a crypto guy about slightly less blatant pump and dump schemes before and they're hoping that "another guy" will come along to get dumped on before it's over.
posted by Selena777 at 7:05 AM on April 15 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 7:05 AM on April 15 [2 favorites]
Dip Flash: What is so weird to me, and I just don't really get, is that for a noticeable percentage of voters, this exact thing, his open corruption, is a major part of the attraction.
I saw a previously-overlooked metaphor at The Inquirer:
"In a sense, Trump himself is almost like the MacGuffin, the plot device that gives these characters an excuse to get together."
That's a missing jigsaw piece for me, because I know my place in the world comes with a promise I'm significant, I'm also let down by the reality that so many other people more significant. So I also understand the drive to a secret knowledge like QAnon or outrageous hypcrisy contrary to the tenets of Christian faith or 74m prospective voters supporting a man who says he'd be their (and everyone's) dictator. It's a macguffin that drives the story forward and hides all the difficult explanation.
posted by k3ninho at 7:38 AM on April 15 [3 favorites]
I saw a previously-overlooked metaphor at The Inquirer:
"In a sense, Trump himself is almost like the MacGuffin, the plot device that gives these characters an excuse to get together."
That's a missing jigsaw piece for me, because I know my place in the world comes with a promise I'm significant, I'm also let down by the reality that so many other people more significant. So I also understand the drive to a secret knowledge like QAnon or outrageous hypcrisy contrary to the tenets of Christian faith or 74m prospective voters supporting a man who says he'd be their (and everyone's) dictator. It's a macguffin that drives the story forward and hides all the difficult explanation.
posted by k3ninho at 7:38 AM on April 15 [3 favorites]
A lot of people are very anti-authority for themselves and very authoritarian for other people (see also 'one proposition, to wit').
Is this because they're narcissistic sociopaths? Some of them, probably--I'm not a psychiatrist.
Is it because they lack empathy? Some of them, probably.
Is this why conservatives are opposed to social emotional learning? Eh, it's part of it.
How to pick a jury that can judge Donald Trump (Politico):
Is this because they're narcissistic sociopaths? Some of them, probably--I'm not a psychiatrist.
Is it because they lack empathy? Some of them, probably.
Is this why conservatives are opposed to social emotional learning? Eh, it's part of it.
How to pick a jury that can judge Donald Trump (Politico):
“Are you signed up for or have you ever been signed up for, subscribed to, or followed any newsletter or email listserv run by or on behalf of Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization?”posted by box at 8:03 AM on April 15 [6 favorites]
“Do you currently follow any anti-Trump group or organization on any social media site, or have you done so in the past?”
You know what would be good? It's my cake day so just let me have this. No heard of microphones, no press conference, no opportunity to use his arrival and departure to bullshit and camplaign.
The judge should get on this. Why have they set a stage for him? Rudy had to stand on the side of the road and yell into an iphone to repeat the defamation he was just sued for. Enough special treatment for this prick.
posted by adept256 at 8:45 AM on April 15 [10 favorites]
The judge should get on this. Why have they set a stage for him? Rudy had to stand on the side of the road and yell into an iphone to repeat the defamation he was just sued for. Enough special treatment for this prick.
posted by adept256 at 8:45 AM on April 15 [10 favorites]
I don't get the "anti-Trump group or organization" question for jury selection. Like I follow the Georgia Democratic Party on social media. Does that count? Or is this literally a "I hate Donald Trump" group that we're talking about?
posted by hydropsyche at 8:51 AM on April 15 [4 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 8:51 AM on April 15 [4 favorites]
but the sneaky idea that you're only an individual is masking the amplifying power of collective action
Collectively, how many voters does it take to equal the power/influence of one James Comey? Or Robert Hur? Or the front page editors at the New York Times?
I don't disagree with what Kanefield is saying, but I think her answer is more than a bit disingenuous. I worry that "vote harder" is a way of shifting the responsibility onto the public in a way which deliberately minimizes the ability of institutions and people in positions of power to shape the election. Voters can only do so much and yet "vote harder" arguments almost always rest on voters being the only line of defense. This is why we have laws against interfering with elections, stealing classified documents, organizing insurrections....
All the 'Do Something...." pleas want is for institutions to show a little resiliency.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:36 AM on April 15 [9 favorites]
Collectively, how many voters does it take to equal the power/influence of one James Comey? Or Robert Hur? Or the front page editors at the New York Times?
I don't disagree with what Kanefield is saying, but I think her answer is more than a bit disingenuous. I worry that "vote harder" is a way of shifting the responsibility onto the public in a way which deliberately minimizes the ability of institutions and people in positions of power to shape the election. Voters can only do so much and yet "vote harder" arguments almost always rest on voters being the only line of defense. This is why we have laws against interfering with elections, stealing classified documents, organizing insurrections....
All the 'Do Something...." pleas want is for institutions to show a little resiliency.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:36 AM on April 15 [9 favorites]
We found out four years ago that voting hard wasn't enough. It's scary to learn how close Trump came to first subverting the election, and then outright refusing to leave office.
It's kind of naive to claim that voting and organizing is the only way to stop Trump. Those things help a lot, but Trump and his supporters have to go to jail.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:46 AM on April 15 [22 favorites]
It's kind of naive to claim that voting and organizing is the only way to stop Trump. Those things help a lot, but Trump and his supporters have to go to jail.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:46 AM on April 15 [22 favorites]
Convicting Trump won't save democracy. He's the symptom, not the disease.
It might buy us time to keep the cancer from spreading to the liver and getting a lot of innocent people killed by Republican Fascists.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:46 AM on April 15 [15 favorites]
It might buy us time to keep the cancer from spreading to the liver and getting a lot of innocent people killed by Republican Fascists.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:46 AM on April 15 [15 favorites]
I don't get the "anti-Trump group or organization" question for jury selection. Like I follow the Georgia Democratic Party on social media. Does that count? Or is this literally a "I hate Donald Trump" group that we're talking about?
My Not A Lawyer guess is that both sides get a certain number of juror dismissals basically "just because" (peremptory challenge) and this question is meant for Trump's lawyers to quickly weed out anyone they think is even slightly anti-Trump. So early in the process they'd use you following the Georgia Dems as a reason to use up one of their peremptory challenges, but later, if they've used all their challenges, it would be (I think) up to the judge to decide if your social media activity means you can't be impartial.
posted by soundguy99 at 10:47 AM on April 15
My Not A Lawyer guess is that both sides get a certain number of juror dismissals basically "just because" (peremptory challenge) and this question is meant for Trump's lawyers to quickly weed out anyone they think is even slightly anti-Trump. So early in the process they'd use you following the Georgia Dems as a reason to use up one of their peremptory challenges, but later, if they've used all their challenges, it would be (I think) up to the judge to decide if your social media activity means you can't be impartial.
posted by soundguy99 at 10:47 AM on April 15
Judge Merchan's April 8 letter to counsel, with juror questionnaire attached, from nycourts.gov:
"The Court has closely scrutinized all of the proposed questions submitted by both parties, including those which the parties have agreed to. Guided by scttled legal authority and the requirements of the CPL, the Court has modified some questions and excluded others. The resulting questionnaire is broad and exhaustive. It consists of 42 numbered questions, many of which contain multiple sub-questions, covering all relevant areas of inquiry. Please note, there are no questions asking prospective jurors whom they voted for or intend to vote for, or whom they have made political contributions to. Nor are jurors asked about their specific political party registration, though the answer to that question may be gleaned from the responses to the other questions. Counsel is forewarned not to seek to expand the degree of intrusion beyond what is relevant and has already been approved."
10. Which of the following print publications, cable and/or network programs, or online media such as websites, blogs, or social media platforms do you visit, read, or watch?
- Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, New York Daily News, Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Google, Facebook, X, Tik Tok, New York Post, Newsday, Washington Post, Fox News, Newsmax, MSN, Yahoo, Truth Social, I do not follow the news, Other (name)
11. Do you listen to or watch podcasts? If so, which ones?
12. Do you listen to talk radio? If so, which programs?
28. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked for any Company or organization that is owned or run by Donald Trump of anyone in his family?
29. A. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked or volunteered for a Trump presidential campaign, the Trump presidential administration, or any other political entity affiliated with Mr. Trump?
B. Have you evef attended a rally or campaign event for Donald Trump?
C. Are you signed up for or have you ever been signed up for, subscribed to, or followed any newsletter or email listserv run by or on behalf of Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization?
D. Do you currently follow Donald Trump on any social media site or have you done so in the past?
E. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked or volunteered for any and-Trump group or organization?
F. Have you ever attended a rally or campaign event for any anti-Trump group or organization?
G. Are you signed up for or have you ever been signed up for, subscribed to, or followed any newsletter or email listserv run by or on behalf of any anti-Trump group or organizatlon?
H. Do you currently follow any anti-Trump group or organization on any social media site, or have you done so in the past?
28. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked for any Company or organization that is owned or run by Donald Trump of anyone in his family?
30. Have you ever considered yourself a supporter of or belonged to any of the following:
- the QAnon movement
- Proud Boys
- Oathkeepers
- Three Percenters
- Boogaloo Boys
- Antifa
35. Have you read (or listened to audio) of any of the following books or podcasts by Michael Cohen or Mark Pomerantz?
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:52 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]
"The Court has closely scrutinized all of the proposed questions submitted by both parties, including those which the parties have agreed to. Guided by scttled legal authority and the requirements of the CPL, the Court has modified some questions and excluded others. The resulting questionnaire is broad and exhaustive. It consists of 42 numbered questions, many of which contain multiple sub-questions, covering all relevant areas of inquiry. Please note, there are no questions asking prospective jurors whom they voted for or intend to vote for, or whom they have made political contributions to. Nor are jurors asked about their specific political party registration, though the answer to that question may be gleaned from the responses to the other questions. Counsel is forewarned not to seek to expand the degree of intrusion beyond what is relevant and has already been approved."
10. Which of the following print publications, cable and/or network programs, or online media such as websites, blogs, or social media platforms do you visit, read, or watch?
- Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, New York Daily News, Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Google, Facebook, X, Tik Tok, New York Post, Newsday, Washington Post, Fox News, Newsmax, MSN, Yahoo, Truth Social, I do not follow the news, Other (name)
11. Do you listen to or watch podcasts? If so, which ones?
12. Do you listen to talk radio? If so, which programs?
28. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked for any Company or organization that is owned or run by Donald Trump of anyone in his family?
29. A. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked or volunteered for a Trump presidential campaign, the Trump presidential administration, or any other political entity affiliated with Mr. Trump?
B. Have you evef attended a rally or campaign event for Donald Trump?
C. Are you signed up for or have you ever been signed up for, subscribed to, or followed any newsletter or email listserv run by or on behalf of Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization?
D. Do you currently follow Donald Trump on any social media site or have you done so in the past?
E. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked or volunteered for any and-Trump group or organization?
F. Have you ever attended a rally or campaign event for any anti-Trump group or organization?
G. Are you signed up for or have you ever been signed up for, subscribed to, or followed any newsletter or email listserv run by or on behalf of any anti-Trump group or organizatlon?
H. Do you currently follow any anti-Trump group or organization on any social media site, or have you done so in the past?
28. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked for any Company or organization that is owned or run by Donald Trump of anyone in his family?
30. Have you ever considered yourself a supporter of or belonged to any of the following:
- the QAnon movement
- Proud Boys
- Oathkeepers
- Three Percenters
- Boogaloo Boys
- Antifa
35. Have you read (or listened to audio) of any of the following books or podcasts by Michael Cohen or Mark Pomerantz?
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:52 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]
29. A. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked or volunteered for a Trump presidential campaign, the Trump presidential administration, or any other political entity affiliated with Mr. Trump?
That whole list is like the worst possible version of this.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:54 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]
That whole list is like the worst possible version of this.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:54 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]
He's the symptom, not the disease
This is true, but he's the virulent part of the disease that helps it spread. In this cult of personality, the festering right hasn't really got a replacement germ to spread the disease so effectively in his absence. Excising him will not cure, but will certainly slow the progress.
posted by OHenryPacey at 11:07 AM on April 15 [13 favorites]
This is true, but he's the virulent part of the disease that helps it spread. In this cult of personality, the festering right hasn't really got a replacement germ to spread the disease so effectively in his absence. Excising him will not cure, but will certainly slow the progress.
posted by OHenryPacey at 11:07 AM on April 15 [13 favorites]
It would be great to hear about juror questions from attorneys - especially New York attorneys - with specific knowledge about how they work in New York, but in my experience as a juror, the questions are probably not immediately disqualifying, but may be used in a limited way for "just because" peremptory challenges as soundguy99 said above - but also may offer attorneys the ability to ask jurors about those answers.
I served on a jury judging a case about making threats (a guy was turned away from a club and threatened to kill the bouncer). We were all asked about our membership in free-speech organizations, and I acknowledged my membership in the ACLU, and was asked about it during jury questioning, and was kept on the jury anyway. The prosecutor told us after the trial that he was concerned some free-speech advocates might consider violent threats to be free speech, but he took the chance with us, and ended up getting a conviction.
posted by kristi at 11:34 AM on April 15 [7 favorites]
I served on a jury judging a case about making threats (a guy was turned away from a club and threatened to kill the bouncer). We were all asked about our membership in free-speech organizations, and I acknowledged my membership in the ACLU, and was asked about it during jury questioning, and was kept on the jury anyway. The prosecutor told us after the trial that he was concerned some free-speech advocates might consider violent threats to be free speech, but he took the chance with us, and ended up getting a conviction.
posted by kristi at 11:34 AM on April 15 [7 favorites]
Even as a judge was hearing arguments on last-minute issues in a criminal case that centers on salacious allegations and threatens to upend his bid for the presidency, Mr. Trump appeared to nod off a few times, his mouth going slack and his head drooping onto his chest.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 12:47 PM on April 15 [6 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 12:47 PM on April 15 [6 favorites]
From Horace Rumpole's linked article:
posted by wenestvedt at 12:50 PM on April 15 [7 favorites]
The only time Mr. Trump showed a flash of humor was when he laughed at one of his own social media posts, which attacked his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen...What a colossal tool.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:50 PM on April 15 [7 favorites]
Not the most evil person in history, but possibly the biggest asshole.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:56 PM on April 15 [9 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:56 PM on April 15 [9 favorites]
I once got kicked off a jury because of the newspapers I read. I sat there for two days, they sat 12 jurors--I got picked on day one--and were going for 2 alternates when the prosecutor had the judge drag me over for a sidebar discussion because I read NYT and WaPo and don't watch TV news. It was surreal. I was there for more than five minutes while the prosecutor sounded incredulous that I don't watch TV news. It was just a simple criminal matter, but apparently my news choices were too lefty for the State of New Jersey. I think the defense attorney was sorry to see me go.
posted by ceejaytee at 2:12 PM on April 15 [16 favorites]
posted by ceejaytee at 2:12 PM on April 15 [16 favorites]
WaPo is doxxing the jurors now so that's going great.
posted by Justinian at 2:52 PM on April 15 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:52 PM on April 15 [5 favorites]
WaPo: "Ten potential jurors were questioned, after dozens of others said they could not be impartial and were excused." (They started with 96 potential jurors.) The trial is in session every weekday except Wednesday; a Trump lawyer asked Judge Merchan if his client could be excused from any proceedings on Wednesdays to accommodate already-planned campaign events. (Trump has to be present in court for any proceedings involving the jury.) Merchan may have to start scheduling Wednesday sessions if the trial begins to lag, but he agreed to take into consideration the request for Trump to be available to campaign.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:06 PM on April 15
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:06 PM on April 15
The same lawyer, Todd Blanche, also asked Justice Merchan to excuse Trump next Thursday [April 25] for the Supreme Court case (ABC): Judge Juan M. Merchan on Monday declined a request from Donald Trump's lawyers to take April 25 off from the hush money trial to allow the former president to attend U.S. Supreme Court arguments on his claim of presidential immunity in another of his four criminal cases.
Defense lawyer Todd Blanche said Trump’s situation deserved accommodation. “It’s not very often that you have someone who has multiple criminal indictments at the same time,.”
WaPo: One of the prosecutors, Joshua Steinglass, said Trump has no obligation to attend the Supreme Court argument and the court has already worked to accommodate his schedule.
Merchan acknowledged that a Supreme Court argument is “a big deal” and he understood why Trump wanted to be there. But he said, “Having a trial in New York County Supreme Court is also a big deal.”
Blanche alluded to opposing having the trial while Trump is running for president, and Merchan interrupted him. “You don’t think you should be here at all?” Merchan asked.
“We object to having this trial during the campaign season,” Blanche said.
“So let’s move along from that objection, I’ve already ruled on it,” Merchan said, referencing an earlier motion and order. He reiterated that Trump is a criminal defendant under indictment. “He’s required to be here,” Merchan said. “He’s not required to be in the Supreme Court.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:06 PM on April 15 [10 favorites]
Defense lawyer Todd Blanche said Trump’s situation deserved accommodation. “It’s not very often that you have someone who has multiple criminal indictments at the same time,.”
WaPo: One of the prosecutors, Joshua Steinglass, said Trump has no obligation to attend the Supreme Court argument and the court has already worked to accommodate his schedule.
Merchan acknowledged that a Supreme Court argument is “a big deal” and he understood why Trump wanted to be there. But he said, “Having a trial in New York County Supreme Court is also a big deal.”
Blanche alluded to opposing having the trial while Trump is running for president, and Merchan interrupted him. “You don’t think you should be here at all?” Merchan asked.
“We object to having this trial during the campaign season,” Blanche said.
“So let’s move along from that objection, I’ve already ruled on it,” Merchan said, referencing an earlier motion and order. He reiterated that Trump is a criminal defendant under indictment. “He’s required to be here,” Merchan said. “He’s not required to be in the Supreme Court.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:06 PM on April 15 [10 favorites]
WaPo is doxxing the jurors now so that's going great.
Oh, yeah, for three out of ten of the prospective jurors mentioned here (search on the page for "prospective juror"), the Washington Posts lists not just their occupation but precisely where they work. That plus the other details given would make it pretty simple to identify them fully, I'd bet. (And if not, you can just send your harassment to all...three? four? of the people in the world who match the description? Might as well just go ahead and harass anyone who works at that small midtown bookshop. Ugh.)
posted by nobody at 3:08 PM on April 15 [8 favorites]
Oh, yeah, for three out of ten of the prospective jurors mentioned here (search on the page for "prospective juror"), the Washington Posts lists not just their occupation but precisely where they work. That plus the other details given would make it pretty simple to identify them fully, I'd bet. (And if not, you can just send your harassment to all...three? four? of the people in the world who match the description? Might as well just go ahead and harass anyone who works at that small midtown bookshop. Ugh.)
posted by nobody at 3:08 PM on April 15 [8 favorites]
The bookshop, in particular, is the one I was thinking of. Tons of people know who that juror is already.
posted by Justinian at 3:13 PM on April 15 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:13 PM on April 15 [5 favorites]
Fuck's sake, NBC is doing it in its live updates, too.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:23 PM on April 15 [3 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:23 PM on April 15 [3 favorites]
"Swatting" incident directed at the Manhattan courthouse this morning, source says (CNN) Ahead of the start of the first criminal trial of a former president this morning, a couple of dozen emails were generated indicating that bombs had been placed in the area around the Manhattan courthouse, a law enforcement source told CNN. The threats were unfounded and ruled to be a "swatting" incident, the source said. Investigators are trying to determine whether the emails originated from a foreign email address.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:26 PM on April 15 [4 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:26 PM on April 15 [4 favorites]
@!%#WaPo also gave too much identifying info on a potential juror who volunteered they couldn't be impartial, and directly quotes them as they leave the courtroom after dismissal.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:32 PM on April 15 [5 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:32 PM on April 15 [5 favorites]
Ahead of the start of the first criminal trial of a former president this morning, a couple of dozen emails were generated indicating that bombs had been placed in the area around the Manhattan courthouse
Trump is a stochastic terrorist and is behind these attempts, even if indirectly. We just don't take Republican Fascism seriously.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:52 PM on April 15 [11 favorites]
Trump is a stochastic terrorist and is behind these attempts, even if indirectly. We just don't take Republican Fascism seriously.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:52 PM on April 15 [11 favorites]
"An assault on America," is what he called the trial on his way into the courthouse yesterday morning.
Saturday, at a rally in Pennsylvania: “This is what you call a communist show trial,” Trump said. “We don't win this election, this country is finished.”
His supporters responded with chants of “we love Trump.”
“I love you too. That's why I put up with this,” Trump responded. “Remember, I’ve been indicted more than Al Capone, the great gangster.”
Like a week ago he was whining about the Manhattan venue, insisting he'd get a fairer trial in... Staten Island (aka the only borough he won, in 2016 and 2020).
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:42 PM on April 15 [3 favorites]
Saturday, at a rally in Pennsylvania: “This is what you call a communist show trial,” Trump said. “We don't win this election, this country is finished.”
His supporters responded with chants of “we love Trump.”
“I love you too. That's why I put up with this,” Trump responded. “Remember, I’ve been indicted more than Al Capone, the great gangster.”
Like a week ago he was whining about the Manhattan venue, insisting he'd get a fairer trial in... Staten Island (aka the only borough he won, in 2016 and 2020).
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:42 PM on April 15 [3 favorites]
Sleepy Don has already dozed off in court.
I've seen a number of people call him Don Snoreleone.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:11 PM on April 15 [10 favorites]
I've seen a number of people call him Don Snoreleone.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:11 PM on April 15 [10 favorites]
Low energy. Sad!
posted by DoctorFedora at 11:59 PM on April 15 [7 favorites]
posted by DoctorFedora at 11:59 PM on April 15 [7 favorites]
>Not the most evil person in history, but possibly the biggest asshole.
posted by The Card Cheat
But with an unacceptably high risk that he will happily charge straight for the most evil if he gets elected, and even more so if he doesn't.
>Sleepy Don has already dozed off in court.
Might be just an act of contempt to the court.
posted by Pouteria at 1:55 AM on April 16 [2 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat
But with an unacceptably high risk that he will happily charge straight for the most evil if he gets elected, and even more so if he doesn't.
>Sleepy Don has already dozed off in court.
Might be just an act of contempt to the court.
posted by Pouteria at 1:55 AM on April 16 [2 favorites]
The Sleepy Don discography includes Countdown to Embezzlery, Can't Buy a Trial, and The Royal Scam.
posted by box at 5:38 AM on April 16 [6 favorites]
posted by box at 5:38 AM on April 16 [6 favorites]
The Sleepy Don discography includes Countdown to Embezzlery, Can't Buy a Trial, and The Royal Scam.
You forgot Pretzel Logic (no name changed necessary).
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:33 AM on April 16 [3 favorites]
“New York Criminal Defendant Already Being Real Pain In Ass,” Evan Hurst, The Wonkette, 16 April 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 9:34 AM on April 16 [6 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 9:34 AM on April 16 [6 favorites]
Beneath an article about jurors WaPo published yesterday:
CLARIFICATION
This story has been updated to remove specific information about where prospective jurors work, which was detailed in open court.
"Key Update" three-ish hours ago in jury selection live feed, "How The Post is deciding what to publish about potential jurors," reads: As part of the jury selection process for Donald Trump’s hush money case, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has ruled that the names of potential jurors should be shielded and has taken other steps to prevent their identities from becoming public.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:43 AM on April 16 [4 favorites]
CLARIFICATION
This story has been updated to remove specific information about where prospective jurors work, which was detailed in open court.
"Key Update" three-ish hours ago in jury selection live feed, "How The Post is deciding what to publish about potential jurors," reads: As part of the jury selection process for Donald Trump’s hush money case, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has ruled that the names of potential jurors should be shielded and has taken other steps to prevent their identities from becoming public.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:43 AM on April 16 [4 favorites]
About as big an example of the horse having already left the barn as can be imagined.
posted by Justinian at 11:45 AM on April 16 [11 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:45 AM on April 16 [11 favorites]
Yup.
Also: Former president Donald Trump has to now sign an acknowledgment that he’s waiving his right to attend sidebar conversations with the judge and the attorneys. On Monday, he indicated through his attorney Todd Blanche that he wanted to attend. Defendants have a right to do so, but it’s highly unusual — and, in this case, it would be a logistical headache because Secret Service agents would have to escort Trump to the bench or to a backroom, if that’s where they decide to hold the discussions.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:46 AM on April 16
Also: Former president Donald Trump has to now sign an acknowledgment that he’s waiving his right to attend sidebar conversations with the judge and the attorneys. On Monday, he indicated through his attorney Todd Blanche that he wanted to attend. Defendants have a right to do so, but it’s highly unusual — and, in this case, it would be a logistical headache because Secret Service agents would have to escort Trump to the bench or to a backroom, if that’s where they decide to hold the discussions.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:46 AM on April 16
Sorry - yes, too late, as the archived material has the workplace details now and forevermore.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:49 AM on April 16
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:49 AM on April 16
By the time Blanche is done going through everyone's Facebook posts, there won't be any jurors left. (It makes for fun reading though!)
posted by mittens at 12:12 PM on April 16
posted by mittens at 12:12 PM on April 16
Sleepy Don has already dozed off in court.
Again.
Also, he's fussy about being called Mister Trump:
Again.
Also, he's fussy about being called Mister Trump:
Judge: "The defendant in this case is MISTER Donald Trump, who is seated to my right."posted by kirkaracha at 1:56 PM on April 16 [3 favorites]
Trump's frown is fixed in place.
Jose Pagliery @Jose_Pagliery 11:38 AM · Apr 15, 2024
He's NOT WOKE, ok?
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:57 PM on April 16 [12 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:57 PM on April 16 [12 favorites]
"By the end of the day, seven people had been sworn in as jurors — more than a third of the total number of people that will be needed to hold a trial with a full jury and six alternates." (WaPo)
"Lawyers for Trump repeatedly argued that old social media posts by many of the prospective jurors or their friends showed that they were not being forthcoming about their animosity toward him, while prosecutors argued that old dumb jokes on the internet were not a cause to dismiss someone from the panel."
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:34 PM on April 16
"Lawyers for Trump repeatedly argued that old social media posts by many of the prospective jurors or their friends showed that they were not being forthcoming about their animosity toward him, while prosecutors argued that old dumb jokes on the internet were not a cause to dismiss someone from the panel."
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:34 PM on April 16
old dumb jokes on the internet were not a cause to dismiss someone from the panel.
There's hope for me yet.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:13 PM on April 16 [18 favorites]
There's hope for me yet.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:13 PM on April 16 [18 favorites]
Statistically speaking, how often does a defendant win a case when they fall asleep in court? Is it sometimes or not?
posted by adept256 at 6:46 PM on April 16 [3 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 6:46 PM on April 16 [3 favorites]
For what it's worth, I don't think any of the seven jurists picked thus far (according to this NYTimes article) match any whose details were overshared yesterday (with, I suppose, one possible exception):
posted by nobody at 8:12 PM on April 16 [2 favorites]
They include a man originally from Ireland who will serve as foreman, an oncology nurse, a grandfather originally from Puerto Rico, a middle-school teacher from Harlem, two lawyers and a software engineer for Disney.Archive.org seems to be blocking access to the originally cached page, so I can't double-check. (Probably for the best.) At least the bookstore employee doesn't seem to be on the list.
posted by nobody at 8:12 PM on April 16 [2 favorites]
(I wish that article -- which includes a bunch of prospective jurors' answers to various questions posed today -- was more consistent about saying which ones were dismissed, and whether they were dismissed for cause or by one of the two sides.)
posted by nobody at 8:20 PM on April 16
posted by nobody at 8:20 PM on April 16
The Post continues to divulge too much juror info; personal living arrangements, and the current and former occupations of immediate family members, are provided for the high-school teacher nobody references. It's practically a fingerprint, and it's obscene. Then, the article closes with:
"During the questioning of another potential juror over a social media post, Merchan chided Trump for muttering during the back-and-forth.
"'I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom,' Merchan adds."
(The Post has direct quotes from the social-media posts under discussion in the courtroom, so if prospective jurors' accounts were not locked...)
Have questions about Trump’s hush money trial? Ask our reporters. (WaPo, April 17, 2024; like all Trump-trial-related material, filed in the 'national security' section) Our reporters covering the trial will answer your questions during a live chat on Wednesday at 2 p.m. Eastern time.
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:45 AM on April 17
"During the questioning of another potential juror over a social media post, Merchan chided Trump for muttering during the back-and-forth.
"'I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom,' Merchan adds."
(The Post has direct quotes from the social-media posts under discussion in the courtroom, so if prospective jurors' accounts were not locked...)
Have questions about Trump’s hush money trial? Ask our reporters. (WaPo, April 17, 2024; like all Trump-trial-related material, filed in the 'national security' section) Our reporters covering the trial will answer your questions during a live chat on Wednesday at 2 p.m. Eastern time.
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:45 AM on April 17
"I was paying a lawyer and marked it down as a legal expense. Some accountant, I didn’t know, marked it down as a legal expense. That’s exactly what it was, and you get indicted over that?" Trump said. "I should be in Pennsylvania and Florida, in many other states. North Carolina, Georgia, campaigning." -- Trump talking to reporters outside the courthouse today, explaining he was innocent of charges that he falsified business records to cover-up his payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:27 PM on April 17 [1 favorite]
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:27 PM on April 17 [1 favorite]
"I was paying a lawyer and marked it down as a legal expense. Some accountant, I didn’t know, marked it down as a legal expense. That’s exactly what it was, and you get indicted over that?"
Well, some truth, some lies. Rapist Donald Trump was reimbursing a lawyer for expenses accrued in a conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 election. Rapist Donald Trump did then marked it down as a legal expense. "Some accountant" is ex Trump Organization (a criminal enterprise) CFO, Allan Weisselberg. Whose most recent crime is perjury.
And yes, you do get indicted over that.
posted by mikelieman at 4:31 AM on April 18 [7 favorites]
Well, some truth, some lies. Rapist Donald Trump was reimbursing a lawyer for expenses accrued in a conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 election. Rapist Donald Trump did then marked it down as a legal expense. "Some accountant" is ex Trump Organization (a criminal enterprise) CFO, Allan Weisselberg. Whose most recent crime is perjury.
And yes, you do get indicted over that.
posted by mikelieman at 4:31 AM on April 18 [7 favorites]
I've just thought of the perfect response for the judge regarding Trump's continuous breaking of his gag orders: Order Trump to have a psych eval. It would be what would be done for similar defendants who demonstrated they were unable to control themselves.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:15 AM on April 18 [10 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:15 AM on April 18 [10 favorites]
I've been enjoying Tyler McBrien's live tweets on the trial (and the fact that he took down a lot of the identifying information on the jurors, although really questionable judgment having tweeted it out in the first place).
posted by mittens at 6:27 AM on April 18 [1 favorite]
posted by mittens at 6:27 AM on April 18 [1 favorite]
One previously selected juror has now been dismissed after expressing fears of being identified by what's been reported already. (They're now going to start redacting answers to the previous/current employer question from the record, and the judge has ordered the press not to report on those answers.)
And prosecutors have determined that another (who is late to court this morning) may have lied in earlier statements, having been (if correctly identified here) arrested in the past for tearing down political signs upstate. (That juror's wife apparently may have also been involved in a corruption inquiry in the past?)
So if both are dismissed, that brings the count down to 5 out of 12 seated so far.
posted by nobody at 6:59 AM on April 18 [5 favorites]
And prosecutors have determined that another (who is late to court this morning) may have lied in earlier statements, having been (if correctly identified here) arrested in the past for tearing down political signs upstate. (That juror's wife apparently may have also been involved in a corruption inquiry in the past?)
So if both are dismissed, that brings the count down to 5 out of 12 seated so far.
posted by nobody at 6:59 AM on April 18 [5 favorites]
The NYT is reporting that the judge has given the reporters stricter instructions about not reporting personal details about the jurors. So hopefully that results in less identifiable information getting published.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:10 AM on April 18 [8 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 7:10 AM on April 18 [8 favorites]
Have questions about Trump’s hush money trial? Ask our reporters. (WaPo, April 17, 2024; like all Trump-trial-related material, filed in the 'national security' section) Our reporters covering the trial will answer your questions during a live chat on Wednesday at 2 p.m. Eastern time.
Funny that they didn't approve my question about whether or not it was wise or responsible to report personally identifying information about jurors and prospective jurors given that the defendant is known for encouraging people to harass those involved in court cases against him.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:05 AM on April 18 [6 favorites]
Funny that they didn't approve my question about whether or not it was wise or responsible to report personally identifying information about jurors and prospective jurors given that the defendant is known for encouraging people to harass those involved in court cases against him.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:05 AM on April 18 [6 favorites]
live tweets on the trial
Gentle reminder that only the initial tweet, not the whole thread, is accessible for those without accounts (or not logged in) on X nee Twitter. TIL Nitter is no more.
posted by achrise at 9:29 AM on April 18 [5 favorites]
Gentle reminder that only the initial tweet, not the whole thread, is accessible for those without accounts (or not logged in) on X nee Twitter. TIL Nitter is no more.
posted by achrise at 9:29 AM on April 18 [5 favorites]
Trump is jury-tampering people right out of the courtroom and all that's happening is the usual finger-wagging and polite requests to please stop doing it. The U.S. is going to die because it's either unable or unwilling to protect itself by actually enforcing its ostensible laws against this guy.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:41 AM on April 18 [12 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:41 AM on April 18 [12 favorites]
EVERYONE: The media better cover Trump's trials with the same enthusiasm as Hilary's emails
THE MEDIA: Juror #7 weighs 146 lbs. He lives in a 2nd story apt above a taqueria on Lexington Ave between 45th & 47th. He sleeps with a window cracked in the summer. The window can be accessed by climbing a
posted by mittens at 9:45 AM on April 18 [16 favorites]
THE MEDIA: Juror #7 weighs 146 lbs. He lives in a 2nd story apt above a taqueria on Lexington Ave between 45th & 47th. He sleeps with a window cracked in the summer. The window can be accessed by climbing a
posted by mittens at 9:45 AM on April 18 [16 favorites]
Trump lawyers awkwardly correct Mar-a-Lago delay request after accidentally saying their own colleague was irrelevant (not The Onion)
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:48 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:48 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]
You don't need competent lawyers if all you hired them to do is fling poop into the wheels of justice.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:52 PM on April 18 [5 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:52 PM on April 18 [5 favorites]
All twelve jurors were selected today, though they still need to choose a few more alternates. (I think they're aiming for 6, larger than usual.)
Here's how the NYTimes has described each of the twelve.
I just hope none of them are secretly die-hard Trumpists.
posted by nobody at 6:08 PM on April 18 [3 favorites]
Here's how the NYTimes has described each of the twelve.
I just hope none of them are secretly die-hard Trumpists.
posted by nobody at 6:08 PM on April 18 [3 favorites]
The U.S. is going to die because it's either unable or unwilling to protect itself by actually enforcing its ostensible laws against this guy.
Republican Fascists will kill millions of Americans if we don't stop them. They have literally published their plans, if Trump is installed, and have already followed through on some of them in states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:19 PM on April 18 [5 favorites]
Republican Fascists will kill millions of Americans if we don't stop them. They have literally published their plans, if Trump is installed, and have already followed through on some of them in states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:19 PM on April 18 [5 favorites]
Man sets himself on fire near courthouse where Trump is on trial (NYT, potentially disturbing text description)
posted by box at 11:50 AM on April 19
posted by box at 11:50 AM on April 19
We've been talking here about the inappropriate details the Washington Post shared about prospective jurors a few days ago, but here's a report on what the right wing mediasphere (including, of course, Fox News) has been disclosing (nytimes).
posted by nobody at 4:21 PM on April 19 [2 favorites]
posted by nobody at 4:21 PM on April 19 [2 favorites]
^NYT archived link: Jesse Watters, a prime-time host on Fox News, went further than most. On Tuesday, he showed footage of one prospective juror who had been excused. The woman explained that she had told the judge that she could be unbiased, then explained that “it’s very difficult for anyone really in this country to come to this without prior opinions.”
Mr. Watters then said: “Show me a juror who says they can be unbiased towards Trump, and I’ll show you a liar.”
He followed the segment by going through each of seven jurors who had so far been chosen, disclosing features such as their race, attire, hair and skin tone, as well as their favorite outdoor activities, musical preferences and in one case, a specific employer. He described the second juror in depth: her educational background, her current profession, her romantic partner’s profession, her neighborhood, her marital and parental status and where she gets her news.
“I’m not so sure about Juror No. 2,” Mr. Watters said.
On Thursday, Justice Merchan dismissed the juror after she expressed concerns that her identity had been exposed.
In March 2009 Waters followed and harassed journalist Amanda Terkel (she was on vacation at the time). Terkel, who worked for ThinkProgress, had written a blog post critical of Watters' then-boss Bill O'Reilly. Salon, in 2015, on Watters: 7 times Fox News' biggest creep crossed the line. Terkel, writing for HuffPo in 2016: "O'Reilly never reached out to me before sending Watters and his cameraman out on the ambush mission, belying the idea that he was a journalist simply trying to get comment. O'Reilly ran segments describing me as a "far-left blogger" who attacks rape victims, and cast himself as an ally of victimized women. Sending men to intimidate, follow and ambush a young woman is an odd way to make that point." More recently, Watters speculated that Taylor Swift was a Pentagon asset ("Psy-Op" article at UK Independent, Jan. 10, 2024).
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:06 PM on April 19 [3 favorites]
Mr. Watters then said: “Show me a juror who says they can be unbiased towards Trump, and I’ll show you a liar.”
He followed the segment by going through each of seven jurors who had so far been chosen, disclosing features such as their race, attire, hair and skin tone, as well as their favorite outdoor activities, musical preferences and in one case, a specific employer. He described the second juror in depth: her educational background, her current profession, her romantic partner’s profession, her neighborhood, her marital and parental status and where she gets her news.
“I’m not so sure about Juror No. 2,” Mr. Watters said.
On Thursday, Justice Merchan dismissed the juror after she expressed concerns that her identity had been exposed.
In March 2009 Waters followed and harassed journalist Amanda Terkel (she was on vacation at the time). Terkel, who worked for ThinkProgress, had written a blog post critical of Watters' then-boss Bill O'Reilly. Salon, in 2015, on Watters: 7 times Fox News' biggest creep crossed the line. Terkel, writing for HuffPo in 2016: "O'Reilly never reached out to me before sending Watters and his cameraman out on the ambush mission, belying the idea that he was a journalist simply trying to get comment. O'Reilly ran segments describing me as a "far-left blogger" who attacks rape victims, and cast himself as an ally of victimized women. Sending men to intimidate, follow and ambush a young woman is an odd way to make that point." More recently, Watters speculated that Taylor Swift was a Pentagon asset ("Psy-Op" article at UK Independent, Jan. 10, 2024).
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:06 PM on April 19 [3 favorites]
“I’m not so sure about Juror No. 2,” Mr. Watters said.
Is that jury tampering?
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:28 PM on April 19
Is that jury tampering?
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:28 PM on April 19
I mean, if it's not jury tampering, it sure nonetheless resulted in a tampered jury!
posted by nobody at 8:48 PM on April 19 [2 favorites]
posted by nobody at 8:48 PM on April 19 [2 favorites]
The man who set himself on fire has died of his injuries. (AP) The man was in Collect Pond Park around 1:30 p.m. Friday when he took out pamphlets espousing conspiracy theories, tossed them around, then doused himself in an accelerant and set himself on fire, officials and witnesses said. The man, who police said had traveled from Florida to New York in the last few days, hadn't breached any security checkpoints to get into the park.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:00 AM on April 20
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:00 AM on April 20
I'd thought that the way things played out, Juror #2 was replaced before the rest of the slots were filled up (in which case they would have been selected for a spot regardless of the prior #2 dropping out), but you can see on this simple NYTimes diagram charting where each juror gets their news, that the new #2 exclusively reads...Twitter and Truth Social (and is the only one of the 12+6alts who reported getting news from either of those).
Unless they were possibly the last to be seated, I wonder what made the prosecutors decide not to use a peremptory challenge on that one.
(#1 -- who will serve as foreperson -- reporting that they get news from Fox News and the Daily Mail, but also MSNBC and the New York Times, is also curious. No one else among the 12+6 listed Fox, the Daily Mail, or MSNBC.)
(And the other takeway for me was a bit of a surprise at how many of the jurors read the NYTimes -- and how few of them watch/read NY1 or listen to WNYC.)
posted by nobody at 5:07 AM on April 20
Unless they were possibly the last to be seated, I wonder what made the prosecutors decide not to use a peremptory challenge on that one.
(#1 -- who will serve as foreperson -- reporting that they get news from Fox News and the Daily Mail, but also MSNBC and the New York Times, is also curious. No one else among the 12+6 listed Fox, the Daily Mail, or MSNBC.)
(And the other takeway for me was a bit of a surprise at how many of the jurors read the NYTimes -- and how few of them watch/read NY1 or listen to WNYC.)
posted by nobody at 5:07 AM on April 20
he new #2 exclusively reads...Twitter and Truth Social
Bet he won't be able to shut up and won't be able to keep from running his mouth off at lunchtime, and ends up getting reported to the judge by the foreperson and getting bounced before deliberations. My over/under would be under 3 weeks.
posted by mikelieman at 5:57 AM on April 20 [1 favorite]
Bet he won't be able to shut up and won't be able to keep from running his mouth off at lunchtime, and ends up getting reported to the judge by the foreperson and getting bounced before deliberations. My over/under would be under 3 weeks.
posted by mikelieman at 5:57 AM on April 20 [1 favorite]
I think we can all agree that Trump is #2.
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:27 AM on April 21
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:27 AM on April 21
#1 -- who will serve as foreperson -- reporting that they get news from Fox News and the Daily Mail, but also MSNBC and the New York Times
Is it too early to say that this person might be a liar?
posted by box at 9:44 AM on April 21 [1 favorite]
Is it too early to say that this person might be a liar?
posted by box at 9:44 AM on April 21 [1 favorite]
And, given that, it's hard to be optimistic about which direction they're lying (or "inflating the truth") in.
posted by trig at 10:35 AM on April 21
posted by trig at 10:35 AM on April 21
Joyce Vance (a former United States Attorney, currently a law professor and a legal analyst for MSNBC and NBC) has some thoughtful perspectives about the jury (sorry, Substack) in her column from Wednesday.
They start about 1/3 of the way down (search for "dynamics" to get to the start of this section). The gist:
I am curious what percentage of MeFites have served on a US jury. (I would expect the percentage to be a bit higher than the US at large, given MeFite civic engagement and perhaps a greater tendency to live in urban areas.) The experience of having done it certainly affected my own perceptions of juries. On the last jury I served on, there was at least one guy, and possibly two or three, who thought it would be no big deal if we couldn't reach a verdict - we did not easily reach a conviction on whether the guy making the death threat was guilty, largely due to state-of-mind questions - but once they were made aware that actually, we were expected to really, really, REALLY try to reach a unanimous verdict, we did, in fact, do so.
Vance's last two paragraphs, based on her years of serving as a US Attorney and her years of observing courts in action, encouraged me to have greater faith in the process and the jury. Of course it's not perfect; of course it may fail, and that would be an outrageous tragedy. But other juries have already found Trump guilty, and have already found many members of Trump's circle guilty. This jury is more likely than not to weigh the evidence honestly and return an honest verdict.
posted by kristi at 11:40 AM on April 21 [9 favorites]
They start about 1/3 of the way down (search for "dynamics" to get to the start of this section). The gist:
You have to have confidence in the process and that 12 ordinary Americans who take an oath will honor it, that they will listen to the evidence and decide the case fairly.Vance acknowledges that Trump supporters in the media are actively soliciting people to get on the jury and vote not guilty, but (a) it's not like people can just volunteer for the gig, and (b) Vance's observation about the results of the deadlock instruction are enlightening (to me at least).
Lest you think that's not possible, remember that Paul Manafort was convicted by a jury that included people who counted themselves among Trump’s base. One of them told reporters afterward that although she supported the then-president, she had listened to the evidence and was persuaded that Manafort was guilty, so she voted to convict.
I am curious what percentage of MeFites have served on a US jury. (I would expect the percentage to be a bit higher than the US at large, given MeFite civic engagement and perhaps a greater tendency to live in urban areas.) The experience of having done it certainly affected my own perceptions of juries. On the last jury I served on, there was at least one guy, and possibly two or three, who thought it would be no big deal if we couldn't reach a verdict - we did not easily reach a conviction on whether the guy making the death threat was guilty, largely due to state-of-mind questions - but once they were made aware that actually, we were expected to really, really, REALLY try to reach a unanimous verdict, we did, in fact, do so.
Vance's last two paragraphs, based on her years of serving as a US Attorney and her years of observing courts in action, encouraged me to have greater faith in the process and the jury. Of course it's not perfect; of course it may fail, and that would be an outrageous tragedy. But other juries have already found Trump guilty, and have already found many members of Trump's circle guilty. This jury is more likely than not to weigh the evidence honestly and return an honest verdict.
posted by kristi at 11:40 AM on April 21 [9 favorites]
I am curious what percentage of MeFites have served on a US jury. (I would expect the percentage to be a bit higher than the US at large, given MeFite civic engagement and perhaps a greater tendency to live in urban areas.)
I've lived in urban areas for 30 years and haven't once been called for jury duty. I'm convinced it's somehow related to me being a smart-ass in my junior-year Civics class and repeating the old joke (Carlin maybe?) about being judged by twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty. And of course now I'm older and wiser and actually would quite like to be on a jury, but the curse still follows me.
You have to have confidence in the process and that 12 ordinary Americans who take an oath will honor it, that they will listen to the evidence and decide the case fairly.
I know enough about the process to understand that it's deeply flawed, in many critical and unfixable ways, and yet somehow we do see justice done in trials by jury reasonably often, despite what seems to be a mountain of ways for things to go wrong. Here's hoping this is one of those times where the justice system prevails despite itself.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 12:20 PM on April 21
I've lived in urban areas for 30 years and haven't once been called for jury duty. I'm convinced it's somehow related to me being a smart-ass in my junior-year Civics class and repeating the old joke (Carlin maybe?) about being judged by twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty. And of course now I'm older and wiser and actually would quite like to be on a jury, but the curse still follows me.
You have to have confidence in the process and that 12 ordinary Americans who take an oath will honor it, that they will listen to the evidence and decide the case fairly.
I know enough about the process to understand that it's deeply flawed, in many critical and unfixable ways, and yet somehow we do see justice done in trials by jury reasonably often, despite what seems to be a mountain of ways for things to go wrong. Here's hoping this is one of those times where the justice system prevails despite itself.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 12:20 PM on April 21
I was reminded that while Jurors are individual, a JURY is a collective. It is a powerful collective, easily offended and very protective of The Court and their privileges. ("What time does the Judge give us lunch and what are we getting?" is a very powerful reinforcement mechanism whose importance shouldn't be discounted)
And their collective begins when they are sworn in, maybe even jury selection. But when sworn in, They're officially part of the judicial system as an entity.
In fact, the most important part of the judicial system as evidenced by the respect and deference shown by everyone in the courtroom. Their Judge, Attorneys, Bailiffs, Witnesses, Observers. Everyone EXCEPT Rapist Donald J. Trump.
And the collective Jury is likely already offended by his behavior. And nobody's going to tell Rapist Donald J. Trump how he's going to Rapist Donald J. Trump.
I would like to think that any individual biases will be subverted by this collective, and that the Jury will end up being fair. In which case, Rapist Donald J. Trump becomes Convicted Felon and Rapist Donald J. Trump, loses his right to vote, many cakes are baked and consumed, and we wait for the next 3 criminal trials to wend their way through the system.
posted by mikelieman at 12:44 PM on April 21 [5 favorites]
And their collective begins when they are sworn in, maybe even jury selection. But when sworn in, They're officially part of the judicial system as an entity.
In fact, the most important part of the judicial system as evidenced by the respect and deference shown by everyone in the courtroom. Their Judge, Attorneys, Bailiffs, Witnesses, Observers. Everyone EXCEPT Rapist Donald J. Trump.
And the collective Jury is likely already offended by his behavior. And nobody's going to tell Rapist Donald J. Trump how he's going to Rapist Donald J. Trump.
I would like to think that any individual biases will be subverted by this collective, and that the Jury will end up being fair. In which case, Rapist Donald J. Trump becomes Convicted Felon and Rapist Donald J. Trump, loses his right to vote, many cakes are baked and consumed, and we wait for the next 3 criminal trials to wend their way through the system.
posted by mikelieman at 12:44 PM on April 21 [5 favorites]
To summarize:
The jury is the most important entity in the courtroom, and mental processes of the defendant, Rapist Donald J. Trump, cannot allow anyone else in the room to be more important than him.
And so, Rapist Donald J. Trump will be Rapist Donald J. Trump even more trying to get the spotlight.
Hopefully, what he's going to get is "found guilty on all counts".
Thank you for listening. I will not be taking any questions. Good night!
posted by mikelieman at 12:51 PM on April 21 [5 favorites]
The jury is the most important entity in the courtroom, and mental processes of the defendant, Rapist Donald J. Trump, cannot allow anyone else in the room to be more important than him.
And so, Rapist Donald J. Trump will be Rapist Donald J. Trump even more trying to get the spotlight.
Hopefully, what he's going to get is "found guilty on all counts".
Thank you for listening. I will not be taking any questions. Good night!
posted by mikelieman at 12:51 PM on April 21 [5 favorites]
I've lived in urban areas for 30 years and haven't once been called for jury duty.
I must be some sort of jury magnet then. I've been summoned for jury service at least 8 times, both state and (once) federally. I've been summoned for jury service twice in 4 months (state and federal at the same time). The jury I did serve on was for a trial that lasted something like 12 weeks. It was Not Great.
I don't know anybody else that gets summoned nearly as much as I do and I don't know why.
In any case, I think the odds are 50/50 for a conviction vs mistrial in the Trump case. Maybe even 60/40 for conviction. But in the case of a felony conviction I think the odds of that conviction being vacated by the SC under the rubric of it being a misapplication of the statute are 90%.
posted by Justinian at 1:47 PM on April 21
I must be some sort of jury magnet then. I've been summoned for jury service at least 8 times, both state and (once) federally. I've been summoned for jury service twice in 4 months (state and federal at the same time). The jury I did serve on was for a trial that lasted something like 12 weeks. It was Not Great.
I don't know anybody else that gets summoned nearly as much as I do and I don't know why.
In any case, I think the odds are 50/50 for a conviction vs mistrial in the Trump case. Maybe even 60/40 for conviction. But in the case of a felony conviction I think the odds of that conviction being vacated by the SC under the rubric of it being a misapplication of the statute are 90%.
posted by Justinian at 1:47 PM on April 21
I've been summoned for jury service at least 8 times
Luxury! I was called to jury duty 22 times in a 20 year period (20 local, 2 federal). The trick was, I was working for a school district and the school district always gives employees jury duty leave. So, district employees are ready-to-go jury fodder and the city knows that.
Out of 22 juries duty, I only got as far as the voir dire twice, excused both times.
Bonus! I'm retired now and it used to be the rule that one could be excused from jury duty after the age of 70. Not any more! It's only a matter of time until I get called to totter in one more time.
posted by SPrintF at 3:09 PM on April 21 [3 favorites]
Luxury! I was called to jury duty 22 times in a 20 year period (20 local, 2 federal). The trick was, I was working for a school district and the school district always gives employees jury duty leave. So, district employees are ready-to-go jury fodder and the city knows that.
Out of 22 juries duty, I only got as far as the voir dire twice, excused both times.
Bonus! I'm retired now and it used to be the rule that one could be excused from jury duty after the age of 70. Not any more! It's only a matter of time until I get called to totter in one more time.
posted by SPrintF at 3:09 PM on April 21 [3 favorites]
Long ago, I used to work on a system that in my country is part of the jury selection process.
We would sometimes hear complains that people had been selected only a few months apart, or whatever.
The thing is: it was a genuinely random selection. And when things are genuinely random, they are not evenly allocated. There are (random) clusters. Quite likely there nothing special that keeps you from being selected, or gets you selected almost every year: if there is a big pool of candidates, some people are going to be at the ends of the bell curve, and you could be one of them.
Except for Juries Georg, who is an outlier and should not have been counted.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 4:15 PM on April 21 [3 favorites]
We would sometimes hear complains that people had been selected only a few months apart, or whatever.
The thing is: it was a genuinely random selection. And when things are genuinely random, they are not evenly allocated. There are (random) clusters. Quite likely there nothing special that keeps you from being selected, or gets you selected almost every year: if there is a big pool of candidates, some people are going to be at the ends of the bell curve, and you could be one of them.
Except for Juries Georg, who is an outlier and should not have been counted.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 4:15 PM on April 21 [3 favorites]
I'd forgotten about cakes.
I don't usually make cakes, but this might be a good occasion.
Maybe just buy a carrot cake slice or two...
I've been on one jury, and been in a few pools. My feeling is that overwhelmingly, but not entirely, jurors are serious about doing the job right.
posted by MtDewd at 4:18 PM on April 21
I don't usually make cakes, but this might be a good occasion.
Maybe just buy a carrot cake slice or two...
I've been on one jury, and been in a few pools. My feeling is that overwhelmingly, but not entirely, jurors are serious about doing the job right.
posted by MtDewd at 4:18 PM on April 21
But in the case of a felony conviction I think the odds of that conviction being vacated by the SC under the rubric of it being a misapplication of the statute are 90%.
It's a NY state case, so it's in the Supreme Court now. Who the hell does that? Names normal trial courts "Supreme Court" so you appeal from the Supreme Court to the courts that are higher than Supreme. [sadsebvettel] Honestly. [/sadsebvettel]
It's certainly possible a conviction could get reversed on appeal but it would be the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court or the NY Court of Appeals which is the apex court for NY. But it would not being going to that other Supreme Court and its nefarious fuckwits unless someone found/made up a federal issue.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:37 PM on April 21 [4 favorites]
It's a NY state case, so it's in the Supreme Court now. Who the hell does that? Names normal trial courts "Supreme Court" so you appeal from the Supreme Court to the courts that are higher than Supreme. [sadsebvettel] Honestly. [/sadsebvettel]
It's certainly possible a conviction could get reversed on appeal but it would be the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court or the NY Court of Appeals which is the apex court for NY. But it would not being going to that other Supreme Court and its nefarious fuckwits unless someone found/made up a federal issue.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:37 PM on April 21 [4 favorites]
I was dismissed from a jury for being on MetaFilter….
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:28 PM on April 21 [10 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:28 PM on April 21 [10 favorites]
But it would not being going to that other Supreme Court and its nefarious fuckwits unless someone found/made up a federal issue.
That's exactly what I'm proposing. I know these are state charges but I expect the SC to wiggle their way into finding a procedural issue on which they can hang their hats if a conviction does result. One might think that's inappropriate but they don't need a rationale beyond "6-3 fuck you".
posted by Justinian at 10:21 PM on April 21
That's exactly what I'm proposing. I know these are state charges but I expect the SC to wiggle their way into finding a procedural issue on which they can hang their hats if a conviction does result. One might think that's inappropriate but they don't need a rationale beyond "6-3 fuck you".
posted by Justinian at 10:21 PM on April 21
I was dismissed from a jury for being on MetaFilter
Please please tell this story.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:01 AM on April 22 [5 favorites]
Please please tell this story.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:01 AM on April 22 [5 favorites]
It’s not all that interesting. During jury selection, I admitted that a lot of my views on issues surrounding the trial were developed by participation here, rather than regular news venues. The judge asked if I could stay off the site during the trial, and I replied something like “I guess so; I certainly wouldn’t discuss anything relating to the trial there anyway,” but maybe that wasn’t good enough? So not a fun story, really, like if I’d gotten into it with one of the lawyers over the pronunciation of MeFite….
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:12 AM on April 22 [9 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:12 AM on April 22 [9 favorites]
Hush-Money Election-Fraud Trial Live Updates: CNN, NYT, WaPo
posted by box at 9:03 AM on April 22 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 9:03 AM on April 22 [2 favorites]
Just Security has a lengthy, annotated timeline (via Jay Kuo's Status Kuo column). Just on a quick skim, I hadn't realized the case includes suppressing the doorman's story about Trump having fathered another child (which I had largely forgotten about).
There's SO MUCH in all of these scandals. It's way too much for me to keep track of.
posted by kristi at 3:46 PM on April 22 [4 favorites]
There's SO MUCH in all of these scandals. It's way too much for me to keep track of.
posted by kristi at 3:46 PM on April 22 [4 favorites]
Monday's full transcript has now been posted (as an image-pdf, without searchable text), in case anyone's curious.
posted by nobody at 6:30 PM on April 23 [3 favorites]
posted by nobody at 6:30 PM on April 23 [3 favorites]
Apparently Cheeto Benito doesn't like the courtroom sketches of him. I guess it would be mean to post them.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:11 PM on April 23 [3 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 7:11 PM on April 23 [3 favorites]
Oops.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:11 PM on April 23 [2 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 7:11 PM on April 23 [2 favorites]
I've been on one jury, and been in a few pools. My feeling is that overwhelmingly, but not entirely, jurors are serious about doing the job right.
I've been on three or four juries ranging from murder to a single-car no-fatalities drunk-driving case where a guy drove 50 feet into a church. My experience is that the jurors' seriousness generally correlates with the seriousness of the charge.
Not guilty [!] on the drunk-driving case, guilty of second-degree murder.
The arresting officer in the drunk-driving case kept turning his body cam off and on (maybe incompetence but still), didn't do a breathalyzer test, and testified that the symptoms of being drunk are very similar to the symptoms of shock, like you had just been in a car accident.
Two guys got into an argument, the defendant got something from his car, and shot and killed the victim. We generally believed he went to the car to get a gun, but we didn't know that. If we did, first-degree murder.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:23 PM on April 23
I've been on three or four juries ranging from murder to a single-car no-fatalities drunk-driving case where a guy drove 50 feet into a church. My experience is that the jurors' seriousness generally correlates with the seriousness of the charge.
Not guilty [!] on the drunk-driving case, guilty of second-degree murder.
The arresting officer in the drunk-driving case kept turning his body cam off and on (maybe incompetence but still), didn't do a breathalyzer test, and testified that the symptoms of being drunk are very similar to the symptoms of shock, like you had just been in a car accident.
Two guys got into an argument, the defendant got something from his car, and shot and killed the victim. We generally believed he went to the car to get a gun, but we didn't know that. If we did, first-degree murder.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:23 PM on April 23
I just finished reading the transcript, and came here to post a link myself, only to see that nobody had already linked to the pdf.
Some other links of interest:
Some other links of interest:
- Transcripts this is the directory that containds the pdf above, and where I assume more transcripts will follow as the trial proceeds.
- Evidence contains subfolders for each trial date. So far these appear to be empty.
- People v Donald J Trump (Criminal) contains text of motions, decisions, orders, notices, etc related to the trial.
I'm a bit late joining this thread - but wanted to share Karen Friedman Agnifilo's day 6 analysis as delivered from a moving train.
posted by rongorongo at 10:17 PM on April 23
posted by rongorongo at 10:17 PM on April 23
There's SO MUCH in all of these scandals. It's way too much for me to keep track of.
If you want to spend an amazing hour, Karen McDougal's interview on CNN from 6 years ago would be a great choice. And you'll realize that -- while David Pecker's overview was great -- the story of hers that David Pecker bought (and got stiffed by Rapist Donald Trump) is going to blow the Jury's mind.
posted by mikelieman at 4:34 AM on April 24 [2 favorites]
If you want to spend an amazing hour, Karen McDougal's interview on CNN from 6 years ago would be a great choice. And you'll realize that -- while David Pecker's overview was great -- the story of hers that David Pecker bought (and got stiffed by Rapist Donald Trump) is going to blow the Jury's mind.
posted by mikelieman at 4:34 AM on April 24 [2 favorites]
Romney: I think everybody has made their own assessment of President Trump's character, and so far as I know you don't pay someone $130,000 not to have sex with you.
Maybe Trump can fundraise on this. I did pay her $130000 and did not have sex with her. Send me $5000 and I will not have sex with you.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:00 AM on April 24 [5 favorites]
Maybe Trump can fundraise on this. I did pay her $130000 and did not have sex with her. Send me $5000 and I will not have sex with you.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:00 AM on April 24 [5 favorites]
Former National Enquirer publisher and owner David Pecker testified that the tabloid's arrangement with Trump was campaign-related.
WaPo: Pecker told the jury "that coverup efforts he assisted in were designed to protect the then-candidate’s 2016 campaign, not his family. Pecker said he agreed to promote Trump to help him get elected, which in turn would keep him newsworthy and selling copies of the Enquirer [...] The Enquirer even did a poll of its readers in 2015 asking whether Trump should run for president, and 'the research showed that 80 percent of the readership of the National Enquirer would want Mr. Trump to run for president,' Pecker said. He said he passed that information on to Trump as he was deciding whether to run.
"Pecker said he has worked with Donald Trump as far back as 1998, even before he took over the tabloid publication. Pecker continued to work his 'mutually beneficial relationship' with Trump in the early 2000s. He said Trump provided him content about the TV show 'The Apprentice,' such as news about its ratings and access to participants, and Pecker would 'provide information' to Trump about potentially negative stories.
"On Oct. 25, 2019, Pecker and his company, American Media Inc., signed a letter in which Pecker agreed to meet with state prosecutors and speak truthfully about his meetings with Trump and lawyer Michael Cohen, and any transactions the company had with Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels. Pecker also agreed to testify before the state grand jury, said he did so, and formally received immunity from prosecution for violating campaign finance laws. In 2021, the company entered into a 'conciliation' agreement with the federal government acknowledging that it had broken campaign finance laws, Pecker said."
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:22 PM on April 25 [11 favorites]
WaPo: Pecker told the jury "that coverup efforts he assisted in were designed to protect the then-candidate’s 2016 campaign, not his family. Pecker said he agreed to promote Trump to help him get elected, which in turn would keep him newsworthy and selling copies of the Enquirer [...] The Enquirer even did a poll of its readers in 2015 asking whether Trump should run for president, and 'the research showed that 80 percent of the readership of the National Enquirer would want Mr. Trump to run for president,' Pecker said. He said he passed that information on to Trump as he was deciding whether to run.
"Pecker said he has worked with Donald Trump as far back as 1998, even before he took over the tabloid publication. Pecker continued to work his 'mutually beneficial relationship' with Trump in the early 2000s. He said Trump provided him content about the TV show 'The Apprentice,' such as news about its ratings and access to participants, and Pecker would 'provide information' to Trump about potentially negative stories.
"On Oct. 25, 2019, Pecker and his company, American Media Inc., signed a letter in which Pecker agreed to meet with state prosecutors and speak truthfully about his meetings with Trump and lawyer Michael Cohen, and any transactions the company had with Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels. Pecker also agreed to testify before the state grand jury, said he did so, and formally received immunity from prosecution for violating campaign finance laws. In 2021, the company entered into a 'conciliation' agreement with the federal government acknowledging that it had broken campaign finance laws, Pecker said."
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:22 PM on April 25 [11 favorites]
I just realized how much Pecker looks like Sonny Bono.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:27 AM on April 26
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:27 AM on April 26
Famously, Rapist Donald J. Trump always denies knowing women who accuse him.
Today Rhona Graff, his longtime executive assistant, showed the jury under oath the Outlook Address Book entries for Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.
posted by mikelieman at 4:16 PM on April 26 [6 favorites]
Today Rhona Graff, his longtime executive assistant, showed the jury under oath the Outlook Address Book entries for Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.
posted by mikelieman at 4:16 PM on April 26 [6 favorites]
« Older Readers are needy creatures, Morrison’s letters... | 27 small press books to support a less corporate... Newer »
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:36 PM on April 14 [5 favorites]