Prosecutors may cross-examine Donald Trump, who says the crown witness is lying

AD

Judge Juan Merchan heard opening statements from both sides and ruled that prosecutors could ask the former president direct questions before the jury on six counts.

Trump has previously stated several times that he would testify, but this would be a very rare move by a defendant who, according to the Constitution, is not required to take a stand in his own case or answer any questions. It is also a rule that the jurors cannot put the burden on him if he does not defend himself, i.e. silence should not be treated as if it supports (admits) guilt.

The first witness on Monday was magazine publisher David Pecker, who was unable to finish his testimony, which he is due to continue today. The expected protagonist of the lawsuit this week will be Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer, who in principle knows all the details about the dubious payments that are the subject of the lawsuit, the so-called ‘hush money’. Cohen pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2018, for which he was sentenced to three years in prison.

Prosecutors argued that Cohen’s payments were part of a broader scheme to deflect negative coverage of Trump before the 2016 election.

After Monday’s hearing, Trump predicted that Chohen was lying about the case and his role in it. “When are they going to review all the lies that Cohen told in the last trial. They got caught lying. An outright lie. And when will this be investigated?”

He said this despite the judge previously barring him from publicly attacking witnesses, jurors or others during the trial, including prosecutors and himself.

The antecedents

In this one (bribery) trial alone, 34 charges were brought against Trump, which could result in 34 x 4 years in prison in the worst possible case. (The probability of such a punishment is very low.)

Legal experts have already indicated that it will be a difficult and lengthy process to select an impartial jury from the extremely colorful and politically active population of New York. In the end, 12 jurors and six alternates were selected from 196 residents, who will declare innocence or guilt in the first criminal trial against Donald Trump.

Based on the decision of the jurors, the judge can impose a penalty or decide on the acquittal of the accused, but he cannot issue a verdict contrary to the decision of the jury. However, during the process, i.e. before the decision of the jury, you can drop the charge if you find false statements in it, or if the prosecution has hidden relevant information from you.

Dramatic interlude in the middle of jury selection – probably not related to the Trump trial, but a pro-Palestinian demonstration, or the self-destruction of a confused mind

Early Friday afternoon, a certain Max Azzazello (37) doused himself with flammable liquid and set himself on fire in front of the Manhattan Criminal Court building.

The man from Florida with a troubled past tried to draw attention to himself with several conspiracy theories and by filing an abuse lawsuit against President Bill Clinton, with whom he took photos at the time. Your submission was unsuccessful.

One of Azzazello’s social media posts openly supported Hamas and endorsed the hostage-taking of Israeli citizens. So far, there are no signs that his fatal act is connected to Donald Trump’s criminal trial. Presumably, the television presence surrounding the trial built on the high publicity, and several channels broadcast the drama live, while others switched off during the process.

A pro-Palestinian self-destruction also occurred in Washington in February.

The former president himself – with the rhetoric he is known for – considers the Manhattan trial to be part of a political witch hunt, with which they want to destroy his chances of re-election in 2024. In his own political platform and statements, he attacks not only the Democratic administration or President Biden, but also the prosecutor’s office and even Judge Juan Merchan (pictured).

He has been banned and threatened with fines from such influencing actions in the past, but no such punishment has been imposed against him so far.

On Tuesday, however, it may take place, because then the judge will decide on a $3,000 fine.

It took five days to examine the jurors – many did not undertake the dangerous task

Several of the candidates withdrew of their own accord. One of them said that he never dreamed that the procedure would be so psychologically taxing, moreover, it would be dangerous for his private sphere, and what would happen after the verdict, either conviction or acquittal?

AD

53 New Yorkers excused themselves on the first two days of the selection because they admitted that they would not be able to decide “fairly and impartially” about Trump as a person and his actions.

Both the prosecution and the defense were primarily interested in the political motivation of the candidates. Therefore, they were asked what kind of media they used to follow (TV, radio, newspapers, online, social), and they dug up not only their social posts and comments, but also their likes.

Two men were disqualified by the judge because they had deleted or made their social media profiles unavailable on the day of their summons, presumably to hide their political views or feelings.

A subpoena did not jump the bar, saying that he admired Trump both as a businessman and as a politician, because “he walked his own path and wrote a kind of history.”

On the other hand, a woman was included in the panel, according to whom Trump “seems very selfish and self-serving.”

AD

A woman – turning to Trump – apologized to him for the tone of his social posts made years earlier, when he described him as a “racist, sexist narcissist”. He was not selected by the judge. They also disqualified a person who, when the charges were filed, told him on Facebook, “Pin the ear and shut up [Trumpot]”.

On Friday, there was still a risk that it would not be possible to select all 12 members, so another 96 citizens were summoned as ‘drop-ins’ if the candidates ran out. They were kept waiting in the courthouse all day.

Meanwhile, the prosecutors are giving Trump another headache

In Trump’s fraudulent trial in New York, the former president presented a so-called lawsuit insurance policy, without which Attorney General Leticia James could have begun freezing his bank accounts and/or seizing his assets. Trump used this bond to block collection measures at the beginning of April, in the amount of 175 million dollars.

Prosecutors now say that the California-based Knight Specialty Insurance Company – which insured the policy – is not a strong enough company to accept the payment on Trump’s behalf if the lawsuit is lost. According to prosecutors, the bond issuer could not operate in New York and had never done so before.

Prosecutors understand that the company has only $138 million in bondholders’ equity and, under New York state law, cannot assume liabilities that exceed 10 percent of its capital assets.

AD

The review of this submission also begins on Monday, but Trump cannot – physically – take part in it.

The stakes in each lawsuit are huge

There is still a strong debate about whether the impact of multiple criminal trials (New York, Georgia, Washington) could mean that the former president cannot run in the November election. The Supreme Court previously rejected such an effort by the states of Oklahoma and Maine, but its final summary judgment is not expected until early summer at the earliest.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Trump’s immunity. The former president is obliged to appear at this hearing.

According to some experts, Trump’s election is not possible in the event of a final conviction, referring to the 14th amendment to the constitution. Others, on the other hand, claim that a convicted person can win the title, which can later be stripped by Congress. It is almost completely impossible for a final verdict to be reached in any case by November.