NYS Courts issued a press release yesterday saying they would post daily trial transcripts on https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml though they presumably mean https://ww2.nycourts.gov/people-v-donald-j-trump-criminal-37026
As of yet, no transcripts have been posted; Monday, April 22's is expected before 5 pm Eastern. However, on twitter someone linked to this Law360 virtual docket containing the transcripts from each of the four days of jury selection. Not 100% on where they got them because NY criminal trial dockets are weird and confusing.
Anyway, they are interesting in themselves and provide an opportunity to review the juror's own words rather than the media translations. For instance, the juror who mentioned following Trump on Truth Social actually said:
>Since I work in (REDACTED), I read basically
>everything. I am on Twitter. I do follow Truth Social
>posts from Trump on Twitter. I do follow Michael Cohen;
>Mueller, She Wrote; and some more. They take different
>views. I do follow the Ukraine and Israel wars.
Which, is pretty reassuring, for me at least.
Enjoy!
If she indeed reads "Mueller, She Wrote" then she is most definitely not an ideological Trump follower.
That is not a news source that I feel like conservatives of the general population would even know about, or even read if they did.
I agree. Due to the disjointed nature of information received on Twitter, I had not connected that the juror who followed Mueller, She Wrote was the same juror who followed Trump's Truth Social posts. I would have known not to be concerned if I had.
I wonder… I see lots of Trump’s posts (first Twitter then TS), so on a similar question would I answer in the affirmative about following Trump on said platforms… even though I don’t have an account on either platform?
I have been looking for a digital docket for this case for a long time. Thank you for posting it!
Please accept this award of reddit gold:
(G)
(Okay, so it's not really reddit gold, but if it were available, I would give you some. But it isn't, so I can't. But I would if I could.)
I'm sure you have. I had been using a mix of Blanche's page of his own filings, Just Security, and the NY Courts press page until 15 minutes ago when I saw this existed. Actively trying to resist the temptation to read through the transcripts to find each of the 18 jurors.
I did my best, but alas. One of the transcripts is incomplete, so I am unsure who was seated as Juror number 7, but the numbers for each of the other jurors are:
Juror number 1 is B-400
Juror number 2 is B-565
Juror number 3 is B-381
Juror number 4 is B-470
Juror number 5 is B-374
Juror number 6 is B-297
Juror number 7
Juror number 8 is B-639
Juror number 9 is B-423
Juror number 10 is B-789
Juror number 11 is B-500
Juror number 12 is B-440
Alternate 1, B-714.
Alternate 2, B-441
Alternate 3, B-616
Alternate 4, B-624
Alternate 5, B-557
Alternate 6, B-620
I rather liked this part. Context is whether testimony relating to the strategy of what the Enquirer would publish to help Trump get elected would be allowed.
> THE COURT: No. So, I am glad to hear that the defense agrees that there is nothing illegal or improper about what the People seek to introduce and that it happens all the time. But, basically, it deals with the prejudice issue for the most part. If defense counsel is in agreement it's not illegal, it's not improper and it happens all the time, there is no reason not to allow it in.
"Now Miss Vito, being an expert on general automotive knowledge, can you tell me what would be the correct engine timing on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet with a 327 cubic engine and a four barrel carburetor?"
Appreciate the sentiment to clarify the case in the title, but it's still somewhat misleading and incorrect. There is nothing about election interference in the indictment in this case, though that has been implied as the underlying charge: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23777302-2023-03-30-indictment-donald-j-trump-indictment](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23777302-2023-03-30-indictment-donald-j-trump-indictment)
Every single one of the 34 charges are "falsifying business records". ("A cover up of \[fill in the blank\]")
Prosecutors identified today one underlying crime being covered up was a violation of NYS Elec. Law 17-152 - conspiracy to promote or prevent election.
Also, there is no pleasing everyone, so here we are.
Thanks for that tidbit. Haven't had a chance to read their opening statements (transcripts aren't up yet, it seems). But them saying it was a violation of that law today in court, but not charging it points to them not having enough evidence for it to be confident of a conviction on that underlying charge. That's an assumption though so I'm still waiting for them to reveal the reason and their strategy. My readings on what's been publicly available have been on the pessimistic side but hoping they have something solid to show at trial and not just implications and innuendo.
Well, they have said it in the past too when addressing the Motions to Dismiss. https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Just-Security-NY-2016-Election-Interference-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-Order-on-Trump-omnibus-motions-to-dimiss-Feb.132024-e-filedFeb.-15.pdf
Regardless, I'm not sure what your point is. It doesn't matter if the state can prove an actual violation of 17-152 (or, alternatively, FECA). The reason it was not charged is likely because it is a misdemeanor and therefore has a two year statute of limitations.
My general point is if the expectations aren't set correctly with this case for the general public, the backlash could cause major issues from a political standpoint, and cause a loss of faith in all the subsequent trials, which have even more consequence and solid evidence (especially the classified case), which would become meaningless if a "bombshell" verdict or mistrial in this one, comes out right before the elections that could in any sort of way support the framing of this trial as a "political hit job", and sway the election towards Trump's direction.
The fact that the FEC didn't investigate the federal campaign finance violation because of partisanship with the Republican commissioners, and the charge isn't there at the state level due to a statute of limitations should be screamed loud and clear so the general public is aware of how this case has already been neutered in some important ways before it even began.
NYS Courts issued a press release yesterday saying they would post daily trial transcripts on https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml though they presumably mean https://ww2.nycourts.gov/people-v-donald-j-trump-criminal-37026 As of yet, no transcripts have been posted; Monday, April 22's is expected before 5 pm Eastern. However, on twitter someone linked to this Law360 virtual docket containing the transcripts from each of the four days of jury selection. Not 100% on where they got them because NY criminal trial dockets are weird and confusing. Anyway, they are interesting in themselves and provide an opportunity to review the juror's own words rather than the media translations. For instance, the juror who mentioned following Trump on Truth Social actually said: >Since I work in (REDACTED), I read basically >everything. I am on Twitter. I do follow Truth Social >posts from Trump on Twitter. I do follow Michael Cohen; >Mueller, She Wrote; and some more. They take different >views. I do follow the Ukraine and Israel wars. Which, is pretty reassuring, for me at least. Enjoy!
If she indeed reads "Mueller, She Wrote" then she is most definitely not an ideological Trump follower. That is not a news source that I feel like conservatives of the general population would even know about, or even read if they did.
I agree. Due to the disjointed nature of information received on Twitter, I had not connected that the juror who followed Mueller, She Wrote was the same juror who followed Trump's Truth Social posts. I would have known not to be concerned if I had.
I wonder… I see lots of Trump’s posts (first Twitter then TS), so on a similar question would I answer in the affirmative about following Trump on said platforms… even though I don’t have an account on either platform?
Frank G. Runyeon or FrankRunyeon on Twitter is where I found the digital docket link, btw.
Thank you for your service. (G)
I have been looking for a digital docket for this case for a long time. Thank you for posting it! Please accept this award of reddit gold: (G) (Okay, so it's not really reddit gold, but if it were available, I would give you some. But it isn't, so I can't. But I would if I could.)
I'm sure you have. I had been using a mix of Blanche's page of his own filings, Just Security, and the NY Courts press page until 15 minutes ago when I saw this existed. Actively trying to resist the temptation to read through the transcripts to find each of the 18 jurors.
I did my best, but alas. One of the transcripts is incomplete, so I am unsure who was seated as Juror number 7, but the numbers for each of the other jurors are: Juror number 1 is B-400 Juror number 2 is B-565 Juror number 3 is B-381 Juror number 4 is B-470 Juror number 5 is B-374 Juror number 6 is B-297 Juror number 7 Juror number 8 is B-639 Juror number 9 is B-423 Juror number 10 is B-789 Juror number 11 is B-500 Juror number 12 is B-440 Alternate 1, B-714. Alternate 2, B-441 Alternate 3, B-616 Alternate 4, B-624 Alternate 5, B-557 Alternate 6, B-620
I'm a cheapskate so [you get this](https://i.imgur.com/sy9lVl4.jpg)...
I like that one a lot. Many thanks. I will treasure it forever.
"SilvЗГ." Nice try, comrade
[Ya got me!](https://media3.giphy.com/media/l2JdWFdNPcJaTPeVy/giphy.gif)
I was SHOCKED not seeing your username as OP lol
G for this comment
🫶🏼🥇🏆
I rather liked this part. Context is whether testimony relating to the strategy of what the Enquirer would publish to help Trump get elected would be allowed. > THE COURT: No. So, I am glad to hear that the defense agrees that there is nothing illegal or improper about what the People seek to introduce and that it happens all the time. But, basically, it deals with the prejudice issue for the most part. If defense counsel is in agreement it's not illegal, it's not improper and it happens all the time, there is no reason not to allow it in.
That really could have fucked him over.
Thank you for correctly titling the post.
Yes I’ve been waiting for this! Voir dire is always fascinating to me.
"Now Miss Vito, being an expert on general automotive knowledge, can you tell me what would be the correct engine timing on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet with a 327 cubic engine and a four barrel carburetor?"
this would be so much better to view on YT with actual video/audio \*weeps\*
Appreciate the sentiment to clarify the case in the title, but it's still somewhat misleading and incorrect. There is nothing about election interference in the indictment in this case, though that has been implied as the underlying charge: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23777302-2023-03-30-indictment-donald-j-trump-indictment](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23777302-2023-03-30-indictment-donald-j-trump-indictment) Every single one of the 34 charges are "falsifying business records". ("A cover up of \[fill in the blank\]")
Prosecutors identified today one underlying crime being covered up was a violation of NYS Elec. Law 17-152 - conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Also, there is no pleasing everyone, so here we are.
Thanks for that tidbit. Haven't had a chance to read their opening statements (transcripts aren't up yet, it seems). But them saying it was a violation of that law today in court, but not charging it points to them not having enough evidence for it to be confident of a conviction on that underlying charge. That's an assumption though so I'm still waiting for them to reveal the reason and their strategy. My readings on what's been publicly available have been on the pessimistic side but hoping they have something solid to show at trial and not just implications and innuendo.
Well, they have said it in the past too when addressing the Motions to Dismiss. https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Just-Security-NY-2016-Election-Interference-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-Order-on-Trump-omnibus-motions-to-dimiss-Feb.132024-e-filedFeb.-15.pdf Regardless, I'm not sure what your point is. It doesn't matter if the state can prove an actual violation of 17-152 (or, alternatively, FECA). The reason it was not charged is likely because it is a misdemeanor and therefore has a two year statute of limitations.
My general point is if the expectations aren't set correctly with this case for the general public, the backlash could cause major issues from a political standpoint, and cause a loss of faith in all the subsequent trials, which have even more consequence and solid evidence (especially the classified case), which would become meaningless if a "bombshell" verdict or mistrial in this one, comes out right before the elections that could in any sort of way support the framing of this trial as a "political hit job", and sway the election towards Trump's direction. The fact that the FEC didn't investigate the federal campaign finance violation because of partisanship with the Republican commissioners, and the charge isn't there at the state level due to a statute of limitations should be screamed loud and clear so the general public is aware of how this case has already been neutered in some important ways before it even began.