New York City is the most difficult place in America to find a fair jury for the former US President’s criminal trial—the first ever for an American president. The case involved allegations that Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen paid $1,30,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to not go public with a story about her sexual encounter with Trump

By Kenneth Tiven

As someone born and raised in the New York City Borough of Queens, you might think he was a local hero, the boy who made good in the real estate business and had a second career in reality television before becoming the 45th president of the United States. However, after over 3,500 civil suits over business deals and a prickly relationship with local media, former US president Donald Trump’s reputation is not great. The reality is that New York City is the least suitable place for a trial based on Trump’s reputation as a builder and landlord, given that the city has the most diversified population in the United States.

Unsurprisingly, the judge dismissed half of the first 100 people selected to be potential jurors based on their claim they could not objectively deal with Trump. The prosecution and defense agreed on seven potential jurors after two days. Jury selection is expected to finish selecting 12 jurors and six alternates by April 23. The combative trial portion is estimated to last six weeks.

As necessary, the possible jury pool is derived from voter registration lists and other government lists. For this case, jurors filled out a 42-page questionnaire while lawyers and consultants swiftly searched social media for any political information or postings they might have made. In the “voir dire” phase, the potential jurors are questioned by judge and lawyers. This is an ancient Anglo-Norman term in common law, meaning “to speak the truth”. Can you be fair and impartial. Because conviction requires unanimous consent, jury selection is critical. Each side looks for the person who will hurt or help their case. “Lose the hurt, keep the helper” is a well-defined process for defense and prosecution.

There are moments of humanity in jury selection: one prospective juror was asked if she knew anyone in the legal field. “I dated a lawyer for a while,” pausing to say, “It ended fine”. There was laughter when one New Yorker answered the question: How do you spend your spare time. “I have no spare time,” he said. 

This Manhattan courtroom is not where Trump wants to be. He appeared to snooze for a bit at one point. In contrast, at a rally, a crowd applauds his every repeated claim and eggs him on; here he must sit quietly as a criminal defendant, having been warned on Day 1 that outbursts of the sort that occurred in recent civil cases would not be tolerated. Outside the courtroom, he waged war on the judge and the entire case, angry that something that had happened in 2006, causing a problem in 2016, was now threatening his election campaign in 2024. 

Trump’s strategy now is to treat each trial day as a campaign event to feed his loyal MAGA people energy. Before entering the courtroom, he told reporters that the trial “should have never been brought”. As he has in the past repeated his belief that Judge Juan Merchan is a “Trump-hating judge”. 

This is Trump, unchanged since 1979. Back then, he was always brash and outspoken in his effort to crack the Manhattan real estate market. His aim was to show up-scale Manhattan that a kid from Queens can beat them at their own game. It’s called Borough Envy in New York, where Manhattan gets all the attention, leaving out the other four boroughs. In 1979, using money from his father’s housing empire in Queens, he spent $15 million to buy and demolish a building on Fifth Avenue, then as today, the “high street” of New York shopping and fashion. Trump Tower stands there today, an audacious move for a 32-year-old real estate beginner.

But he couldn’t leave well enough alone. The building he demolished contained numerous architectural treasures the Metropolitan Museum of Art desired. He promised the museum he would donate them, taking a tax deduction for charity. Instead, he destroyed them all and then, using his nom de plume of John Barron, told the media they were actually worthless. So, from his start, he made it clear he had no respect for rules, regulations, or commitments. To save money on that demolition, he illegally brought in labourers from Poland, underpaying them to avoid the unionized demolition workforce in New York.

This attitude has been a consistent aspect of Trump world. Less familiar is seeing Trump as a criminal defendant, being told to appear at each trial day just like, “any other criminal defendant.” Journalism shorthand describes this case as about “hush money”. However, it is really a case of election interference. In 2016, shortly after the “Access Hollywood” tape in which then-candidate Trump boasted of sexually assaulting women became public, Trump allegedly falsified business records to hide payments to individuals lest his behaviour with women be revealed before the election.

Trump’s lawyer/fixer, Michael Cohen, allegedly paid $1,30,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to not go public with a story about her one-night stand with Trump. He also arranged for a $1,50,000 payment from the publisher of the National Enquirer weekly tabloid newspaper to Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had an affair with Trump. The National Enquirer had exclusive rights to the story, meaning they could decline to publish it and she could not take it elsewhere. This practice is known as “catch-and-kill”. 

Trump falsified business records to reimburse Cohen for “legal expenses related to the Daniel’s payment,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying those records.

This trial vindicates the rule of law. Despite his many attempts to delay it, a former president is facing accountability for his actions just as any American should. New York State, which knows Trump from A to Z, has been a problem for Trump for a long time. At the federal level, Trump’s lawyers and friendly judges have been able to slow down the process issues in multiple cases to avoid anything going to trial before the November election. 

In the New York State case, the prosecution is not trying to save American democracy. The task is to convince a jury that Trump is corrupt. A conviction demonstrates what we rarely experience: No one, not even Donald Trump, is above the law. No matter how this case ends, no matter the appeals process, people on one side or the other will remain adamant that justice was not done. 

—The writer has worked in senior positions at The Washington Post, NBC, ABC and CNN and also consults for several Indian channels

By Kenneth Tiven

The indictment may have surprised ex-president Donald Trump, but only because he expected it towards the end of April. Trump escaped two impeachment trials as president when the necessary two-thirds majority of 100 US senators wouldn’t convict him.

What might happen in a New York court room will depend on a 12 person jury in
a New York criminal trial. March was already a difficult month for Trump as several federal district court rulings forced close associates to answer subpoenas and appear before investigators looking at the cause of the January 6, 2021, insurrection incited by Trump and his team.

Arraignment for the as yet unrevealed indictment is forthcoming, the result of a New York Grand Jury probing an improper $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels in the weeks before the 2016 election. The prosecution claims it was an unreported campaign contribution additionally hidden unlawfully as a business expense.

Republican political leaders reacted with the expected outrage at the case, whose facts previously sent former Trump Layer Michael Cohen to jail for nearly two years.
The New York City prosecution is one of multiple criminal investigations that have engulfed Trump’s post-presidency.

He is also the focus of investigations in Georgia and Washington related to his
efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s election, plus Trump’s handling of classified material at Mar-a-Lago after leaving office. Trump denies any wrongdoing, preferring to claim political witch hunts by Democrats.

Thursday evening, he claimed they have lied, cheated and stolen in their obsession with trying to “Get Trump.” Two federal district court judges dealt serious blows to Trump’s desire to avoid responsibility for the January 6, 2021, insurrection he encouraged.

A ruling that no immunity exists for high officials in behaviour involving possible criminal liability means former vice-president Mike Pence must testify to a federal grand jury about his communications with Trump around the election efforts.

Judge James E Boasberg, just named as chief judge of the Federal District Court in Washington, dismissed separate legal efforts by Pence and Trump lawyers to limit any testimony regarding Trump repeatedly urging Pence to use his ceremonial role in the Congressional certification of Electoral College votes to block Biden’s victory.

Judge Boasberg’s immediate predecessor was Beryl A Howell, who a few days earlier had rejected Trump’s claim of executive privilege to stop his former chief of staff Mark Meadows and other top aides from testifying in the Justice Department probe led by special counsel Jack Smith into classified documents found at Trump’s home in Florida.

In the golfing terms Trump loves to use, these rulings were a triple bogey that may cost him his political quest for the Republican nomination in 2024.

Within 24 hours of the news of impending arraignment, even Trump’s most ardent detractors acknowledged how little ground could be gained by siding against the party’s embattled former president.

“As bad as it was for Trump, it was worse for DeSantis and everyone else,” said Mike Madrid, the Republican strategist and co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project.

“It rallies the base—there’s this rally around the flag effect for Trump. Second, probably most importantly, it just completely sucks the oxygen out of the room.”

Republican leadership insists any indictments will rally supporters for a 2024 election. Democrats suggest a majority of Americans are tired of Trump’s victimization rhetoric. A criminal conviction would not disqualify Trump from running for president or holding the office.

But campaign optics and logistics while navigating a legal case could get complicated. Trump and his advisers are ramping up their fundraising efforts and making the rounds of GOP lawmakers and party leaders, leaving his lawyers to negotiate his surrender to law enforcement and his security detail to coordinate logistics with police. This brings unusual security challenges to the courthouse complex in Lower Manhattan, even as it continues to dominate the political landscape.

Meadows is tangled in multiple other legal issues, but his testimony matters enormously as he was in continuous contact with Trump at the White House as the Capitol siege unfolded. Meadows was at the very centre of Trump’s plans to overturn his presidential election loss, including arranging Trump’s call to the Georgia state voting executive. He threatened him if he could not find the 11,799 votes Trump needed to win Georgia. Concurrently, the special grand jury probe led by the Atlanta area district attorney Fani Willis is expected to request judges to indict Trump.

The House January 6 committee evidence showed that Meadows had advance intelligence about the coming violence. Cassidy Hutchinson, Meadows “aide”, testified in Congress that Meadows told her that Trump, hearing that the insurrectionists were screaming “Hang Mike Pence”, replied that Pence “deserved it”.

Meadows has serious criminal exposure of his own. If he invokes his right to remain silent, the DOJ can decide whether to compel his testimony by granting him immunity. Such grants eliminate a witness’ criminal exposure and therefore his right to remain silent.

We don’t know Judge Howell’s reasoning for compelling Trump advisers to appear before Congressional hearings because her ruling is under seal. But we do know its basis: In two Supreme Court decisions involving Nixon’s 1974’s celebrated “White House tapes” case, the Court held that “the President’s generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”

In a 1977 case involving Nixon after he’d left the White House, the Supreme Court said the incumbent president who succeeded him was “in the best position to assess the present and future needs of the Executive Branch” in deciding whether the privilege applies. Trump’s successor, President Joe Biden, has consistently declined to support Trump’s privilege claims around January 6.

Trump has not been silent on these matters. Last week, a rally in Waco, Texas drew 25,000 people, about half of those turning out two years ago. They heard Trump say: “You put me back in the White House and America will be a free nation once again.” Much of what he said was extremely impolite measured against the nasty language of politics in 2023.

Columnist Charles Blow in The New York Times said: “It’s a formula, and among die-hard Trump fans, it works. But as the charm of the formula fades, it may also prove to be Trump’s Achilles heel. He’s stuck in a backward-facing posture when the country is moving forward. Instead of vision, Trump offers revision… Trump is still exaggerating old accomplishments, re-litigating a lost election and marking enemies for retribution.”

—The writer has worked in senior positions at The Washington
Post, NBC, ABC and CNN and also consults for several Indian
channels.