Opening statements are set to begin today for Donald Trump’s New York-based criminal trial, which focuses on his efforts to hide “hush money” payments to women with whom he allegedly had extramarital affairs ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Such payments are not themselves inherently illegal, but the methods Trump used to ensure they’d never go public could be deemed as such by a jury of his peers. Trump, for example, reportedly paid adult film actor Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about their affair, ordering his then-“fixer” lawyer Michael Cohen to make the payments himself. Cohen then was reimbursed through payments made by the Trump Organization, which labeled them as being for legal services he provided.
In New York, it is against the law to disguise payments like these by misrepresenting business expenses. Additionally, Trump’s attempt to hide these payments could be considered an illegal concealing of campaign expenditures, as they were made to enhance his chances of winning the election.
On Friday, the final set of jurors, including alternates, were selected for the trial. For many observers, the selection of jurors went faster than anticipated, although not impossibly fast, as some had predicted it would take between one to two weeks to complete.
For Trump, the selection of jurors was too quick.
Trump spent much of the week complaining that his lawyers weren’t allowed “unlimited” strikes to block potential jurors they didn’t like from being able to serve, despite state law clearly setting the standard at 10 strikes for both prosecutors and the defense. Trump also claimed, without real evidence, that Judge Juan Merchan was “rushing” the trial to do “everything he can for the Democrats.”
Despite the right to a speedy trial being a celebrated constitutional right, Trump’s legal team has tried (and failed) numerous times to delay the start of the trial. Those efforts continued even on Friday, after the jurors were picked, with a filing to an appellate court echoing Trump’s claims of a rushed jury selection process. Minutes after that request was filed, it was denied by appellate court Justice Marsha Michael.
Merchan himself addressed the continued attempts to delay the trial, belittling Trump’s lawyers for their strategy of trying to delay it rather than accepting that it is indeed going to move forward this week.
“At some point, you need to accept the court’s rulings,” Merchan said. “There’s nothing else to clarify. There’s nothing else to reargue. We’re going to have opening statements on Monday morning. This trial is starting.”
Trump’s attempts to delay the trial may not be justified, but the strategy is understandable, as polling suggests the more the American people hear about it, the less they like what they’re hearing about him.
Despite it being on news reports daily, an Economist/YouGov poll published last week found that a majority of respondents from across the country haven’t been paying much attention to the trial, with 43 percent saying they’ve only heard “a little” about it and nearly one in five (18 percent) saying they haven’t heard anything at all. Just 39 percent said they’ve heard “a lot” about the trial so far.
Voters intending to back Trump in the 2024 election for president tended to have higher rates of ignorance surrounding the trial, while those intending to vote for Biden had higher levels of knowledge about it.
A majority in the poll, 52 percent, said the charges against Trump are serious or at least somewhat serious. In a separate question on his possible guilt in the case, a plurality, 43 percent, said Trump should be convicted, versus 37 percent who said he shouldn’t be and 20 percent who said they weren’t sure.
Trump is the first ex-president in U.S. history to face a criminal trial following his departure from office. He faces three other indictments in other jurisdictions — one other state-based case in Georgia, regarding his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in that state, and two federal cases, one involving his improper retention of classified documents and the other, too, regarding his attempts to usurp his election loss to Biden through illegally manipulating the Electoral College and other actions.
A conviction in the New York hush money trial or any of the other three Trump is facing would be detrimental to his prospects of winning the White House. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll in February showed that Trump and Biden are in a statistical tie when it comes to whom voters prefer. Yet, if Trump is convicted in any of the four cases he’s facing, Biden takes the lead, defeating Trump nationally by 6 points.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy