The marathon task of putting America’s most famous man on trial: Trump ‘grinned’ as he became the first ex-president to stand trial… then watched as nearly all potential jurors were sent home on the historic and chaotic first day of silence money case

The first trial of a former American president did not start with fireworks, angry polemics or theater.

It began with a moment of silent solemnity as 96 potential jurors were sworn in Monday afternoon at Manhattan Criminal Court.

And then half were fired after admitting that there was no way they could prevent their strong feelings about Donald Trump from getting in the way of fair judgment.

Trump, whose breakthrough term in office has given way to a precedent that is destroying his post-presidency, remained grim-faced through much of the proceedings.

“You’re about to take part in a jury trial. The jury trial system is one of the cornerstones of our legal system,” Judge Juan Merchan told the dozens of potential jurors before him.

‘The name of this case is People of the State of New York vs. Donald Trump.’

As he described in broad brushstrokes the basics of the case — that Trump tampered with business records to conceal payments allegedly made to silence ex-lovers ahead of the 2016 election — some jurors craned their necks to to get a view of the blond-haired figure. for them.

Trump stood and turned to look at them as Merchan introduced him and his legal team. The former president smiled through pursed lips as he surveyed the New Yorkers who could hold the fate of the 2024 election in their hands.

Merchan read a list of potential witnesses or other names that could come up at trial, from Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal (two women at the center of the case) to family members like Melania and Don Jr., to former Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen, and officials in his White House such as Reince Priebus.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find a dozen men and women (plus surrogates) who don’t have strong opinions about Trump or the witnesses. Especially in a liberal enclave like Manhattan, where Trump won only 12 percent of the vote in 2020.

In fact, the judge has set a simpler task: finding a dozen people who can put aside their feelings to make a judgment based only on the evidence before them.

Or maybe not.

When he asked the first group of potential jurors if they could be impartial in the case, fifty jurors immediately raised their hands and were excused.

Trump turned and craned his neck to watch them leave courtroom 1530, whispering to his lead attorney Todd Blanche.

In the hallway outside courtroom 1530, one of the departing jurors, a woman in her 30s with short hair, said, “I just couldn’t do it.”

Then it was down to the nitty-gritty of choosing jurors. One by one, they were asked to answer a questionnaire of 42 questions (some in multiple parts).

Sample question: “Have you ever considered yourself a supporter of or belonging to any of the following: (the QAnon movement, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, Boogaloo Boys, Antifa).”

The first few potential jurors revealed just how tough the task will be in Manhattan. One had an MBA, two of the first three mentioned the New York Times as their news source, no one mentioned NewsMax or Fox News.

The third juror, a young woman who enjoys going out and said she gets her news from TikTok and Al Jazeera, was excused after answering Question 34 affirmatively: “Do you have any strong opinions or firm beliefs about former President Donald Trump?” or the fact that he is a current candidate for president would hinder your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?’

Another was excused because his daughter was about to get married in Seattle.

An Upper West Side bookseller outlined his thoughts on the legal system and how it should be applied: “I feel like no one is above the law, whether it’s a former president, a sitting president, or a janitor.”

He was followed by a prosecutor from the rarefied Upper East Side.

Each candidate took about six minutes to go through the list. Trump, who refuses to wear his reading glasses in public, looked at a copy of the questions and followed along.

Sometimes he craned his neck to the right to scrutinize the candidates.

It was a slow process. “We’ll be here until Thanksgiving,” said a wag in the overflow room, 1523, where the events were shown via video link. Two weeks is a more realistic estimate.

And the prospective jurors were not brought into the courtroom until 2:30 p.m.

The day ended without a single jury member making the final list.

The morning was taken up with complex legal arguments over exactly what evidence they could hear and look at.

So they’ll get to know some extraordinary headlines in the National Enquirer about his rivals for the 2016 Republican nomination, like Ted Cruz (and the untrue story that his father was involved in JFK’s assassination) and Marco Rubio (and fabricated stories that he was a drug addict embroiled in a sex scandal).

Prosecutors said this was part of the understanding for a deal struck between the Trump campaign and the magazine’s owners, American Media Inc.

At the heart of the prosecution’s case is a “catch and kill” scheme in which Trump’s allies buy up kiss-and-tell stories and quietly ensure they are never published.

It took effect, they said, and any revelation could hurt his 2016 campaign.

One of those involved was reportedly former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claims she had an affair with Trump for a year, including when his wife Melania was pregnant.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass said the fact that it happened while Melania was pregnant and after their son was born “speaks directly to the extent to which the defendant believes the story could be damaging to his campaign.”

Todd Blanche, for the defense, has withdrawn, saying it contained “unproven allegations.” “It’s literally just lustful without any value,” he said.

Judge Merchan said his earlier ruling stood, allowing McDougal to testify, but would not allow evidence that Trump’s wife was pregnant at the time.

Trump looked stony-faced as he listened intently. Sometimes he whispered to Blanche or glared at the judge.

He spoke only three times and responded when asked if he understood the so-called ‘Parker warnings’ in which he was advised that he has the right to appear in court but could be removed or even imprisoned if he’s disrupting things.

Each time he nodded and said ‘yes’ in a soft voice.