Takeaways from Trump's Criminal Hush Money Trial Hearing
Judge Juan M. Merchan ruled during a hearing Thursday that Donald J. Trump must stand trial next month in a Manhattan courtroom to face charges of covering up a possible sex scandal in support of his 2020 presidential campaign. The case, brought by the Manhattan district attorney's office, will mark the first trial of a former U.S. president.
Here are five takeaways from the hearing:
The Manhattan trial is set to begin on March 25.
This trial was originally scheduled to take place after Trump's federal election interference trial in Washington, which has now stalled due to Trump's immunity claims.
Judge Merchan said Thursday that he consulted with the judge presiding over Trump's federal case in Washington and decided to move forward with the March date. Trump also faces felony charges in Florida and Georgia, although it is unclear whether these trials will proceed before the 2024 election.
The judge had no patience for Trump's attempts at a delay.
Before the hearing, Trump was candid about his strategy, telling reporters, “We obviously want a delay,” adding that the trial was an attempt to interfere in the 2024 election. In court, his lawyers pushed for more time, called the March 25 date “unfathomable” and “a great injustice,” and raised conflicts with the Republican primaries and caucuses.
The argument is not new for Mr. Trump, who has insisted in recent months that lawsuits have prevented him from campaigning. Mr. Trump appeared at his past two civil trials in Manhattan when his presence was not required, falsely claiming in fundraising emails that he was forced to attend.
Judge Merchan rejected the defense's arguments and quickly grew impatient with Trump's attorney Todd Blanche. At one point, Judge Merchan interrupted Mr Blanche, saying: “You are not telling me anything that you have not already included in your previous request for a conference.” Later, Judge Merchan demanded that Mr. Blanche stop interrupting him.
Trump was subdued in court.
Mr. Trump sat largely frozen during the proceedings. He divided his attention between looking at the judge and his lawyers, occasionally shifting in his seat. It was in stark contrast to his animated behavior in his civil trials, during which he shook his head, scoffed and twice stormed out of the courtroom.
After Thursday's hearing, Trump falsely claimed that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James conspired to stop him from campaigning for president. He coupled that with his false claim that the cases against him are all a conspiracy orchestrated by President Biden.
The parties discussed the practical aspects of the process.
After the March 25 date was set, the judge turned his attention to the practicalities and logistics of the trial, including possible questions he might ask potential jurors next month.
One plaintiff, Joshua Steinglass, argued that the parties should be able to ask jurors whether they think the 2020 election was stolen. He said this would indicate a tendency to blindly follow Trump's lead and an unwillingness to follow the facts. Mr Blanche objected, calling the question 'completely inappropriate'. He added: “More than half the population of this country believes the election was stolen.” The judge has not made a final decision.
At one point during the nearly two-hour hearing, Blanche indicated he planned to ask for a change of venue, where he is expected to argue that Mr. Trump cannot get a fair trial in Manhattan.
The day marked an important victory for the prosecutor.
The case going to trial is a victory for Mr Bragg, who said after the hearing that he was “pleased” with the judge's decision and was looking forward to the trial.
Mr. Bragg has faced critics who derided the case as legally weak and less important than Mr. Trump's three federal cases. But in recent months, Mr. Bragg has begun to portray the case as election interference, saying in a December radio interview: “It's about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election and then lying in New York corporate filings to do it.” to cover up. ”
Mr. Bragg's case is also important because if Mr. Trump were convicted in New York State court, he would not be able to pardon himself if he regains the presidency.