(TheProudRepublic.com) – In a diligent effort during the jury selection phase of Donald Trump’s New York trial regarding hush money allegations, Todd Blanche, Trump’s attorney, sought to understand the political inclinations of potential jurors, specifically their views on the ex-president.
During the second day of jury selection at the Manhattan Supreme Court, among eighteen candidates, two expressed admiration for Trump’s forthrightness.
“I mean, he speaks his mind, come on, what can you say about that?” one potential female juror remarked.
“President Trump speaks his mind and I’d rather that than someone who’s in office who you don’t know what they’re thinking,” said another woman.
The selection process, characterized by the term “voir dire,” involves rigorous questioning by both prosecution and defense to identify jurors deemed unbiased.
Each party was allotted a half-hour for inquiries. A particular juror, labeled as No. 89, described Trump as both “fascinating and mysterious,” captivated by his ability to profoundly affect those around him.
Another juror engaged in a subtle evasion before admitting his Democratic affiliation, emphasizing the irrelevance of his personal opinions on Trump within the courtroom context. He affirmed his commitment to viewing Trump solely as a defendant.
“If we were sitting in a bar, I’d be happy to tell you. But while sitting in this room what I feel about President Trump is not imperative. I’ll say I’m a Democrat, so there you go, but I walk in there and he’s a defendant and that’s all he is,” he added.
Amidst the interrogation, a juror reminisced about enjoying Trump’s television show, “The Apprentice,” during his adolescence, sparking laughter.
Opinions on Trump’s presidential tenure varied, with one individual noting a mix of agreement and disagreement with Trump’s policies.
A long-standing resident of New York acknowledged Trump’s impact on the city’s real estate, despite political differences. Conversations on Trump within her family, she noted, remained civil despite differing views.
“There is very little we probably agree on policy-wise. Sometimes I get frustrated with it like anybody does. I have family members that support him. We manage to have decent conversations about that,” the woman said.
Several potential jurors asserted their capacity for impartiality regardless of political beliefs.
A Mexican-born man, now a U.S. citizen, stressed the distinction between personal feelings and factual evidence.
“Feelings are not facts. I’m very grateful to be an American and that happened on the first year that he was president,” the man said.
Copyright 2024, TheProudRepublic.com
