2/ McBrien:

Steinglass begins by intro himself/ co-counsel, launches into same speech we heard before. To q of how jurors should ans these q's he says: "I know this sounds simple & trite, but the ans to that is: the truth."

This isn't referendum on whether you like Trump or not, he says, it's about whether defendant broke law. So far, hewing very closely to his spiel yesterday

He cold calls B555, who says "I can be objective."

B639 now, who has no worries about his objectivity either

3/ McB:

Steinglass says again that this case has generated a fair amount of publicity, (an understatement surely), so he's not looking for a tabula rasa per se, but rather an open mind.

4/ McB:

Now to the juror who said he followed Trump on social media, Steinglass asks whether he still follows him (no), juror clarifies he followed him because it was a news item when he put a tweet out, and because he was the president. But no concerns about being fair & impartial.

"Have you seen him post anything on this case?" asks Steinglass.

"I don't pay much attention to it," says the juror.

5/ McB:

One juror thinks the fact that she spent a year discussing this case with her boss and coworkers, she's worried that she knows to much, and that it will seep in.

Steinglass thanks her for being honest, says that you may think you can put things aside, but you're a human being.

6/ And via Inner City Press (aka PRESS):

Steinglass: Does anyone feel that the defendant is who is he means we're going to have to prove more than for others? How do you feel, juror?
Prospective juror: I could be objective.
Steinglass: Any you?
Prospective juror: Beyond a reasonable doubt

7/ Press:

Former law clerk: I thought about it over lunch, that I discussed the case with my co-workers, I'm afraid it's going to seep in.
Prosecutor Steinglass: Thank you for being honest... The charged crimes run from 2015 to 2017. You will not learn why it's on trial now

8/ McB:

Trump leans an arm on the table as he turns his chair once again to face the jury box. We see him in profile on the video feed.

The witnesses in this case are not actors reading from scripts, says Steinglass, so there might be inconsistencies.

Today, however, he doesn't make a baseball analogy, but rather an analogy about when two people see the same movie and pick up on different things.

9/ McB:

"Let's talk about some of the witnesses in this case," Steinglass again says that they might come with what you might call "baggage."

Many of the witnesses have publicly denied the facts presented in this case but they'll learn why they did.

Steinglass says that the jurors will learn that some of the witnesses received immunity for testimony, and it appears as though Blanche or someone from the defense objected, which was 👉🏼overruled by Merchan.

10/ McB:

Steinglass asks the potential juror who said she had a prior relationship of sorts with defense attorney Susan Necheles to clarify, the juror says that she met her once 15 years ago, has no concern that this will keep her from being objective, fair, and impartial.

Correction on earlier objection tweet: per pool, "Necheles [not Blanche] attempts to interject as Steinglass is talking. Merchan says it's overruled.
👉🏼 Trump is touching his hair, smirking slightly, as Merchan speaks."

11/ McB:

Steinglass is making the hiring-a-hitman analogy again to explain accessorial liability, which had angered the defense on Tuesday, and sure enough the defense tries to interject again, which
👉🏼Merchan overrules again.

Steinglass explains the importance of determining Trump's intent... I can feel an analogy coming on.

12/ McB:

There it is: "I know you guys all like examples," Steinglass says.

He offers again his crossing-a-street-while-someone-is-honking-at-you analogy, the need to use context clues to determine intent, etc.

13/ McB:

Another example: you walk into the kitchen, a chair has been dragged over to the fridge where a cookie jar is, which is upturned, and you see your daughter stepping off the chair wiping cookie crumbs off her mouth "What happened here?" Steinglass asks a juror. "Work with me here"

👀The juror, without any hint of irony, suggests that it's possible someone could have snuck into the house and smeared a cookie on her face.

Really.

14/ Press:

Prosecutor Steinglass: B500, can you follow the facts where they go?
B500: Yes.
Steinglass: And you?
Juror: Yes.
Steinglass: 714?
714: No doubts.
Steinglass: Some people have a problem returning a verdict of guilty. Is that you? Look at the defendant.

15/ Pagliery:

Steinglass:

No witness will say Trump said: Let's falsify business records! Let's commit election fraud! Lets pull the wool over Americans' eyes!

"You'll have to roll up your sleeves and get into the weeds a little bit." Review docs, emails, texts, to get into people's minds.

16/ After the above remark "No witness will say Trump said: Let's falsify business records! Let's commit election fraud! Lets pull the wool over Americans' eyes!"

Klasfeld:

After this remark, the defense objects, and the 👉🏼judge overrules.

The DA's theory of the case is that Trump disguised payments to cover-up his alleged affair with Stormy Daniels in order influence the 2016 presidential election.

17/ McB:

Steinglass asks each juror to take a moment, look within yourselves, and look at the defendant—will you be able to come back in here after jury deliberations and look the defendant in the eye and say guilty, if you come to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt?

18/ McB:

He's going down each row, one-by-one, for each of the 18 jurors, asking if they can do it. With the exception of one juror, whom he thanks for their candor (I assume it's the juror who said she can't be fair or impartial at the beginning of voir dire.)

Merchan thanks Steinglass, and Necheles steps up to the lectern.

She introduces herself and co-counsel, says "we have the honor of representing Pres Trump in this case."🤢🙄

19/ McB:

She starts with Steinglass's point that witnesses may contradict each other.

Can you use your common sense to know when two witnesses get on the stand and say two diametrically opposed things under oath, that one of them is lying? Any problem with making that determination?

20/ McB:

Some of these witnesses have expressed great dislike, personal animus against Trump, Necheles says. She says one even has said they want to take revenge against Trump.

Does anyone have a problem with holding the People to their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt even about events that happened a long time ago?, Necheles asks the box.

21/ McB:

We start with B430, she says no she doesn't have strong feelings or opinions about Trump. They agree on some things, not others. Yes, she has occasionally posted about him on social media, generally negative, but she's often negative about politicians.

First of all since the whole COVID situation, B430 says, politics just seems like a nasty thing to be posting about during an international crisis, so she backed off of posting in general.

22/ McB:

Now we're talking about who B565 follows on X—or rather, Twitter, as he "prefers to call it."

We have our first mention of MuellerSheWrote on the record.

Necheles is asking another potential juror about what her husband posts on social media—despite Merchan's apparent impatience with holding someone responsible for the posts of their spouse.

I am not my husband's Twitter account's keeper.

23/ McB:

One juror when asked about opinions abt Trump: "I've got opinions, yea, I'm born and raised in Brooklyn, New York" and she spent her whole life hearing about him, even saw Trump and Marla Maples shopping for baby things once and had family who lived in Trump buildings.

The juror who had family living in Trump constructions said they had no complaints with how they were built, as Trump nods along approvingly.

24/ Press:

Trump's lawyer Necheles: 784, do you have strong opinions about President Trump?
784: Fairly neutral.
Necheles: 470, you look like you're cold.
470: I'm freezing.

25/ Klasfeld:

Another potential juror says flatly of Trump:

"I don't have strong opinions about him, but I don't like his persona."

She adds that it won't affect her ability to be impartial.

26/ McB:

"I'm freezing," another potential juror says.

If someone doesn't act quickly, we might lose yet another juror to frostbite.

"I don't have strong opinions about him, but I don't like his persona," says one potential juror, getting a pretty good laugh from the press. Then mumbles, and repeats herself, "I don't like some of my coworkers." Even bigger laugh from the press.

27/ McB:

Jurors are being much more forthcoming about their feelings about Trump today. The potential juror who doesn't like his "persona" says:

👏🏻"He's very selfish and self-serving, and I don't really appreciate that in a public servant."

"Some policies are good, some are outrageous," says another potential juror about Trump the president, not the person. But he assures Necheles that it won't affect his ability to be unbiased in this case.

28/ McB:

Another potential juror seems a bit in awe of Trump when asked his opinion on him: "I mean, he was our president, pretty amazing," Trump came from "New York" and forged his way (unintelligible), juror mentions he's an entrepreneur himself.

29/ Via Press [think about this one: He's no longer pres, sure, but HE'S RUNNING]:

Next juror: I have disagreed with his policies but I feel I could be impartial.
Necheles: What do you think of him?
Juror: Everyone knows who he is. When he was President, everyone was talking about politics. Now not so much, after he's President

30/ McB:

The next juror talks about just how ubiquitous Trump is in the media, in discussions with friends, at "dorm meetings." It's inescapable. "Everyone knows who he is," she says.

A pool reporter caught the full quote of the man in awe of Trump: The man said he, like Trump, started out as an entrepreneur. “He was our president. Pretty amazing. He was a businessman in New York. He forged his way. He kind of made history… I’m impressed with that.”

31/ McB:

"Sometimes the way [Trump] may carry himself in public leaves something to be desired," says one potential juror, after forcefully arguing that she's a centrist, and that her personal feelings won't get in the way of her impartiality.

Necheles is closing by asking each juror that if the government fails to prove Trump's guilt beyond a reasonsable doubt, if they would deliver not guilty.

One women says yes, because she's done it before on a jury.

32/ #FlopsweatMcBrainSpurs is an idiot.

McB:

Trump voiced some confusion on Truth Social about how this all works, so as a reminder, each side has unlimited challenges for cause, and 10 peremptory challenges total for this class of felony, of which each side has 4 left.

33/ McB:

Merchan thanks the jurors, and asks them to step outside while the attorneys review their notes.

This round of challenges should be interesting.

Apparently Merchan is bringing in the third panel now. Per the pool: "Trump started to try to leave the room as there appeared to be a break, but the new jurors are being brought in, and he sat back down after Todd Blanche tapped him."

34/ #WompWomp

Pagliery:

Fascinating scene. As Necheles queries their personal opinions, Trump is forced to sit down & hear several say they don't like his character.

Slumped back in his chair, arms folded, big frown, furrowed brow. Angry as people trash him.

He's longer surrounded by sycophants.

35/ McB:

Another pool reporter clarifies that Merchan will swear in the 3rd panel of prospective jurors while both sides review their notes for "for cause" challenges and peremptory strikes on the jurors who just left the box from panel 2.

36/ McB:

The third panel has been sworn in, and Merchan lets them know that they're about to be excused until tomorrow. He gives the familiar instructions not to read /watch or talk to anyone about the case.

To clarify: there are still about ~40 people left from the second panel, 18 of whom were just in the jury box for voir dire.

37/ Klasfeld:

The prosecution concedes this is a for-cause challenge.

The defense agrees.

This potential juror, another attorney, is out.👇🏼

The female attorney who described her in-depth knowledge of the case earlier expressed concerns about her impartiality.

“I’m worried that I know too much. I know academically as a lawyer that I can put it aside, but I’m worried that it will seep in at some point.”