The marathon task of trying America’s most famous man: Trump ‘smiled’ as he became the first ex-president to stand trial… then almost all prospective jurors were sent home in the historic and chaotic first day of the hush money case

The first trial of a former US president did not begin with fireworks, angry polemics or theatrics.

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

And then half were dismissed after admitting there was no possible way they could stop their strong feelings about Donald Trump getting in the way of a fair trial.

Trump, whose norm-shattering time in office has given way to a precedent that shattered the post-presidency, was grim about much of the proceedings.

‘You are about to participate in a trial by jury. The system of trial by jury is one of the cornerstones of our justice system,’ Judge Juan Merchan told 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 strokes the basis of the case — that Trump tampered with business records to hide payments allegedly made to silence ex-lovers ahead of the 2016 election — some jurors craned their necks for an overview of the blonde haired figure. in front of them.

Trump stood and turned to look at them as Merchan introduced him and his legal team. The former president offered a wry smile as he surveyed New Yorkers on who could hold the fate of the 2024 election in their hands.

Merchan read off a list of potential witnesses or other names that could come up during the 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.

It will be hard to find a dozen men and women (plus alternates) who do not have strong opinions about Trump or the witnesses. Especially in a liberal enclave like Manhattan, where Trump only won 12 percent of the vote in 2020.

In fact, the judge has set an easier task: finding a dozen people who can put their emotions aside to make a verdict 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, 50 immediately raised their hands and were excused.

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

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

Then it was down to the nitty-gritty of selecting jurors. One by one, they were asked to work through a 42-question questionnaire (some with multiple parts).

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

The first few potential jurors revealed how difficult the task will be in Manhattan. One had an MBA, two of the first three named the New York Times as their news source, none mentioned NewsMax or Fox News.

The third juror, a young woman who likes to go clubbing and said she gets her news from TikTok and Al Jazeera, was excused after answering affirmatively to question 34: ‘Do you have any strong opinions or strong beliefs about Former President Donald Trump? or the fact that he is a current presidential candidate, which would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?’

Another was excused because his daughter is getting married in Seattle.

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

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

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

At times he craned his neck to the right to scrutinize the candidates.

It was a slow process. “We’ll be here until Thanksgiving,” said one waggler in the overflow room, 1523, where the proceedings were screened by video link. Two weeks is a more realistic guess.

And the potential jurors weren’t even brought into the courtroom until 2:30 p.m.

The day ended without a single juror making it to the final list.

The morning had been taken up with complex legal arguments about exactly what evidence they could hear and what they could look at.

So they will learn about some extraordinary headlines in the National Enquirer about his 2016 rivals for the Republican nomination, such as Ted Cruz (and the false story that his father was involved in the assassination of JFK) and Marco Rubio (and fabricated stories) that he was a drug addict involved in a sex scandal).

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

Central to the prosecution’s case is a ‘catch and kill’ scheme in which Trump allies would buy up kiss-and-tell stories and quietly ensure they were never published.

The effect, they said, was that any disclosure could hurt his 2016 campaign.

One of the people involved was reportedly former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claims she had a year-long affair with Trump even when his wife Melania was pregnant.

Prosecutor Josh Steinglass said the fact that it happened when 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, pushed back, saying it contained “unproven allegations.” “It’s literally just wild with no 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 as he listened intently. At times 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’ advising him that he has a right to be in court but that he could be removed or even jailed if he is disturbing.

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