Excused Trump jurors point the finger at his lawyer as a problem

Based upon the opinion of two prospective jurors who did not make the cut to participate in the historic criminal trial of Donald Trump, the former president's defense may be hampered by the attorney he hand-selected to oversee the case.

With opening arguments scheduled to begin Monday morning in the so-called hush money case where the former president is looking at the possibility of jail time after being charged with 34 felonies, the last thing Trump needs is a lawyer whose courtroom demeanor has already been singled out.

In interviews with the New York Times' Maggie Haberman, the two dismissed New Yorkers, who wished to remain anonymous due the the prospect of threats, described the scrutiny they were under after filling out a questionnaire and expressed annoyance with attorney Todd Blanche.

ALSO READ: Revealed: What government officials privately shared about Trump not disclosing finances

According to the report, the unidentified man and a woman only identified as Kara, both professed that they were aware they would have to put their feelings aside and judge Trump based upon the evidence presented.

When interviewed, both had a similar complaint about attorney Blanche.

"Both were put off by efforts by Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, to assess prospective jurors’ views of Mr. Trump," Haberman wrote. "The man said Mr. Blanche seemed 'folksy' in a way he found disingenuous, while the woman was sharper, describing a 'witch hunt' to root out people sympathetic to Democrats on the panel — a phrase Mr. Trump uses often to criticize the various prosecutors investigating his conduct."

The report continued, "The man in particular was frustrated that he was asked about past social media posts in which he had been critical of Mr. Trump, which Mr. Blanche’s team raised and which Justice Merchan ultimately agreed meant the man should be excused," before adding, "The man believed he could have been fair and resented the implication that he could not have been. Both he and the woman, who said they believe in the system of jury service, noted that they had begun the day taking sworn oaths vowing to render a fair and impartial judgment on the evidence."

You can read more here.