Jury selection resumes today in former President Trump's criminal hush money case when a new batch of 96 prospective jurors tackles the seven-page questionnaire that begins the whittling-down process.

Seven jurors were seated and sworn in on Tuesday. They were told to be prepared to return to court as soon as Monday when opening statements could begin.

Among the seated jurors is a school teacher, an oncology nurse and a grandfather born in Puerto Rico who said he found Trump "fascinating and mysterious."

The court needs five additional jurors and six alternates.

On Tuesday, each side used six of its 10 peremptory strikes, which eliminate a prospective juror from the pool for almost any reason. The judge may give each side additional peremptory challenges for seating alternate jurors.

If former President Trump opts to testify in the trial, prosecutors want to question him about all the times he has been held liable in civil court, according to a new court filing in the case.

Prosecutors have asked Judge Juan Merchan to hold a hearing, known as a Sandoval hearing, to determine the scope of what they can ask Trump on cross-examination.

"We are prepared to do a Sandoval hearing now, later or whenever the court desires," Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass said on Monday.

The judge has not set a date for the hearing but suggested it could be Friday.

In their filing, prosecutors outlined the civil cases they'd like to bring up during the criminal trial, including the $464 million judgment in Trump's civil fraud case, the defamation and battery cases brought by E. Jean Carroll and a lawsuit Trump filed against Hillary Clinton claiming she conspired to rig the 2016 election, for which Trump and his lawyers faced legal sanctions after the case was thrown out as frivolous.

Prosecutors also want to question Trump about a criminal case his company lost in 2022, when the Trump Organization was convicted of tax evasion by providing non-cash compensation to top executives.

They also want to bring up a civil case the New York attorney general won against the Trump Foundation for misusing charitable donations.

On his day off from his New York criminal trial, Donald Trump is complaining about the jury selection process on his social media platform.

The former president is claiming that in the process of picking the jury, he doesn't have enough strikes -- i.e., allowances to remove prospective jurors that his legal team objects to.

"I thought STRIKES were supposed to be 'unlimited' when we were picking our jury?" Trump wrote on his social media platform. "I was then told we only had 10, not nearly enough when we were purposely given the 2nd Worst Venue in the Country."

Trump does get unlimited strikes to remove a juror for cause, which means for a specified reason -- but both the defense and prosecutors have a limited number of peremptory challenges, which allow for the removal of a juror for any reason.

-Soo Rin Kim, Lalee Ibssa and Peter Charalambous

Court is not in session today in former President Trump's criminal hush money trial, as the trial schedule has a full-day recess every Wednesday.

Yesterday saw the first seven jurors in the case seated. Eleven more jurors -- six of them alternates -- remain to be chosen.

The selection of the first jurors was one of the four big takeaways from Day 2 of the trial Tuesday.

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified that he believed Donald Trump had knowledge about the $150,000 contract to buy Karen McDougal's silence regarding an alleged year-long affair.

"Do you know if anyone else besides Michael Cohen had any knowledge of this contract?" prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked.

"Yes, I believe Donald Trump did," Pecker responded.

"Was your principal purpose to suppress the story to prevent it from influencing the election?" Steinglass asked.

"Yes," Pecker said.

"Were you aware that expenditures by corporations made for the purpose of influencing an election made in coordination with or at the request of a candidate or campaign were unlawful?" Steinglass asked.

Pecker said he was aware and confirmed that the Enquirer's parent company, AMI, never reported the payment to the Federal Election Commission.

"We purchased the story so it wouldn't be published by any other organization," Pecker said.

"Why did you not want it to be published by any other organization?" Steinglass asked.

"We didn't want the story to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign," Pecker said.

"Who is we?" Steinglass followed up.

"Myself and Michael Cohen," Pecker said.

According to Pecker, AMI agreed to the $150,000 payment on the promise that Donald Trump or the Trump Organization would reimburse AMI for the payment. He frequently followed up with Cohen about the reimbursement and got a similar answer from Cohen.

"Why are you worried? I am your friend. The boss will take care of it," Pecker said about Cohen's response.