But which trial results, Doug? The major ones (Jan 6th - stealing the election - and holding classified docs/obstructing justice) or the one going on now, falsification of business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters? None of the legal experts I follow…
But which trial results, Doug? The major ones (Jan 6th - stealing the election - and holding classified docs/obstructing justice) or the one going on now, falsification of business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters? None of the legal experts I follow thinks the first two of the three will get to a verdict before the election.
Do you think a guilty conviction in that third case could get him replaced?
I was thinking of the "least important" one (as if falsifying hush money payments to conceal information necessary for a fair election is a minor deal -- ha!), that is, the NY trial going on now.
I've followed the transcripts of the trial (my father was a court reporter, so I know all about those daily transcripts, which I sometimes helped him proofread), and the evidence is convincing to me, and the prosecution's narrative is finely woven with the hard evidence and witness testimony.
How the actual jury heard all that, and how they will discuss and decide their verdict is, of course, "a mystery within a riddle wrapped in an enigma." We'll find out within a week or two, and that verdict may prove to be at least one point for accountability, even if it doesn't sway any swing voters.
SCOTUS is holding up the two federal trials with their delay of releasing their "absolute immunity" decision (so, those trials may not be held before the election); and Judge Eileen Cannon is slowing down the classified doc/obstruction cases, as you noted, so that may not begin either. Those trials really do matter in so many ways -- alas! The Georgia trial is also very important, with hard evidence and strong witnesses, but who knows when that will begin. Good luck DA Willis and prosecutors.
The J6th trial was the one that I had hoped would begin this summer because of its extreme importance to preserving our Constitution and the "peaceful transfer of power." Yet, SCOTUS (not *all* of SCOTUS, of course) has essentially given Trump the free pass and the "absolute immunity" for his crimes anyway by delaying their decision.
Now, Trump really is sounding more deranged at his rallies, so I am hoping there may be at least some falling off the bandwagon (even as Nikki Haley so opportunistically hops on it) before November (Generals of the former administration, please, please, come forward!). If justice cannot be served by election day in the courts, then perhaps the voters will do their part to make sure justice is served at the ballot box.
But cults are so hard to crack; cult members cling to their leader and his power right up to their final swig from the Styrofoam cups of Kool-Aid passed around. So, who knows how many of them will escape from this cult with their "lives" (that is, their ability to think independently and to recognize BS and propaganda when they hear/see it) before election day? Whenever I see them interviewed, my compassion strains to its limits for them, for their... delusions? angers? fears? I wish them well, and hope with all my heart that they (especially those in PA, AZ, NV, MI, and WI!) *can* escape from this one -- for all our sakes.
Re the NY trial, I am following lawyers, some of whom have been in the courtroom, who read the transcripts (meidastouch.com and Andrew Weissman). I don't know how you can get all that reading in!
Here's my take: It all comes down to whether the jury believes Michael Cohen that Trump knew of the scheme. If I were on that jury (and I've been on over 10 in my lifetime), I would say if you don't believe Cohen, it doesn't make sense that Cohen would pay Daniels on his own, and point to all the evidence the prosecution presented, like Trump watches every penny.
There's too much evidence for an acquittal. I've never been an a jury that couldn't reach a verdict, but Elie Honig said yesterday that about 5-10% of juries hang. So I think conviction is more likely, but no one can predict a jury.
Re the cult members - from what I've read, it's a small minority who can be retrieved, but it could be enough to tip the 50/50 divide we are in now.
Yes, I follow Andrew Weissman's commentary, too. I'm so glad he is given the airtime on MSNBC to help out with legal analysis. As to my reading *all* the transcripts.... I've afraid I misstated that level of intensity. Skimming plays a major part in how much time I devote to them.
My experience with juries has been similar to yours, although it consists of only three completed ones. Two civil trials and one criminal trial. The civil trials had little debate needed. What I took from all three was how serious everyone took the task. It's given me reason to believe that the NY jury will take the job seriously as well and not be divided by partisanship. Of course, we are talking about a totally different case and potential for strong emotions/biases over-riding that sense of responsibility to maintain strict attention to the facts of the case all the jurors I've known have.
I like your idea that there may be just enough of the Trump true believers who will reject the propaganda they have so far been willing to swallow whole and tip the balance in Biden's favor.
We are all capable of those sudden "epiphanies" that end our misconceptions and help us view reality a little more clearly.
Re Weissman, I listen to his podcast with Mary McCord. It's an hour long (with ads I can fast forward through), so I get much more analysis and more in depth than on cable news. It's called "Prosecuting Donald Trump."
Holy Moly Hamburger. Like that!
But which trial results, Doug? The major ones (Jan 6th - stealing the election - and holding classified docs/obstructing justice) or the one going on now, falsification of business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters? None of the legal experts I follow thinks the first two of the three will get to a verdict before the election.
Do you think a guilty conviction in that third case could get him replaced?
I was thinking of the "least important" one (as if falsifying hush money payments to conceal information necessary for a fair election is a minor deal -- ha!), that is, the NY trial going on now.
I've followed the transcripts of the trial (my father was a court reporter, so I know all about those daily transcripts, which I sometimes helped him proofread), and the evidence is convincing to me, and the prosecution's narrative is finely woven with the hard evidence and witness testimony.
How the actual jury heard all that, and how they will discuss and decide their verdict is, of course, "a mystery within a riddle wrapped in an enigma." We'll find out within a week or two, and that verdict may prove to be at least one point for accountability, even if it doesn't sway any swing voters.
SCOTUS is holding up the two federal trials with their delay of releasing their "absolute immunity" decision (so, those trials may not be held before the election); and Judge Eileen Cannon is slowing down the classified doc/obstruction cases, as you noted, so that may not begin either. Those trials really do matter in so many ways -- alas! The Georgia trial is also very important, with hard evidence and strong witnesses, but who knows when that will begin. Good luck DA Willis and prosecutors.
The J6th trial was the one that I had hoped would begin this summer because of its extreme importance to preserving our Constitution and the "peaceful transfer of power." Yet, SCOTUS (not *all* of SCOTUS, of course) has essentially given Trump the free pass and the "absolute immunity" for his crimes anyway by delaying their decision.
Now, Trump really is sounding more deranged at his rallies, so I am hoping there may be at least some falling off the bandwagon (even as Nikki Haley so opportunistically hops on it) before November (Generals of the former administration, please, please, come forward!). If justice cannot be served by election day in the courts, then perhaps the voters will do their part to make sure justice is served at the ballot box.
But cults are so hard to crack; cult members cling to their leader and his power right up to their final swig from the Styrofoam cups of Kool-Aid passed around. So, who knows how many of them will escape from this cult with their "lives" (that is, their ability to think independently and to recognize BS and propaganda when they hear/see it) before election day? Whenever I see them interviewed, my compassion strains to its limits for them, for their... delusions? angers? fears? I wish them well, and hope with all my heart that they (especially those in PA, AZ, NV, MI, and WI!) *can* escape from this one -- for all our sakes.
Re the NY trial, I am following lawyers, some of whom have been in the courtroom, who read the transcripts (meidastouch.com and Andrew Weissman). I don't know how you can get all that reading in!
Here's my take: It all comes down to whether the jury believes Michael Cohen that Trump knew of the scheme. If I were on that jury (and I've been on over 10 in my lifetime), I would say if you don't believe Cohen, it doesn't make sense that Cohen would pay Daniels on his own, and point to all the evidence the prosecution presented, like Trump watches every penny.
There's too much evidence for an acquittal. I've never been an a jury that couldn't reach a verdict, but Elie Honig said yesterday that about 5-10% of juries hang. So I think conviction is more likely, but no one can predict a jury.
Re the cult members - from what I've read, it's a small minority who can be retrieved, but it could be enough to tip the 50/50 divide we are in now.
Yes, I follow Andrew Weissman's commentary, too. I'm so glad he is given the airtime on MSNBC to help out with legal analysis. As to my reading *all* the transcripts.... I've afraid I misstated that level of intensity. Skimming plays a major part in how much time I devote to them.
My experience with juries has been similar to yours, although it consists of only three completed ones. Two civil trials and one criminal trial. The civil trials had little debate needed. What I took from all three was how serious everyone took the task. It's given me reason to believe that the NY jury will take the job seriously as well and not be divided by partisanship. Of course, we are talking about a totally different case and potential for strong emotions/biases over-riding that sense of responsibility to maintain strict attention to the facts of the case all the jurors I've known have.
I like your idea that there may be just enough of the Trump true believers who will reject the propaganda they have so far been willing to swallow whole and tip the balance in Biden's favor.
We are all capable of those sudden "epiphanies" that end our misconceptions and help us view reality a little more clearly.
Re Weissman, I listen to his podcast with Mary McCord. It's an hour long (with ads I can fast forward through), so I get much more analysis and more in depth than on cable news. It's called "Prosecuting Donald Trump."
I'll add that old joke about people being able to change:
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one: but the light bulb has got to want to change.
Oh, yes, indeed. I admire and learn from both!