I’ve seen several polls that indicate that about 1/4 to 1/3 of Republicans would not vote for Convicted Felon Donald Trump.
Which makes sense to me. While the hardcore base will never get out of their cognitive dissonance, I can see where some would be rationalizing “well this is just a Democratic prosecutor trying to make a name for himself”. But an actual trial and then conviction might make them think “oh wow, he really did commit a crime.”
Especially since a significant portion of the electric is completely unaware that he is even facing 4 felony trials. But once those trials are a daily news item, it might actually sink in.
Well fuck. I just read that the Supreme Court decision might be the end of June. To render a decision that is so patently obvious—as the Court of Appeals made abundantly clear in their detailed response, basically doing the Supremes’ work for them.
Not sure even Chutkan would start this trial in September.
Fucking SCOTUS. This has Alito written all over it.
If you can find them, would you mind posting links to these polls in the “Polling is broken” thread? Trump’s softening Republican-voter support is an ongoing talking point in that thread, and any new data points are most welcome.
Does anyone know why (especially in light of the appeals court ironclad decision), Chutkan can’t go ahead and put it on the docket for July or August? That gives TFG‘s lawyers plenty of time to prepare, since for this case they’re just twiddling their thumbs waiting for the late-June Scotus decision.
It appeared to me that she canceled the initial March date just in case the Scotus decision was in his favor. Well, she could do the same thing with the July or August date, right?
As others have noted, court timetables differ from - and are generally more glacial than - what we might expect. She COULD schedule it earlier, but why SHOULD she? I’m not sure a desire to hold a trial before the fall election is an appropriate reason for a judge to consider in expediting schedules. And there is generally a premium placed on NOT having to do things twice if thatcan be avoided with a relatively brief delay.
With a lot of these delays, I wonder how much the judges take into consideration that if they can kick the can far enough down the road, they won’t have to make a decision before he dies, or at least loses the election. Of course, if they get it wrong, they’re going to find themselves in the unenviable position of having to rule against (and possibly sentence) a sitting president.
From my lengthy post above:
A. She absolutely does not care that he’s in the middle of a campaign (she’s already on record that former presidents enjoy no special conditions on criminal liability)
B. The American people have the right to know if the nominee is a criminal, before the election (I’m parrotting Jack Smith, but I’m guessing she agrees with that logic)
C. TFG’s crime is germane to the election itself
Not to mention it was originally scheduled for March 4, so clearly she thought that was an appropriate date, even before an election.
If I didn’t make it clear, I agree that court schedules often impress me as granting excessive time. In other threads, I have questioned the amount of time parties claim they need to prepare. But the expectation of a speedy trial has to be weighed against due process, as well as judical economy.
Put simply, the court is concerned with the specific matter before it - NOT various other aspects of the parties’ lives.
Sure. So you schedule the trial for right after the Supreme Court is expected to rule. If they rule against immunity, then you go ahead on schedule. If they rule that Trump is immune, then you cancel the trial. If they decide later than you expected, and still haven’t ruled by the time of your set trial date, then you postpone it until such time as they do rule.
Sounds good. But how clear is the “expectation” as to when the SCt will rule?
The trial court is juggling a lot of pieces, all of which require lead time. And whenever the date arrives, you can count on lawyers trying to get additional delays. So a longer lead time now lessens the chances of needing to give in to such future requests.
Happens to me all the time - we schedule hearings 75 days out, and 2 days before the hrg the rep asks for a postponement because they haven’t been able to get in touch with their client. Whether I give them a postponement or not, someone else - who was responsibly pursuing their case - coulda had that slot that just got wasted.
I’ll just state it one last time and shut up - courts’ timetables and expectations of promptness are very different than most of ours. And courts often act as though the wishes/convenience of others outside the court are beneath their consideration. I’d like to hope they are generally just consumed with the weighty matters they have to handle, but at times is is hard to avoid feeling as tho they are intentionally slow-walking matters just to flaunt their authority.
“Former President Donald Trump acknowledged Wednesday that he told the Secret Service he wanted to go to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, depicting a different tone of an event that became a contentious detail of a former White House aide’s testimony before the House committee that investigated the attack.”
“Remember the person that said I attacked a Secret Service agent in the front of the car?” Trump said, referring to Hutchinson’s testimony. “It’s not my deal. I’m a lover, not a fighter.”
He just can’t not lie. I’ve corrected a number of dipshits on that. She testified that she was told of the incident by a blowhard SS agent. Not that she witnessed it.
