It’s disheartening, and a little scary, that someone who is smart enough to become a judge would believe something like that.
I find it a little sad that after being exposed to all the crazy shit about what MAGA-people, millions of them, proclaim in public, you’re still reluctant to believe that someone would believe that shit.
I don’t think the indictment will matter all that much. The labyrinthine nature of the legal system allows for too much hemming and hawing and appealing and delaying if one has the money to pay for it even if everyone involved is completely honest. Which, if the judge at Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial was any indication, they ain’t. Besides, legal culpability hasn’t seemed to slow Alex Jones or Steve Bannon down much. Trump’s punishment will be having to cope with legal bills. And the reverence with which the US seems to revere its public servants (it’s just a job!) means that his sentence will probably result in nothing more than house arrest because Politicians Are Special. The worst Trump will face is being forced to live in the tropics in just one of his mansions while having to golf on just one of his golf courses. Rough.
It boils down to one simple fact there enough crimes in that indictment to see Trump in prison for the rest of.his life (as an out of shape 76 year old) and the case looks pretty open and shut (I mean it’s never a good sign for acquittal when the defendant is caught on tape admitting to both the crime and the fact he knows it’s a crime). Whatever the GOP establishment does about it won’t change those basic facts*
- The caveat being the next GOP president, whichever year that is, will face a lot of pressure to pardon him. So we may have a race between the GOP electoral machine and Trumps cardio vascular system to see who gets him out prison first (feet first or otherwise)
I found them here:
Clarence Thomas syndrome.
Yes. It is self-evident that there are some Federal judiciary folks who will stand up and say loud and clear “The law doesn’t matter; I have decided as I choose.” Implicilty daring anyone to knock the block off their shoulder.
Are there enough such corrupt criminal judges/justices in enough interlocking locations to form an impenatrable wall of rulings that destroy the meaning of the idea of “rule of law”?
Maybe. Maybe not. We shall see.
But it is not a possibility to be glibly dismissed out of hand as “impossible.” That ship was designed 30 years ago, has been being built assiduously ever since, has been in rush-rush construction for ~8 years now, and may well have already sailed.
OK, give me a scenario why each of these won’t happen.
Apparently, she can stay on the case through voir dire and can direct a verdict. What’s Jack Smith’s next move?
Likewise, Trump asks for a bench trial–and why wouldn’t he? 12 randos or one MAGA-crazy judge? Easy call–and she hits her gavel and says “Not Guilty.” Again, Smith’s next move?
Clear evidence of judicial bias in action mid-trial can trigger request for review or forced recusal by the judge’s superiors. Whether they will choose to act or be rubber-stamps themselves is a specific example of the structural concerns I gave in my comments two posts up.
It’s sad that this is now a realistic question, and not just a wild theoretical possibility. Trump (and to a lesser degree the Bushes and Reagan) has seated so many far-right lunatics on the Federal bench that this could get appealed straight up to the Supreme Court and our response has to be “Who knows what those wackos will do?”
Before the trial there will be a bail hearing, but I think the government will first try to recuse Loose Cannon.
He plead guilty, there was no trial, If trump pleads out, this will also be short, but I do not think he will.
Me too, but the feds are- I bet- preparing motions to get her off the case as we speak.
What was in it for her to do the same during the earlier Special master motions? Simple- a place on the Supreme Court if trump wins again. Also as been said, she is a True Believer in trump.
Dont confuse stupid with crazy. She passed law school, she’s not stupid.
The last time a complaint was filed against her, for the exact same thing, with the exact same person, she got slapped down hard by conservative judges. I won’t say that it would be guaranteed to happen again, but I think it’s more likely than not.
Both parties have to agree to a bench trial. The defendant doesn’t have all the rights in a case. The People do, too.
As a non US citizen how likely do you think it would be that Trump wins the election indicted or not. As far as I see it there a a significant number of republicans that believe this is all a witch hunt and will vote for him whatever happens and I could see that being enough to win the primaries but to beat Bidon (or whever the democrat candidate is) he will need to win the votes of the swing voters that voted for him in 2016 but against in 2020 and I can’t see that happening. The only way I would think he could become president is if election methods are changed to make it more difficult for (mostly democrats) to vote of to declare votes invalid due to “fraud” but I thought most of the people he wanted to win the mid terms to enable that to happen did not win.
She graduated from University of Michigan law school in the Top 10% of her class.
Republican leaning states all over the country have passed “voter integrity” laws to do just that-- make it harder for the “wrong” sort of people to vote. Make it easier to challenge and throw out the 'wrong" sorts of votes. Heck, make it possible to take over entire electoral systems in Democrat- leaning districts if they think too many people there might vote the “wrong,” way. Just because a few of the uber crazies didn’t win their races doesn’t mean that their ideas were dismissed by the people who did win. There are numerous systems in place to depress Democratic voters almost everywhere Republicans hold power, from the subtle to the brazenly autocratic.
Enough to make this a live issue.
The GOP strategy for the foreseeable future is to gin up their base maximizing the vote for Republican candidates, the more extreme the better, while suppressing the Democratic vote–making it harder for students, blacks, gays, etc. to vote. Their plans call for winning elections with less than 50% of the vote because they ain’t getting 50% in the majority of districts if everyone can vote and every single GOP voters doesn’t turn out on election day.
Here’s the rub, though. Getting them to reject the credibility of the accusations without bothering to review the evidence is a solid tactic that they’ve been surprisingly successful at.
Not that that would help him in a fair court, but…
And the next purity test in already started.
“I commit to pardon Trump promptly on January 20, 2025 and to restore the rule of law in our country.”
What 2024 GOP candidates are saying about Trump’s indictment | The Hill
It’s hard to find comparable cases of someone going through the court system and not admitting guilt. David Petraeus and Sandy Berger both entered guilty pleas. Asia Janay Lavarello pleaded guilty a year or so after her arrest. Reality Winner finally pleaded guilty after a year of convoluted proceedings. (She was never read her Miranda rights, she claimed.) Very few people fight these charges.
The closest one I found was that of former NSA agent Harold T. Martin III, who was arrested in August 2016 for taking classified documents and finally sentenced in July 2019. But he was indeed imprisoned all that time.
The factual answer is that political trials proceed politically. Trump ain’t you or me. No matter what Jack Smith says, the law has never been equal. We should be thrilled the law has gotten this far.
Well, anything is possible, of course. And I would not be surprised if she put her thumb on the scale in Trump’s favor in a number of ways (though I’m not sure she will).
But given the slam-dunk facts of this case, a directed verdict of not guilty would be catastrophic for her career and future, lifetime appointment notwithstanding. I’ve read from several credible experts that this case is so solid, it simply wouldn’t go to trial for virtually any other defendant. It is loaded with speak-for-itself evidence that go to all the elements of the crimes. Recordings, photographs, physical evidence, eyewitnesses. Absolutely textbook stuff. Such a ruling would be an outrage of massive scale, even in this age of outrage. Just can’t see this.
Again, of course she could, and anything possible is, well, possible. But of all my worries over the trial, this one doesn’t make the list.