Joyce, Brandi, I’m curious who is paying the defense lawyers for such a long and high profile case? Who are the defense lawyers and what is unique about them? Are they public defenders? Or are they a big DC Firm that commonly defends Republicans? How much are they charging the defendants? If someone else is paying them, is that disclosed to the jury and/or public? Thank you so much for your interview and sharing it so generously.
Brandi's description of the defendants attitudes and behavior seems strange to me. They are facing possibly 20 years. All the Oathkeepers were found guilty. One would think they would be more respectful towards the judge and jury.
They don't seem to have any inkling of remorse nor seek atonement, nor appealing to the jury. Maybe that is just part of the not guilty plea strategy? Either they are extraordinarily stupid, or they are "true believers", like the Nazi's at Nurenberg, or how Arnold S described his father, uncles, and former Nazi Soldiers drank themselves to death still believing in Hitler.
Or they believe they will get a pardon and only serve a few years if tfg is reelected. Something seems off with their attitudes towards their trial and sentencing fate.
This Supreme Court taking freebies is crazy. The discussion has been basically: Did a law get broken by not reporting the freebies?
Give me a break. As a Fire Officer and for 1/3 of my career a commissioned police Officer in a major West Coast City, I could not accept a free cup of coffee, let alone a trip on Yachts and Private jets, or having my mothers house bought so she could live rent free.
Many times I was told “on the house” for a cup of plain coffee. I always left twice the cost of the coffee. As a Detective (especially in Chinatown) on a slow night, Homicide, Vice, Arson etc. would go to dinner. I’d pay with a twenty and get twenty In change back. I would leave $30 on the cash register. And make a note in my journal.
Someone explain to me how I can sign up for free international travel and give my mother free rent legally.
Same here, Jay. 28 year county mounty, NO FREEBIES EVER. Same with the ".25 cent coffee" always left $3 (dollar fifty for coffee, dollar fifty for tip). No yachts. No vacations. No free house for my Mom.
Congratulations on 28 years! In Washington we couldn’t wear a wire but if I was offered the trips say, we would have a plan with the Prosecutor to trap and arrest the “donee” lol.
I worked at a pizza place (take out only) when I was young. We were told to always give cops the pizza for free because while they were there they were protecting the business. They always accepted it and I thought nothing because it was true, they were protecting us.
Recently I published an article arguing that it was vital to our democracy that any prosecution of Trump be televised. I addressed the impediments to televising trials in federal court and New York and how they could be overcome. If anyone is interested in the legal issues. you can look for the article at verdict.justia.com under Jon May.
Unfortunately journalists like Ms. Bushman are becoming increasingly rare. The should be cherished.
Jon, as you know a Federal Judge controls the proceedings, parties & spectators in a courtroom particularly a criminal trial. There are many excellent legal analysts, journalists, Professors who were ex-judges, ex-prosecutors & defenders , scotus reporters not to mention lawfare and/or scotusblog. They are not rare but, you must be selective & know how to access the Court's online Docket.
Thank you so much. I was following the live tweets this morning, and Tacopina was inducing PTSD.
I wish I were "E.Jean Strong". But the next best thing is to be supportive and take positive actions for change.
After seeing the line about how in a letter, all 9 Justices think we should have confidence in their ethics, I looked up the SC contact page (it goes to their PIO). I restrained myself from rage tweeting and allowed as how that letter didn't inspire confidence, but impeachment would. https://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contact_pio.aspx
I have lost all faith that this Supreme Court is capable of making decisions both based on precedent, as well as in the best interest of the country. I was surprised that the three liberal Justices signed a letter reassuring us that we should have faith in the Justices' "ethics". How on earth do you believe that we can do that?!
We have Thomas accepting millions of dollars in paid trips from a "friend" whose "colleagues" have presented many cases to the Supreme Court -- and Thomas never revealed his connection to this man or the massive amount of "given" to him, as well as some valuable gifts. Additionally, he did not recuse himself, when he clearly should have, when a case involving his wife, Ginni, came to the Court. And who can forget Thomas's race-baiting comment, "This is a high tech lynching!" That got the liberals to their knees, praying for forgiveness for slavery and its aftermath. No question, after that, that he was "in". Such cynicism, such lies.
We have Gorsuch, about whom we have just learned that some property that had languished on the market for two years suddenly was sold to a prominent lawyer -- whose firm had presented multiple cases to the Court. (Granted, Gorsuch voted again several of those cases. Thank you Justice Gorsuch.)
We have Roberts, whose wife, we have just learned, has made millions as an attorney. She has been part of cases that went to the Supreme Court.
Alito -- what can I say. He is a liar, is closely involved with one of the most extreme conservative movements in our troubled country and has been seen partying with members of The Federalist Society. It is possible that he has leaked information in at least one case.
And then there is Kavanaugh. His hearing in Congress was a joke. There were "serious omissions" because the FBI did not report that more than a dozen women had contacted them to report past sexual abuses. Why the FBI failed in this, I will never understand. Like Alito, Kavanaugh is strongly endorsed by the Federalist Society, and has been seen hanging out with Republican members of Congress.
Ethics?? WHAT ethics?!
It is time for the Supreme Court Justices to be held accountable to the EXACT SAME LAWS THAT EVERY OTHER JUDGE IN THE U.S. IS REQUIRED TO DO.
"Faith"?? Faith in WHAT?!
I am 70. I have lived through many political eras. I have read about many cases heard and settled by the Supreme Court, but never have I witnessed such outright corruption as I am witnessing now. You are hurting our nation. Why do you refuse to see this? Why do you refuse to do such a simple thing, as FOLLOW A LAW?? -- a straightforward, simple, and righteous law. I do not comprehend your "decision" in this case.
With tremendous disappointment,
* Since the Court overturned Roe v. Wade, despite a 49 year precedent, I have been curious to see if now you will overturn Loving v. Virginia, another law with long precedence. I wonder how Thomas would feel about that.
Trust the ethics and honesty of the current band of philosopher kings & queens who are ensconced on the US Supreme Court? Clarence Thomas seems to have for decades accepted fabulous vacations and engaging in questionable real estate deals with a radically right-wing billionaire, and failed to disclose any of those gifts. Brett Kavanaugh's personal debt of a few hundred-thousand dollars was somehow paid off when he was nominated to SCOTUS, and oh, allegations of sexual assault raised at his confirmation hearing were not thoroughly investigated. Neil Gorsuch, like Thomas, seems to engage in questionable real estate transaction. To this Chief Justice John Roberts just looks the other way while loudly humming La la, La la, La la....
Good for Brandi! We need more journalists like her and Judd Legum from Popular Information on Substack. They break the news daily -- a crucial role in a healthy democracy. I sorely miss local printed newspapers, too, Joyce. They served an invaluable purpose of creating, nurturing and educating our home communities. We are worse off without them.
In following Adam Klasfeld on Twitter for the live tweets this a.m., I ran across his list of about 35 reporters doing excellent legal reporting. I think we've got more great ones out there than we realize. .
That’s good to know. What all these news consolidations did was cut loose a lot of great reporters. I know that in my hometown when USA Today bought the local paper that was founded in 1870. They decimated the newsroom so that all the paper is good for is obituaries and the bottom of a birdcage. A small upstart has sprung up though using talents of some of those cut loose newsers and contributions from those of us who still believe in good reporting.
"Defense attorneys seemed to take a mile for every inch Judge Kelly was willing to grant." Sounds bad. Great questions, Joyce. Thank you. BTW, I still don't understand why this group's leaders -- and more members than I would expect -- aren't WASP's. I mean, WASP's are the superior breed and it seems like they should be fighting these battles. Doesn't it? (P.S. I just sent Brandi B. a small donation via PayPal. If we all kick in, hopefully this will help her to continue her work.)
Being "the superior breed" means you don't have to actually fight the battles. You get others to fight them -- you know, like paying $300 to get someone to take your place in the Civil War, or instituting an all-volunteer military so your superior heirs can assume their rightful places as CEOs, etc. -- or, come to think of it, as former Fox "News" hosts. (Full disclosure: I am about 7/8 WASP myself, but that's not how I know this.)
It's also the truth about legal action -- which does have a few things in common with war. I think of Trump's lawyers as guns for hire, and on the whole, if I needed a proxy for a duel, I wouldn't hire any of them.
Sorry, no. "WASP" isn't a race. It's, at most, an ethnicity. More to the point, long time ago I realized that though there are stereotypical and often nasty jokes galore about just about every ethnic, racial, and religious group in the U.S., there were virtually none about WASPs. That should give you a clue about what ethnic group was on top of the heap and benefiting from the ridicule directed at everyone else.
No. White people are problematic. Some are allies, some are fascists. Some will vote for Biden. Others will kill you if he wins. I used to believe in the greater good of mankind, but not so much since the Tea Party erupted at town hall meetings.
WASP: A white person of Anglo-Saxon ancestry who belongs to a Protestant denomination. (from Chambers dictionary, and my personal recollection as a survivor of the 20th century.) The meaning was clearly understood at the time as the privileged descendents of early English settlers, who made sure from the get-go that they got the best of the goodies. Then there were the WASP wanna-bes, who did their best to emulate the ambition, style, and tactics. The term expressly excluded non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, no matter when or how they came. And, of course, indigenous people. WASP was sometimes used jokingly, but has it's origins deep in class differences, which were (and still are) taken very seriously. I knew many people who referred to themselves as WASP. It was even sometimes used as a legitimate cultural identifier, with another category being "Other European". If you read the social history of US immigration, you know that early on, there were German, Dutch, Spanish, French settlers. Not WASP. Chinese and other asian: definitely not WASP. And yes, there inevitably came a time when it became a slur. Now there is a movement to return the WASPS to their self-perceived original position of privilege.
Thank you for the definition. I remember WASP connotations from the '70s. Apparently, the Anglo-Saxons are the British Saxons, differentiated from the Saxons they came from, who were Germanic and Norman-French.
Yes. But it was still a relevant observation. I haven't heard the term in a long time now, but the meaning is still at work in the efforts to "make America great <again>. That's the hidden meaning, and you sparked a good examination of it.
Thanks so much, Annie! I was directing that comment toward Tutone, who was criticizing me for using a "racial slur". ("Survivor of the 20th century". Well said.)
For so long it felt like so little was being done, and all of a sudden in the last month, it isn’t even possible to keep up with what is happening each day, let alone each week! It is just crazy!
For an old white woman who has worn out a lot of shoe leather and pens and ink, I am so heartened by what I have seen this week of young state legislators. And one of the things I love most is that they are calling not only for a young peoples’ movement, they are calling for a multi-cultural, diverse and multi-generational coalition. So often I’ve been told I didn’t do enough(and on some things, my generation didn’t and we owe the future generation our repentance and our work to change things. But we also have a ton of wisdom and experience to share, and a compassion and empathy that will listen, understand and honor what we hear. We are a valuable addition and I appreciate being invited back into the conversation.
Joyce, your questions are excellent,as usual! I think that Brandi has shared amazing insight to this trial and her work to inform the public is commendable. I also feel that Brandi has done an excellent job of trying to be objective and to tell us what she sees. Her description almost makes the chaos of objections and counters palpable. I am eager to hear more from her and also to hear about the project she is working on. Thanks for the excellent insight.
This journalist’s report makes me nervous. I’ve tried dozens of jury trials as a lawyer and more as a judge. Here you have a judge who has lost control of the courtroom. It is a case complicated by multiple defendants and essentially different theories for different defendants. (If you don’t think that’s hard listen to Rachel Maddow’s Ultra). There’s a ton of good evidence in videos and text messages but that can contribute to confusion that already seems to reign here. Federal prosecutors can be very smart and very well prepared and have great “teams” but lack the trial skills to convince people to make hard choices. The implicit comment that suggests both sides were being snide and backbiting supports this lack of prosecution skills. To make confusion is the defense lawyers’ job in a case like this. A prosecutor participating in it can be disastrous. The failure to automatically provide the jury with a listing of the exhibits in such a complicated case doesn’t show good trial skills on the part of the prosecution either. Remember the first Michigan case for kidnapping the governor. I think people should prepare for mixed and compromised verdicts. I too sent the journalist a donation.
Agreed. Sounds like the judge has lost control of the courtroom. Sounds like chaos. My confidence in the successful prosecution of these insurrectionists is now lower than it was before I read this. The “baffle them with bullshit” strategy sounds like it might be working in this case. Each of these insurrectionist should’ve been tried alone. These group trials devolve into verbal cream o’ wheat. The jury is left with mush where their brains used to be.
I got the sense that there was a list provided to the jury: the note they sent out referenced specific items on that list that they wanted to revisit.
As a self-described jury trial lawyer, you should be acutely aware that reading things into what someone else describes has pitfalls, which is why that kind of testimony is rarely admitted in court. So I am surprised to read some of the assumptions you are making based on Brandi's reporting. She cannot catch every detail, but you seem to be making leaps of judgement on what she is able to convey, and on some things you seem to assume.
You can write about your experience, but beyond that is conjecture. It is really unfortunate that there are not more pairs of eyes with the skills she has also covering this trial, so that we have the advantage of more detail and perspective on what is happening. Clearly a lot- and it may indeed be confusing. That doesn't mean chaos.
Here, here for Independent Journalism! I have been finding it critical to our democracy. When the mainstream sees a story take off from ProPublica, the Intercept, The Lever, Volts and so many others, then often they are forced to report it too. Propublica has been really busy exposing the Dark Money, and other things that undermine our democracy. There is a lot to report on, because this country is a mess. I have thought a lot about Adolf Hitler and the Brown Shirts when I think of the Proud Boys. We have too many awful men grooming other young men to be criminals. They are criminal gangs and deserve the treatment that the most serious RICO offender does. Street gangs generally are breaking the law but not trying to overthrow the government. I have been shocked how small the sentences are compared with how I see them acting and the types of sentences they would be getting if they were Black! Blacks get more time for smoking a joint in the wrong place.
Again there is no direct connection between the Proud Boys and Trump except the call to come to the Capitol, but there is with Roger Stone. I am hoping that information will see the light of day with this trial also. Or at least open a window into what that connection was.
Evil operators like Roger Stone seem to just be part of the fabric of politics. The candidate feels they are not appealing enough to the voters without using a Roger to destroy the other side. These kind of people are despicable but usually not illegal.
I appreciate Ms. Buchman sticking with this trial despite her own circumstances falling down around her. And the importance of her work may not be valued by those who have the most to gain from it but we folks on the outside looking in appreciate it.
An excellent look into an important trial. Trial coverage ain't beanbag. Federal courtrooms permit no cameras so the print press looms large. (And some judges won't permit typing that can be heard! Some won't permit tweeting.) I covered the Blagojevich trial and it was sometimes difficult to even hear every single thing being said. So Brandi -- many thanks. You paint a clear picture of what was going on in there.
I'm wondering how they even keep Trump trained up on all these developments, if they even can. Like, he's busy being tried for rape and arraigned and all--but behind the scenes, the tide is coming in and the sandcastle is crumbling. Does he even know?
Given his long history of not being held accountable, and being the narcissistic sociopath that he is, I’m guessing he figures all will blow over and he’ll be back in the WH.
Thank you Joyce for your reporting today and the five questions to Brandi who seems highly astute and capable of succeeding in any direction she chooses. I am looking forward to the Proud Boys verdict and appreciate your offerings and insights here in this important critical arena to save our democracy 🇺🇸
Joyce, Brandi, I’m curious who is paying the defense lawyers for such a long and high profile case? Who are the defense lawyers and what is unique about them? Are they public defenders? Or are they a big DC Firm that commonly defends Republicans? How much are they charging the defendants? If someone else is paying them, is that disclosed to the jury and/or public? Thank you so much for your interview and sharing it so generously.
Brandi's description of the defendants attitudes and behavior seems strange to me. They are facing possibly 20 years. All the Oathkeepers were found guilty. One would think they would be more respectful towards the judge and jury.
They don't seem to have any inkling of remorse nor seek atonement, nor appealing to the jury. Maybe that is just part of the not guilty plea strategy? Either they are extraordinarily stupid, or they are "true believers", like the Nazi's at Nurenberg, or how Arnold S described his father, uncles, and former Nazi Soldiers drank themselves to death still believing in Hitler.
Or they believe they will get a pardon and only serve a few years if tfg is reelected. Something seems off with their attitudes towards their trial and sentencing fate.
This Supreme Court taking freebies is crazy. The discussion has been basically: Did a law get broken by not reporting the freebies?
Give me a break. As a Fire Officer and for 1/3 of my career a commissioned police Officer in a major West Coast City, I could not accept a free cup of coffee, let alone a trip on Yachts and Private jets, or having my mothers house bought so she could live rent free.
Many times I was told “on the house” for a cup of plain coffee. I always left twice the cost of the coffee. As a Detective (especially in Chinatown) on a slow night, Homicide, Vice, Arson etc. would go to dinner. I’d pay with a twenty and get twenty In change back. I would leave $30 on the cash register. And make a note in my journal.
Someone explain to me how I can sign up for free international travel and give my mother free rent legally.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Same here, Jay. 28 year county mounty, NO FREEBIES EVER. Same with the ".25 cent coffee" always left $3 (dollar fifty for coffee, dollar fifty for tip). No yachts. No vacations. No free house for my Mom.
Congratulations on 28 years! In Washington we couldn’t wear a wire but if I was offered the trips say, we would have a plan with the Prosecutor to trap and arrest the “donee” lol.
I worked at a pizza place (take out only) when I was young. We were told to always give cops the pizza for free because while they were there they were protecting the business. They always accepted it and I thought nothing because it was true, they were protecting us.
Recently I published an article arguing that it was vital to our democracy that any prosecution of Trump be televised. I addressed the impediments to televising trials in federal court and New York and how they could be overcome. If anyone is interested in the legal issues. you can look for the article at verdict.justia.com under Jon May.
Unfortunately journalists like Ms. Bushman are becoming increasingly rare. The should be cherished.
Jon, as you know a Federal Judge controls the proceedings, parties & spectators in a courtroom particularly a criminal trial. There are many excellent legal analysts, journalists, Professors who were ex-judges, ex-prosecutors & defenders , scotus reporters not to mention lawfare and/or scotusblog. They are not rare but, you must be selective & know how to access the Court's online Docket.
Thank you so much. I was following the live tweets this morning, and Tacopina was inducing PTSD.
I wish I were "E.Jean Strong". But the next best thing is to be supportive and take positive actions for change.
After seeing the line about how in a letter, all 9 Justices think we should have confidence in their ethics, I looked up the SC contact page (it goes to their PIO). I restrained myself from rage tweeting and allowed as how that letter didn't inspire confidence, but impeachment would. https://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contact_pio.aspx
Thanks for the link.
Thank you for posting this link. I sent a message too.
I just sent the following letter to the link you posted. Thanks very much.
I have lost all faith that this Supreme Court is capable of making decisions both based on precedent, as well as in the best interest of the country. I was surprised that the three liberal Justices signed a letter reassuring us that we should have faith in the Justices' "ethics". How on earth do you believe that we can do that?!
We have Thomas accepting millions of dollars in paid trips from a "friend" whose "colleagues" have presented many cases to the Supreme Court -- and Thomas never revealed his connection to this man or the massive amount of "given" to him, as well as some valuable gifts. Additionally, he did not recuse himself, when he clearly should have, when a case involving his wife, Ginni, came to the Court. And who can forget Thomas's race-baiting comment, "This is a high tech lynching!" That got the liberals to their knees, praying for forgiveness for slavery and its aftermath. No question, after that, that he was "in". Such cynicism, such lies.
We have Gorsuch, about whom we have just learned that some property that had languished on the market for two years suddenly was sold to a prominent lawyer -- whose firm had presented multiple cases to the Court. (Granted, Gorsuch voted again several of those cases. Thank you Justice Gorsuch.)
We have Roberts, whose wife, we have just learned, has made millions as an attorney. She has been part of cases that went to the Supreme Court.
Alito -- what can I say. He is a liar, is closely involved with one of the most extreme conservative movements in our troubled country and has been seen partying with members of The Federalist Society. It is possible that he has leaked information in at least one case.
And then there is Kavanaugh. His hearing in Congress was a joke. There were "serious omissions" because the FBI did not report that more than a dozen women had contacted them to report past sexual abuses. Why the FBI failed in this, I will never understand. Like Alito, Kavanaugh is strongly endorsed by the Federalist Society, and has been seen hanging out with Republican members of Congress.
Ethics?? WHAT ethics?!
It is time for the Supreme Court Justices to be held accountable to the EXACT SAME LAWS THAT EVERY OTHER JUDGE IN THE U.S. IS REQUIRED TO DO.
"Faith"?? Faith in WHAT?!
I am 70. I have lived through many political eras. I have read about many cases heard and settled by the Supreme Court, but never have I witnessed such outright corruption as I am witnessing now. You are hurting our nation. Why do you refuse to see this? Why do you refuse to do such a simple thing, as FOLLOW A LAW?? -- a straightforward, simple, and righteous law. I do not comprehend your "decision" in this case.
With tremendous disappointment,
* Since the Court overturned Roe v. Wade, despite a 49 year precedent, I have been curious to see if now you will overturn Loving v. Virginia, another law with long precedence. I wonder how Thomas would feel about that.
Yes! Tremendous disappointment! Thanks for what you’ve written. I so agree with you.
It's a terrible shame that we are left to feel this way, dismayed and in despair.
Trust the ethics and honesty of the current band of philosopher kings & queens who are ensconced on the US Supreme Court? Clarence Thomas seems to have for decades accepted fabulous vacations and engaging in questionable real estate deals with a radically right-wing billionaire, and failed to disclose any of those gifts. Brett Kavanaugh's personal debt of a few hundred-thousand dollars was somehow paid off when he was nominated to SCOTUS, and oh, allegations of sexual assault raised at his confirmation hearing were not thoroughly investigated. Neil Gorsuch, like Thomas, seems to engage in questionable real estate transaction. To this Chief Justice John Roberts just looks the other way while loudly humming La la, La la, La la....
Roberts looks the other way because his wife makes a 6 figure salary that may also compromise him.
Not six figure. It's WELL into the seven-figure range.
Good for Brandi! We need more journalists like her and Judd Legum from Popular Information on Substack. They break the news daily -- a crucial role in a healthy democracy. I sorely miss local printed newspapers, too, Joyce. They served an invaluable purpose of creating, nurturing and educating our home communities. We are worse off without them.
In following Adam Klasfeld on Twitter for the live tweets this a.m., I ran across his list of about 35 reporters doing excellent legal reporting. I think we've got more great ones out there than we realize. .
That’s good to know. What all these news consolidations did was cut loose a lot of great reporters. I know that in my hometown when USA Today bought the local paper that was founded in 1870. They decimated the newsroom so that all the paper is good for is obituaries and the bottom of a birdcage. A small upstart has sprung up though using talents of some of those cut loose newsers and contributions from those of us who still believe in good reporting.
Same for my local paper; our award winning photojournalist is now writing at least a third of the scant number of local stories.
"Defense attorneys seemed to take a mile for every inch Judge Kelly was willing to grant." Sounds bad. Great questions, Joyce. Thank you. BTW, I still don't understand why this group's leaders -- and more members than I would expect -- aren't WASP's. I mean, WASP's are the superior breed and it seems like they should be fighting these battles. Doesn't it? (P.S. I just sent Brandi B. a small donation via PayPal. If we all kick in, hopefully this will help her to continue her work.)
Thanks for the idea to donate.
I'm glad that you're joining me!
I donated as well.
Being "the superior breed" means you don't have to actually fight the battles. You get others to fight them -- you know, like paying $300 to get someone to take your place in the Civil War, or instituting an all-volunteer military so your superior heirs can assume their rightful places as CEOs, etc. -- or, come to think of it, as former Fox "News" hosts. (Full disclosure: I am about 7/8 WASP myself, but that's not how I know this.)
And that is the truth about mercenaries and war.
It's also the truth about legal action -- which does have a few things in common with war. I think of Trump's lawyers as guns for hire, and on the whole, if I needed a proxy for a duel, I wouldn't hire any of them.
Tragically, it applies to "justice", as well. Glad that the orange sadist's money is being wasted!
I hope everyone he or one of his various enterprises hires gets paid in advance. A hard rain's gonna fall . . .
LOL!! If they haven't figured out by now that each of them needs to get a $10M (or so) retainer in advance, then I have no pity for them!
Is WASP a racial slur?
Ha! I'm Irish and would rather not be called a WASP even if white people all do look alike.
I do understand that. It’s still a racial slur no matter how you describe it and it’s offensive.
Sorry, no. "WASP" isn't a race. It's, at most, an ethnicity. More to the point, long time ago I realized that though there are stereotypical and often nasty jokes galore about just about every ethnic, racial, and religious group in the U.S., there were virtually none about WASPs. That should give you a clue about what ethnic group was on top of the heap and benefiting from the ridicule directed at everyone else.
Mary, LOL!
I would never want to be called that but don’t people of different particular races look alike anyway?
It's descriptive of a certain demographic/cultural grouping.
No. White people are problematic. Some are allies, some are fascists. Some will vote for Biden. Others will kill you if he wins. I used to believe in the greater good of mankind, but not so much since the Tea Party erupted at town hall meetings.
WASP: A white person of Anglo-Saxon ancestry who belongs to a Protestant denomination. (from Chambers dictionary, and my personal recollection as a survivor of the 20th century.) The meaning was clearly understood at the time as the privileged descendents of early English settlers, who made sure from the get-go that they got the best of the goodies. Then there were the WASP wanna-bes, who did their best to emulate the ambition, style, and tactics. The term expressly excluded non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, no matter when or how they came. And, of course, indigenous people. WASP was sometimes used jokingly, but has it's origins deep in class differences, which were (and still are) taken very seriously. I knew many people who referred to themselves as WASP. It was even sometimes used as a legitimate cultural identifier, with another category being "Other European". If you read the social history of US immigration, you know that early on, there were German, Dutch, Spanish, French settlers. Not WASP. Chinese and other asian: definitely not WASP. And yes, there inevitably came a time when it became a slur. Now there is a movement to return the WASPS to their self-perceived original position of privilege.
Thank you for the definition. I remember WASP connotations from the '70s. Apparently, the Anglo-Saxons are the British Saxons, differentiated from the Saxons they came from, who were Germanic and Norman-French.
Tutone, You do realize that I was using the word ironically, don't you?
Yes. But it was still a relevant observation. I haven't heard the term in a long time now, but the meaning is still at work in the efforts to "make America great <again>. That's the hidden meaning, and you sparked a good examination of it.
Thanks so much, Annie! I was directing that comment toward Tutone, who was criticizing me for using a "racial slur". ("Survivor of the 20th century". Well said.)
A few months ago, Brandi posted that she was thinking about applying to law school.
Can anyone think of a better qualified young person to be the nation's next super-lawyer?
Her command of detail and fitting an entire story together makes her a natural.
For so long it felt like so little was being done, and all of a sudden in the last month, it isn’t even possible to keep up with what is happening each day, let alone each week! It is just crazy!
For an old white woman who has worn out a lot of shoe leather and pens and ink, I am so heartened by what I have seen this week of young state legislators. And one of the things I love most is that they are calling not only for a young peoples’ movement, they are calling for a multi-cultural, diverse and multi-generational coalition. So often I’ve been told I didn’t do enough(and on some things, my generation didn’t and we owe the future generation our repentance and our work to change things. But we also have a ton of wisdom and experience to share, and a compassion and empathy that will listen, understand and honor what we hear. We are a valuable addition and I appreciate being invited back into the conversation.
You speak my mind, Joni. Thanks.
Brava! I'm with you all the way!
Joyce, your questions are excellent,as usual! I think that Brandi has shared amazing insight to this trial and her work to inform the public is commendable. I also feel that Brandi has done an excellent job of trying to be objective and to tell us what she sees. Her description almost makes the chaos of objections and counters palpable. I am eager to hear more from her and also to hear about the project she is working on. Thanks for the excellent insight.
This journalist’s report makes me nervous. I’ve tried dozens of jury trials as a lawyer and more as a judge. Here you have a judge who has lost control of the courtroom. It is a case complicated by multiple defendants and essentially different theories for different defendants. (If you don’t think that’s hard listen to Rachel Maddow’s Ultra). There’s a ton of good evidence in videos and text messages but that can contribute to confusion that already seems to reign here. Federal prosecutors can be very smart and very well prepared and have great “teams” but lack the trial skills to convince people to make hard choices. The implicit comment that suggests both sides were being snide and backbiting supports this lack of prosecution skills. To make confusion is the defense lawyers’ job in a case like this. A prosecutor participating in it can be disastrous. The failure to automatically provide the jury with a listing of the exhibits in such a complicated case doesn’t show good trial skills on the part of the prosecution either. Remember the first Michigan case for kidnapping the governor. I think people should prepare for mixed and compromised verdicts. I too sent the journalist a donation.
Agreed. Sounds like the judge has lost control of the courtroom. Sounds like chaos. My confidence in the successful prosecution of these insurrectionists is now lower than it was before I read this. The “baffle them with bullshit” strategy sounds like it might be working in this case. Each of these insurrectionist should’ve been tried alone. These group trials devolve into verbal cream o’ wheat. The jury is left with mush where their brains used to be.
I, too, am confounded by the fact that this is a "group trial". Why would the prosecution (agree to?) do this?
I got the sense that there was a list provided to the jury: the note they sent out referenced specific items on that list that they wanted to revisit.
As a self-described jury trial lawyer, you should be acutely aware that reading things into what someone else describes has pitfalls, which is why that kind of testimony is rarely admitted in court. So I am surprised to read some of the assumptions you are making based on Brandi's reporting. She cannot catch every detail, but you seem to be making leaps of judgement on what she is able to convey, and on some things you seem to assume.
You can write about your experience, but beyond that is conjecture. It is really unfortunate that there are not more pairs of eyes with the skills she has also covering this trial, so that we have the advantage of more detail and perspective on what is happening. Clearly a lot- and it may indeed be confusing. That doesn't mean chaos.
Here, here for Independent Journalism! I have been finding it critical to our democracy. When the mainstream sees a story take off from ProPublica, the Intercept, The Lever, Volts and so many others, then often they are forced to report it too. Propublica has been really busy exposing the Dark Money, and other things that undermine our democracy. There is a lot to report on, because this country is a mess. I have thought a lot about Adolf Hitler and the Brown Shirts when I think of the Proud Boys. We have too many awful men grooming other young men to be criminals. They are criminal gangs and deserve the treatment that the most serious RICO offender does. Street gangs generally are breaking the law but not trying to overthrow the government. I have been shocked how small the sentences are compared with how I see them acting and the types of sentences they would be getting if they were Black! Blacks get more time for smoking a joint in the wrong place.
Again there is no direct connection between the Proud Boys and Trump except the call to come to the Capitol, but there is with Roger Stone. I am hoping that information will see the light of day with this trial also. Or at least open a window into what that connection was.
Evil operators like Roger Stone seem to just be part of the fabric of politics. The candidate feels they are not appealing enough to the voters without using a Roger to destroy the other side. These kind of people are despicable but usually not illegal.
I appreciate Ms. Buchman sticking with this trial despite her own circumstances falling down around her. And the importance of her work may not be valued by those who have the most to gain from it but we folks on the outside looking in appreciate it.
Is Roger Stone even being brought up as central to this group?
An excellent look into an important trial. Trial coverage ain't beanbag. Federal courtrooms permit no cameras so the print press looms large. (And some judges won't permit typing that can be heard! Some won't permit tweeting.) I covered the Blagojevich trial and it was sometimes difficult to even hear every single thing being said. So Brandi -- many thanks. You paint a clear picture of what was going on in there.
I'm wondering how they even keep Trump trained up on all these developments, if they even can. Like, he's busy being tried for rape and arraigned and all--but behind the scenes, the tide is coming in and the sandcastle is crumbling. Does he even know?
Given his long history of not being held accountable, and being the narcissistic sociopath that he is, I’m guessing he figures all will blow over and he’ll be back in the WH.
Thank you Joyce for your reporting today and the five questions to Brandi who seems highly astute and capable of succeeding in any direction she chooses. I am looking forward to the Proud Boys verdict and appreciate your offerings and insights here in this important critical arena to save our democracy 🇺🇸