276 Comments

It's a little weird to have a legal system where just about everyone knows one party is dead wrong from the outset but are given all sorts of leeway in finding outs for themselves.

Yes, it's as important to protect the not guilty as convict the guilty...

To say nothing of the utter lack of consequences for elected officials we know took part in J6.

Expand full comment

Dear Help, we have this system because of prior abuses in the past that put the fate of innocents in the hands of Courts uninterested in justice

Expand full comment

Which I get, but I feel like once there's an overwhelming amount of evidence, maybe we can start skipping some of the more pedantic legalities?

Expand full comment

Not if you want to protect against the appeal system

Can’t skip the steps put in place to protect the accused

Expand full comment

Yes. I get how the system works. I'm suggesting changing it.

Expand full comment

I believe its important to acknowledge that procedures were put in place to provide every defendant with protections from the abuses of power that lead to their implementation in the first place. They exist not to protect Trump but rather any falsely accused “each of us”

Expand full comment

Okay, let's try this from the top because your replies are not addressing anything I am saying.

I understand the current system. I have spent hundreds of hours studying local, state, and federal law. I went so far as to explicitly state that protecting the not guilty is as important as convicting the guilty to show anyone I get it. You seem to keep skipping past this entire section.

My proposal is only that when the evidence is so overwhelming that there's no real question of guilt (public knowledge already puts most J6 activity there, Drumpf's multiple photographs of stolen documents, etc) that we just cut out a few of the more ridiculous stalling tactics and frivolous stuff like "partial presidential immunity."

It's fine if you disagree, but you weren't even near the point.

Expand full comment

Check out Teri Kanefield.’s blog. We didn’t used to have this much due process for everyone. One of the successes of the Civil Rights movement was implementing/expanding due process to everyone. Before this, African American defendants were regularly railroaded. Also see To Kill a Mockingbird.

Expand full comment

No thanks, met her before. I've got like four legal stacks until the trials are over.

Expand full comment

How would you change it? Change it for defendants you don’t think are guilty? Change it for defendants that you think are guilty? What would that “change” look like? Who gets to decide and how? Are you suggesting that the “public” gets to determine guilt in a criminal trial? Not sure why there is an objection to the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” necessary for the prosecutors to prove. Also what are the “pendantic legalities” you object to?

Expand full comment

I already explained most of that to someone else.

Expand full comment

I love this entire discussion. Civil discussion and thoughtful statements. Kudos.

Expand full comment

I'm generally opposed to any argument for getting rid of pesky legalities. Those pesky ones are there to protect everyone, guilty or innocent.

HOWEVER, Trump's gratuitous abuse of our legal system demands a response. No one not Trump would possibly be getting away with such nonsense as repeated filing of substantively identical appeals. (Only late last week did Judge Merchan finally tell Trump's defense to knock it off.) No one not Trump could be having his case heard, and multiple constitutional issues decided, by judges he put into their jobs. And others who are openly angling for him to promote them.

In short, Trump at so many levels screams for judicial reform. Contempt statutes similarly demand to be updated to create penalties with real teeth. ($1,000 per violation of a court order is laughable. And Trump is laughing.

In short. There are many judicial reforms that are possible and, to my way of thinking, vital if we are to escape authoritarian encores. Perhaps we could begin by seeking common ground possible for people of good will

Expand full comment

Rebecca, Just a few short years ago, people were swinging from gallows because of the color of their skin. Just a few short months ago, we had an actual gallows built and placed on the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021. I would rather have the patience to see our current judicial system work through the process (including Judge Merchan and other judges being careful about appeals, which Trump will use). This is why Robbie Kaplan has a locked up case for E. Jean Carroll. Just as she is sure that Trump will appeal, she is sure that she will win on appeal. Good lawyering.

Expand full comment

I don't think we can assume that trump is the only defendant who has ever used every arcane rule to delay his trial. Deep pockets have always guaranteed a "day in court". The real difference is how much publicity every step has gotten when trump is involved.

Nor do I think anyone can assume that the evidence is so overwhelming that the verdict can be fast tracked.

I'm old enough to remember the innocence project finding people who spent years in prison after being convicted by a court where everyone knew they were guilty...

Expand full comment

The Innocence Project" is still working in 2024

Expand full comment

Thing is, the defendant and publicity have gone hand in hand for decades. IMO, that’s more the media’s thirst for clicks these days than that of the judicial system. Could the judicial system use some thoughtful updating? Most assuredly as we’ve seen how this defendant has taken advantage of every loophole, sometimes twice, available to those only who seem to have deep pockets and a notorious reputation. Famous people of all stripes have this advantage. While quite a few have seen the inside of a prison, somehow the fact that this particular man is somehow so special that he is treated with a bit more deference. Personally, since he’s so “special” he should be escorted to the basement, placed in his limo and driven to his tower where he then can spout off all he wants to. Why should he get a bank of microphones outside the court for his and the press’s convenience? Most of us wouldn’t be afforded that convenience for trying our case in the public even if there was one reporter hanging around to listen. It’s the, “All people are equal but some are more equal than others”** syndrome.

** Animal Farm by George Orwell

Expand full comment

SPW, I think you are correct on all points. Actually, Trump's relationship with AMI ( National Fabricator) goes back 30 years per DAVID PECKER's testimony today. This was & is a parasitic relationship including Pecker's taking advantage of Trump's reality farce , "The Apprentice" where the National Enquirer even fabricated false stories about popular contestants then moving on to the "ideal situation" of the National Enquirer's direct involvement in Trump's 2015-2016 Election Campaign attacking Ted Cruz' father as a co-killer of JFK; Cruz dropped out of the race the very next day after the hit job.

Today, we heard the most remarkable 30 years of "modus operandi" evidence ever submitted in any trial.

Expand full comment

It's great that we're making exactly the same points.

Prepare to be nitpicked to death by arrogant people with no social skills.

Expand full comment

No. Those "legalities" protect our constitutional right to a fair trial.

Expand full comment

Not the ones I'm talking about but thanks.

Expand full comment

It seems to me that there are several different questions in Help's postings. One question is about how laws become laws, written in their current form. Isn't it the case that the U.S. more or less started with English common law, then added to common law both through legislatures passing new laws and through precedent-setting court decisions? And I may be wrong, but isn't there another question about what some people here are calling judicial reform? That aspect deals with bad faith members of the judiciary branches who do not enforce the existing laws and statues without fear or favor; and the lack of any enforceable method for dealing with bad faith actors in a fair and timely way. I don't think the lynchings Lady Day sang about were the outcome of recognized legal proceedings of the U.S. justice system, I think they were KKK, the MAGA of circa 1930. But the trial of the men indicted for murdering Emmett Till was conducted in a U.S. court. Judicial reform can start with what went wrong in that trial.

Expand full comment

When there is overwhelming evidence, the defendant has the option to plead guilty and fall on the mercy of the court. This would take less time. But this defendant isn’t into making it easy for anyone but himself. He must believe he can get away with this, as he has everything for his entire life, so he’ll delay. delay, delay and spew lie after lie — you know, his usual crapola.

As to the “partial immunity argument” which you mention — I am appalled that the SC took the case and after hearing part of the oral arguments my head wants to explode. No one is above the law. Period. But questions from Alito and Roberts didn’t sound like they knew this. The charges against the former POTUS have nothing to do with his presidential duties — not even close. That he literally signed personal checks in the Oval Office, checks that make up part of his crime, doesn’t make it a presidential duty. He pissed on his oath of office (to faithfully carry out the laws of this nation) by breaking the law while in the Oval Office.

What I’m trying to say is this. I think I understand what you said and I sympathize. We just need to be patient and let the wheels of justice turn while the defendant digs himself a deeper hole — he confesses publicly to many crimes, there’s no reason to think it will be any different this time.

Expand full comment

Hopefully Jack Smith will have the opportunity to go after TRump for January 6th and the classified documents cases before the election. That would be the icing on the cake. Fingers crossed!

Expand full comment

It’s a sad state of affairs when the judge in a case puts her thumb on the scale of justice.

Expand full comment

Yes, and judicial reform is the wording I use until corrected, for what can be done to overcome this judicial misbehavior. How do you reform the misbehavior of a sitting judge? Who will judge the judge. In the military we have inspectors general to address issues that merit sidestepping the chain of command. But the next problem is who and how to pick for such a role?

Expand full comment

I wish it were just her thumb. It seems like she’s using her entire body to completely thwart Jack Smith’s prosecution of should be an open and shut case.

Expand full comment

Canon must know she’s risking her job, her reputation and her honor. Does she really believe he’s going to protect her, or is the woman so enamored that none of it matters?

Expand full comment

I think she thinks she’s protected by those who put her on her throne.

Expand full comment

Horrifying in fact.

Expand full comment

Megan, Jack has an insider National security official trial Witness that expressly warned tfg to return the "classified" documents & the National Security secrets & the NOC docs, "Not Otherwise Classified".

Expand full comment

Consequences for congressional members who participated in J6 may be challenging because at least 34 may have pocket pardons. Given the complexity of everything we've seen so far, it may take years to put in place something to the effect of presidential pardons are null and void if the president is convicted of criminal activity associated with the pardons.

Expand full comment

Amanda, Some of those folks will be indicted but not all. DOJ will indict enough to send a strong message to Congress.

Expand full comment

A potential Juror who knows " ... one party is dead wrong" will not be seated in the Box.

It is not "important" to protect the not guilty, it is essential to our jurisprudence to require a unanimous Jury panel to agree to our highest degree of Burden Proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt. Lawyers typically call for "common sense". Jurors take their duties seriously.

I do not believe that there is an "utter lack of consequences for elected officials" but, I will research the civil wrongful death cases that are currently pending & any direct federal cases against elected officials targeting House Representative Co-conspirators among others.

More later.

Expand full comment

Uh...well none of the J5 "tour guides" are in custody, or being tried, or even charged. Several are still in Congress.

Please tell me what consequences they faced because I missed them

Expand full comment

This is truly infuriating. There needs be consequences. And for anyone who […gives comfort to an insurrectionist…]. Which includes Trump. There’s a lot awry and nonsensical that one convicted of a felony can’t vote but can run for and take the office of Commander and Chief. Call me stunned.

Expand full comment

Please provide the names probative facts of your escaped Perps, thank you H'E'.

Expand full comment

Do your own Googling. I am not your servant.

Expand full comment

H.E. By the way, the parameters for this substack are that we treat one another civilly. Asking anyone to back up a claim is not uncivil. But your reply was. The last time I heard anyone comment the way you have, he was a five year old who said "you're not the boss of me." That's typical for that age. It's never too late to learn to socialize in a community.

Expand full comment

Reported. Bye. :)

Expand full comment

Bryan is suggesting that when you make a claim that you back it up. So where are the names?

Expand full comment

I find it amusing that H.E. wonders why there is even a trial when there is a "mountain of evidence" but doesn't think he needs to provide evidence for his own assertions.

I do recall there were people who gave tours before J6. I have no clue whether doing that rose to an indictable offense. But just asserting as a fact without at least listing who he's thinking of so that those interested can go further to consider whether that person DID commit an indictable defense shows a disregard of evidence as something that is important not just in a trial but in any discourse and is sadly missing in so much GOP blather. We all shake our heads at the "J6rs are political hostages" folks who simply won't provide evidence, not to mention the Biden Impeachment ninnies.

Waiting breathlessly for H.E. to block me too. Then I won't have to listen to his inconsistencies.

Expand full comment

I'm not your servant either. Google who gave the tours yourself.

Also, don't you have a chainsaw to be sitting on? I'll mute you so you can go focus on that. :)

Expand full comment

Bryan, You are the best. Thank you for picking up the charge to do the research you do. Huge respect.

Expand full comment

Thank Bryan.

Expand full comment
founding

Wow. I'm late to the party. Seems there's a ruckus afoot. Might as well put in my 2 cents.

I agree with you, Help, in this specific instance. But this can be a slippery slope.

As a disclaimer (something Trump is fond of using), I just spent the last six-weeks, compulsively reading Project 2025 to produce a series of posts comprised of excerpts from the project, no commentary. Too much immersion in mis and dis-information. I'm still recovering. Read Barbara McQuaid's new book "Attack from Within" (highly recommend) during that time. The juxtaposition of the two, Barb's book and the fever dream of the Heritage Foundation, was trippy. Barb helped keep me sane.

As a mathematician I deal in real proof. True or false. The law doesn't do this. A fact that Joyce notes. Jurors are deciding on guilty or not guilty based on evidence. Not deciding truth.

Any system of laws established to specify how a population of people can and cannot act, will be incomplete. Repeated attempts to adjust said system of laws usually results in the addition of new laws or amendments to the law in question. This leads us to our current law system of ungainly size. No way to avoid it. This isn't math, you simply cannot completely specify all variables in conduct, good or bad. Loop holes are bound to exist and when detected are fixed by adding to the already ungainly nature of the collection. The UCMJ is much more streamlined.

A friend and former student of mine used to say "Rules are for people who don't understand what rules are for"

We are being overwhelmed by the enormous number of individuals who had a part (even tangentially) in the 2020 election interference investigations. I've seen video of Barry Loudermilk giving tours of the Capitol building prior to Jan 6. It sure as hell appears he is giving them strategic info. But he's so far down the list of heinous people involved we may never follow up on him. It's doubtful we'll ever get to Jim Jordon who is currently in contempt of congress (I also hold him in contempt but for different reasons).

I have personally seen and heard enough evidence to conclude that a preponderance of the evidence surrounding Trump points to a crime. So has a a grand jury. Hence the trial.

My opinion is we go Judge Roy Bean on his ass. Give a quick trial followed by a first class hanging. But I can assure you that I shouldn't be given this power. I'm a vindictive SOB, I don't care if Nixon is dead I still want him impeached.

This country only has one Constitutionally mandated profession. It's in the 6th amendment. You have the right to legal counsel. You don't have the right to an education or health care or..., but you have the right to get a lawyer. Ergo lawyers must exist.

I agree with you, Help, it's frustrating that Trump appears to be eluding accountability for much of his behavior, exploiting the law for delay, which he is getting. But I sure as hell don't want the system to be scrapped. Starting from scratch to write a new system of justice is not an option. It will be if Project 2025 is put in place.

I rely on the wisdom and insight Joyce and others I trust to give me a deeper understanding of the nuances involved in the law. Without such sources as Joyce and Barb et al I would be at sea. Do I like it that the law is so complex that I need an interpreter? , absolutely not. Am I glad I have people I trust to interpret the law?, bet your last nickel on it.

Mathematics itself is incomplete, a result proved by Kurt Gödel in the 1930's. Lest anyone think my statement regarding the incompleteness of our system of laws is conjecture.

Expand full comment

I mean we don't need to SCRAP the system and start over. But obviously the current system isn't working. The only people behind bars for J6 are cannon fodder. The people who led, planned, allowed, and encouraged it?

Still free. Some still making laws and voting on policy at home and abroad. Very probably planning multiple insurrections - legally though election or otherwise.

This system is often jailing people acting out of desperation, not the people causing the despair. Everyone who feels confident discussing it should get together and see what we can do about the gaps that let these dangerous planners, leaders, and sabouteurs run amok.

Expand full comment
founding

Which is why we need to stay engaged and energized. We need to reach out wherever possible to encourage voters.

We can't fall into "Trump ennui" because of his continuous assault on truth.

That's one of the purposes of mis-, dis-, and mal-information as described in Barbara McQuaid's new book "Attack from Within" a great read I recommend to everyone.

We have a 14th amendment to purge traitors from congress. I think it should be vigorously applied to everyone involved.

Nothing less than the existence of our republic is at stake in this election. We need everyone to vote as if their life depends on it, because for many people this will be the case.

Expand full comment

And you are a soldier for liberty. I commend you. If only others could learn from your civility.

Expand full comment
founding

Ahem, I'm a Marine. Us jarheads are big on correct nomenclature.

But thank you for the sentiment.

Expand full comment

Yeah, every man in my family but one abnormally short one was military. Funny how I said "soldier of liberty" not knowing that.

Guess I just know the type.

Expand full comment

I seems like SCOTUS as taken the place of a king. And we is American citizens are completely powerless over this over empowered body. It is supposed to keep things fair and safe and it is the opposite now. Self interest above all.

Expand full comment

And this is what the second amendment was actually written for; aid for soldiers and protection against a corrupt government.

Republicans knew that when Obama was President. I know because they kept mentioning it.

Oh well. Sounds about white.

Expand full comment

Donald Trump is NOT president. I believe it is wrong that his lawyers are permitted to refer to him as President Trump throughout their remarks. When a policeman is called to testify he/she cannot wear their uniform, as it might be unfairly prejudicial, giving him/her a false aura of authority or deference, just as calling him “President Trump” could.

The president is not on trial. The former president is. Do you think we’d be hearing Hillary Clinton referred to as Madame Secretary were she on trial?

Expand full comment

A few days ago, I raised the issue of how this man would be referenced and addressed. Would he be, like any other defendant as Mr Trump (lower case intentional) or "the defendant?" And here we are listening to his being referred to by a title he has sullied. Being asked to refer to him by the title that refers to the office that is the crux of this case.

As Harry Truman once said, when he was referred to as an "ex-president," "I am a 'former' president. I have done nothing wrong,". The same can not be said about the grifter on trial for trying to illegally influence an election.

Expand full comment

Carol-Ann, We can take some comfort in the fact that Trump is on his way to a criminal conviction. He won't be known in the history books as 'President Trump.' He will be known as the convicted criminal. Of course, I acknowledge that he is innocent until being convicted in a court of law.

Expand full comment

Don The Don sounds right.

Expand full comment

Haven't paid close enough attention but I suspect only the defense attorneys are referring to tffg as "President".

Expand full comment

I think you are correct, at least the attorney for the defense did in his opening statement - right after he told the Jury that that man was just an ordinary Joe, just like them and that out of deference to his former exalted station, the defense would refer to him as "Mr President." My problem is that, if heard often enough, it becomes lodged in the hippocampus and the jurors will reflexively begin to think of him that way. This does seem to be a jury who is definitely sharper than he is.....but....

Expand full comment
founding
Apr 23·edited Apr 23

The highest honorific title attained by a former politician is the one conferred for use for life. This is common practice in the United States. For example, Kevin McCarthy will be referred to as Speaker McCarthy, or Mr. Speaker, for the rest of his life. Same holds true for Presidents Carter, Bush, Clinton and Obama. And, yes, it is still Secretary Clinton for Hillary. Trump has upended this polite tradition.

Expand full comment

It is not a tradition in criminal trials, at least in the ones I had tried as a state and federal prosecutor. Generally, he or she is referred to as "the defendant". Dispensing with titles serves to reinforce the concept of "equal justice under law" and to convey the notion that in a court of law, all men and women stand before the bar as equals.

Expand full comment
founding

Indeed, as prosecutor you should use the term defendant. As the Manhattan DA did. The defense, on the other hand, isn’t bound by that neutrality. They have leave to deploy the common-practice political title if it suits their narrative. This is my opinion as a journalist who covered a few criminal trials.

Expand full comment

You're right. There is no bar to a defense attorney attempting to exploit the title of his client.

Expand full comment

I hope it backfires - if not with the jury, at least with the voters following the trial - that yes we elected someone to the highest office in the land that acts like a mob boss!

Expand full comment

Should he be elected again, there will be no constraints upon him this time exercising almost everything at the disposal of a mob boss, with the added exception that he can pardon just about anyone for doing just about anything in violation of a federal crime. It is truly frightening.

Expand full comment

Exactly what I was trying to say. But not being a lawyer I wasn’t sure if titles were really a thing at trial or not. Thanks for clarifying.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this Joyce. What a world we live in these days. I would never have believed we would be here. What a shame for all Americans and democracy that we have to deal with someone like Trump.

Expand full comment

You are absolutely right. It’s a perfect storm of unlimited funds in politics. Consider that our society is becoming more globsl instead of European and the EuroChristians are reacting favorably to any voices that reassure their dominant heritage and it’s a false message that Trump gives them of polluting the bloodline. Plato once stated that Tyranny follows Democracy and I now understand his reckoning.

Expand full comment

It would be nice if and when Trump loses he would have to pay all court costs (as can be requested in small claims court). I imagine there will be hefty fines and possibly jail time if he does.

Expand full comment

Joyce is a gift from the universe. It is a privilage to be part of Civil Discourse.

Expand full comment

I’m convinced that most of the people who voted for him thought he was the character he played on TV.

Expand full comment

If you have the misfortune to talk with them, I think that's true. It's the celebrity culture. It's the "social media influencer" as a career ridiculousness.

Expand full comment

And thought he was this great businessman, not knowing he had numerous bankruptcies and doesn’t read

Expand full comment

I think that the Court should hold Trump in contempt but reserve sentence until such time that it would be appropriate to impose it, which could be at the conclusion of the trial.

Trump is clearly attempting to bait the judge into falling into his trap of incarcerating him to make him appear to be a "political prisoner".

This is Trump's end-game: to divert the country's attention away from his crimes and turn him into a martyr. As Jesus sacrificed his life for humanity, so will our hero Donald Trump sacrifice his freedom on the pyre of human liberty.

As Trump said, "I am willing to go to jail for our country to win and become a democracy again," and it would be a "great honor" to do so.

We are now seeing this sleazy con man in all his flamboyance trying to convince both the American people and himself that everything he has done in his life (including his lies, lecheries, infidelities and crimes) has been for the American people. This is pure show-biz and symptomatic of a very unstable and delusional mind spinning out of control.

Expand full comment
founding

L.D.Michaels - I agree with you totally ... Great Post ... Thank You !!

Expand full comment

And it's absolutely befuddling how people actually buy into his hyperbole! I will never, ever understand it. It's nauseating.

Expand full comment

DITTO!!!!!!!!!

Expand full comment

Excellent point. If Drumpf is acquitted though, and then is thrown in jail for violating the gag order... doubly useful in the witch hunt howls.

Expand full comment

Just like all his campaign lies for the 2016 election. He never did what he said to the American people he would do whether became president. They were all LIES.

Expand full comment

When he became president (not whether)

Expand full comment

Cohen not only committed this CRIME at the "direction of and for the benefit of Individual 1" ie Donald Trump. He perjured himself, also "at the direction of and for the benefit of" Donald Trump when he LIED to Congress about Trump's plans for a hotel in Moscow. No matter the verdict in this case, what is clear as day is Trump's willingness to CHEAT in order to "win." This trial will change nothing in that regard. Vladimir Putin's minions are already flooding social media as he "revs" up his mis/disinformation campaign designed to turn "we the people" against each other to the benefit of both Trump and Russia. To me, being informed is the minimum adult responsibility, but, sadly, there's so much information flowing across the internet it's hard for many people to understand up from down. For me, I'm grateful for Joyce's "sober" explanation of the legal issues most of us, me in particular, don't understand without some help. I've just finished Reading Rachel Maddow's "Prequel" and it's got me more focused on doing what I can to convince people how important the next few elections will be. Getting the "MAGA" influence out of our political arena is going to take (likely) a generation - I'm thinking of the SCOTUS. Thank God for these judges and prosecutors in New York who are not intimidated by Trump. (Well, I guess in the case of Judge Merchan his rulings on Trump's OBVIOUS contempt will be a signal, one way or the other, whether Trump will finally be "treated like any other CRIMINAL defendant.)

Expand full comment

I agree. I think the Prosecutor's response to the Defense calling Cohen a liar - which he was - is to hammer home that he was acting at the direction of his boss and on behalf of his boss. Charles Manson didn't kill Sharon Tate, but his followers killed her at his direction. Not apples to apples, of course, but the general idea is the same. The person who directs another to commit a crime is also guilty of the crime.

Expand full comment

Bingo, in the words of a hero now running for Congress MD03, 'the one who sent them' ;

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/565065-capitol-police-officer-harry-dunn-on-jan-6-mob-a-hitman-sent-them/

Expand full comment

"If a hit man is hired and he kills somebody, the hit man goes to jail. But not only does the hit man go to jail, but the person who hired them does. It was an attack carried out on Jan. 6 and a hit man sent them. I want you to get to the bottom of that,” Dunn told lawmakers at the panel’s first official hearing on Tuesday."

Expand full comment

Harry Dunn is awesome. I hope he wins.

Expand full comment

Me too! Reading his book proved to me that he is more than qualified, he absolutely deserves the win, just wish I could vote for him but can only contribute. 💙

Expand full comment

Agreed!

Expand full comment
founding

JOYCE! What would we do without you, woman!!

Expand full comment

E. JEAN! What would we do without you, woman!!

Expand full comment
founding

Thank you for this comprehensive review and analysis. Passover started last night- the tradition is a story of redemption. I hope with the start of the trial today, we as a nation are beginning that long walk to redemption of our democracy. This trial shows our system holds accountable even the most powerful when it walks the walk- “no one is above the law”.

Expand full comment

As for the transcripts, I read portions of the transcripts last night on the news and could not help but read how many times Trump's lawyer, in his opening statement to the jury, referred to "President Trump" did this, "President Trump" did that, "President Trump", "President Trump" and "President Trump". This is all being done, I believe, to intimidate the jurors and send a subliminal message to them that the man sitting over there has been and will be again the President of the United States and that they should think twice before holding this great man in judgment.

Expand full comment

I agree, but I seriously doubt that we could talk his attorneys into using the more accurate honorific - Jeff Tiedrich’s preferred title: “King Fuckface the First”.

Oops, did I just make an uncivil?

Expand full comment

Lord help me, I love Jeff. I just wish he would post earlier so that I could start my day with a laugh.

Expand full comment

While I prefer that he be called by a prisoner #, I think it highly unlikely that that will happen unless and until he losses the 2024 election or after his second term in office, should he win the election. While he is taunting, baiting and practically begging the judge to put him in to enhance his self-inflicted martyrdom image for the upcoming election, it's unlikely that the judge will take the bait.

Expand full comment

You are much too generous, William.

Expand full comment

That just reinforces the need to defeat him at the ballot box!

I'm retired and I am spending a good chunk of my time doing grassroots activism to:

* register new voters - in person and by writing postcards for Field Team 6 at www.fieldteam6.org

* fight voter suppression tactics - www.VoteRiders.org and https://www.vopropros.com/

* get out the vote (GOTV) with Vote Forward letters (www.votefwd.org) and lots of postcards through various groups (www.postcardstovoters.org, activateamerica.vote, www.environmentalvoter.org/get-involved, https://www.centerforcommonground.org/reclaim-our-vote, https://neaznativedemocrats.org/, as well as my local chapter of Invisible).

In many cases the letters and postcards are being stockpiled to mail later leaving time closer to the election for door-to-door canvassing.

Not everyone has time to do all that, but I think everyone could carve out a little bit of time time each week for something directed at electing Biden and defeating Trump!

Expand full comment

Thank You for your service, Cheryl. You are inspiring recently-retired me to get back to work!

Expand full comment
Apr 23·edited Apr 23

If everybody did a little, we would make great progress.

For more inspiration, check out Jessica Craven's substack "Chop Wood, Carry Water" especially her New Years Resolutions column:

https://open.substack.com/pub/chopwoodcarrywaterdailyactions/p/2024-new-years-politics-resolutions?r=1aiy5t&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Expand full comment

And if you can’t spend the time please DONATE if just $10. Every little bit helps. I am retired and have donated over $400 trying to support the House, the Senate as well as the President. All important!

Expand full comment

thank you for this information

Expand full comment
founding

See my political titles explanation above — we may not like it, and it may be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate the jury, but it is common practice in the United States.

Expand full comment

My hunch is that Trump wants to be incarcerated as it will provide him a persecuted victumhood. This is the only solution.

Still in celebration of Earth Day, here is a song I wrote titled, "Song of Greta Thungberg." Please enjoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5lXby9apjI

Expand full comment

I like the idea of him appearing in court and then spending his nights in a cell. Every time he violates the gag order. No more grandstanding outside the court.

Expand full comment

I’m for that idea. Throw him in the drunk tank with the midnight crazies. How long do y’all reckon he’d last?

Expand full comment

Where is that trestle located? Reminds me of one I had to run like heck to get off of when a train was coming near Friendship Cemetery!

Expand full comment

Bill, it's Greta Thunberg not Thungberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg

Expand full comment

Well darn it I fired my copy editor too soon, lol.

Expand full comment

The danger of you sitting on the train tracks seemed to symbolize the upcoming train of doom from climate change.

Expand full comment

Bill this is a terrific song. copyright it & send it to singers & Greta

Expand full comment

"And he's a person, just like you and just like me.” I've been wondering whether I could have served as a fair and impartial juror and realized, reading this enormously offensive statement from Mr. Blanche, that I could not. No, sir, this defendant is NOT like me, in any way, shape or form.

Expand full comment

I love the way that Rachel, or someone else, pointed out that even the worst criminal on trial has one or more family members in attendance, including Jeffrey Dahmer. Trump - Zero.

Expand full comment

Thank you Joyce, your comments in this are excellent and very helpful to the lay reader. You have made sense out of a nonsensical Dimwit's hot seat...who continues to think he is above the law....which of course he isn't.

Expand full comment

If a lawyer knows his client is lying — he has seen evidence — and he repeats this lies to defend his client, isn’t he committing perjury?

“Blanche went beyond that, “The story that you just heard, you will learn, is not true.”

Expand full comment

Client/attorney privilege.

Expand full comment

Thanks. Great summary and presentation of the start to the trial. Hard to believe such a despicable human being can garner so much support. But seeing interviews at trump rallies, few if any can explain why they support Trump, what he has done for them, or what he will do. Blind fealty is scary.

Expand full comment

Peter, I too, have always been flabbergasted at just what folks CAN’T say about Tffg. They typically speak in generalities and nothing real specific, not even anything that personally, positively impacted their lives. They just repeat “talking points.” It really is cultish.

Expand full comment
Apr 23·edited Apr 23

Frankly I'm tired of him being referred to as "President". He's the ex-President and we all know he was just horrible at the job.

Expand full comment

The ex-President responsible for half a million COVID deaths, and probably twice that numbered disabled with post-Covid long term effects. Beyond horrible at his job.

Expand full comment

We know tRump lies, and that his “followers” believe every word. When the Mueller Report was published, tRump proudly proclaimed he was exonerated, which he clearly was not. That didn’t stop his “fans” from shouting it from the rooftops though. Anything short of a guilty verdict will produce the same result. I agree that acquittal is not likely, but if there is a hung jury the public result will be the same as “not guilty”. tRump will shout that he wasn’t convicted, that a jury found him innocent and his minions will swallow it whole. That would be a sad day indeed.

Expand full comment

You can thank William Barr for the “faux” exoneration, one of the biggest lies coming from the Government of the United States. He led the DO(n)J, Department of (no) Justice.

Expand full comment

love the tRump

Expand full comment

Thank you for keeping us up to date. In the US I am surrounded by people who are so burnt out by Trump that they are paying marginal attention to what he is doing, and praying that he does not win. In Germany people turn to me to explain Trump and whether I think he will win again. So, while I have no one to really discuss it with, your forum provides the substance of my thinking on the case. Much appreciated.

Expand full comment