Friday, April 19, 2024
Fair and Impartial
Michael Ian Black. Never heard of him, maybe you have, not me:
Could I set aside my own somewhat biased (I hate him) feelings regarding the defendant to ensure that he gets a fair trial?
Me too.
...my understanding of the job of “juror” isn’t to sit in judgment of the person, only the acts which that person is accused of having performed. I could do that.
Me too.
...
All you gotta do is show me the law in question, and let me figure out whether he broke it. My personal animus towards the defendant is irrelevant.
Easy.
Black is 75% right. The missing 25% makes it easier. The job of juror, understood 100% is to judge the prosecution's evidence. Weigh it, that's the language of the law. Weigh the evidence. Does it meet the weight limit of beyond a reasonable doubt? I used that law with a metaphor when I was picking juries in criminal trials. It's like Olympic weightlifting. It's not a contest between two big strong fat guys. There are consequences, to be sure, for winner and loser, but the contest is against a standard. Can you lift 400 lbs or whatever the standard is? Can you lift it above your head and then hold it there for a second without "wavering or vacillating". That also is from the law. A reasonable doubt does not waver or vacillate. It's stable. In a criminal trial the "burden" of proof rests solely on the shoulders of the prosecution. The defense, as we routinely say, doesn't have to do anything. We can sit there and read the newspaper. Glance up every so often and see if he's lifting it, argue in closings that he didn't lift it completely over his head or didn't hold it there stably, "You saw him, his arms were shaking and his legs quivering." Easy.
“They crucified so many people that they ran out of wood.”
My Big Brother read that in his Middle East readings one time and told me about it this morning. Remarkable fact. Metaphor for nearly 2,000 years of history. They’re going to crucify until they run out of wood; they’re going to shoot until they run out of bullets. Or people to kill whatever the mechanism.
Jonathan Lord
Jonathan Lord, head of the Middle East security program at the Center for a New American Security, a U.S. think tank, said that
"seems to indicate that Iran is seeking to step down off the ledge, minimise the impact of the attack, and perhaps walk back down the escalation ladder from here".
Now, according to "reporting", Iran previously said that any Israeli strike on their homeland would be met with massive, unwarned retaliation on Israel. Maybe all of those reports, which were sourced to American, Israeli and Iranian officials, are false and Jonathan Lord is correct. Or maybe this is the notorious fog of war. Or maybe it's propaganda and tits will be replied to with tats as they have been for nearly 2,000 years in the Mid East.
John Kirby
The Pentagon spokesman could have been replying personally to the undersigned:
“Can you imagine a world in which Iran would pick up the phone and say, ‘We’re about to try to whack Israel with 300 cruise missiles and drones, we just wanted to let you know it’s coming and oh by the way, here’s what we’re going to hit.'”
Weird, man.
Iranian Official
"The foreign source of the incident has not been confirmed. We have not received any external attack, and the discussion leans more towards infiltration than attack."
Weird. Either Iranian Official is disguising the strike for domestic consumption or Iz launched its drones from inside Iran on Iran.
Thursday, April 18, 2024
Paper Moon (1973)
I have watched four or five of the cognoscente's consensus all-time greatest films. I didn't like any of them as well as The Thomas Crowne Affair (1999), imo a severely underrated film. Same with this one, Paper Moon. I watched Paper Moon on the big screen in a theater when it first came out. I haven't been able to rewatch it for free, just clips.
The late Ryan O'Neal and his real life daughter Tatum are the co-stars. Tatum is the youngest actor (10 yrs old) ever to win an Academy Award (for this film, as supporting actor).
Moses Pray is a lovable midwest conman, in the grand American tradition of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, during the Depression. Addie Pray, Moses' daughter, whose paternity Moses doesn't acknowledge until late in the film, is smarter than her father and both learns from him and out-learns him, willingly participating in Moses' scams and making them better, morally and lucratively. One of Moses' scams is "widow business". He and Addie scan the rural Kansas newspapers for recent deaths and then show up at the widow's house claiming that the dearly departed ordered a dee-luxe bible for someone named...[insert name of widow].
There are two scenes of widow business in this clip. Note director Peter Bogdanovich's use of deep focus keeping both foreground and background in crystal clarity. And note the subtle screenplay. Paper Moon is a masterpiece, underappreciated at release but now gaining recognition and a following. I have watched this short clip three times and laughed out loud at the contrast between first and second scenes and Moses' futile attempts keep control of the business template from interference by his ten-year old daughter in stealing the scenes (and the widows' money). It's absolutely adorable.
"Praise the Lord." 😂
They Have a Jury!
Twelve plus one alternate have been chosen at the close of coat today. Justice Merchan and the lawyers will continue tomorrow to choose the panel of alternates. I forget how many Merchan wants.
Noodles:
Ashley Moyer-Gleich Becomes 2nd Woman to Referee NBA Playoff Games
Playoff refs are chosen by merit over the preceding season.
Violet Palmer,
"He looked less orange. Definitely. Like, more yellowish.”😂
A Trump juror excused from today's panel because she said she couldn't be impartial.
"My greedy, little yellow pimp". (Revenge of the Pink Panther 42:05)
“He doesn’t look angry … I think he looks bored. Like he wants to finish and go do his stuff.”
Knives out for Johnson
House GOP erupts into name-calling and fresh
threats to Johnson over effort to pass aid (Noodles)
"Squishy!" "Tubby!" "RINO! "DEMOCRAT!"😁
And then there were five...
Another juror struck from the original seven selectees. The older PR guy who said something like, "Trump walks into a room and immediately dominates attention.
Quasis
Miscalculation Led to Escalation in Clash Between Israel and Iran
Israeli officials say they didn’t see a strike on a high-level Iranian target in Syria as a provocation, and did not give Washington a heads-up about it until right before it happened.
“Israeli officials”, you need an IQ test, a lie-detector test, and need to get your calculator fixed. Under international law you attacked sovereign Iranian territory when you hit the Iranian embassy in Syria. Under international law it was the same as you hitting Tehran. The same week two South American countries broke diplomatic relations when the host country invaded the embassy of the guest country to arrest a person.
Israel was mere moments away from an airstrike on April 1 that killed several senior Iranian commanders at Iran’s embassy complex in Syria when it told the United States what was about to happen.
...
The Israeli airstrike in Damascus killed seven Iranian officers, three of them generals, including [Mohammad Reza] Zahedi. In the past, Israel had repeatedly killed Iranian fighters, commanders and nuclear scientists, but no single strike had wiped out so much of Iran’s military leadership.
...
Israel’s closest ally had just been caught off guard.
Aides quickly alerted [the Biden national security team]…and others, who saw that the strike could have serious consequences, a U.S. official said.
...
...the Israeli strike in Damascus. Not only did the Israelis wait until the last minute to give word of it to the United States, but when they did so, it was a relatively low-level notification, U.S. officials said. Nor...any indication how sensitive the target...
...
The Israelis had badly miscalculated, thinking that Iran would not react strongly, according to multiple American officials who were involved in high-level discussions after the attack, a view shared by a senior Israeli official. On Saturday, Iran launched a retaliatory barrage of more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel — an unexpectedly large-scale response, if one that did minimal damage.
They gave you so much warning it could have been their attack plans with targets color-coded. It was not unexpected. Who cares that there were 300 projectiles fired when there was "minimal damage" and no deaths? How many Iranians did you kill in your strike that pancaked sovereign Iranian territory in Syria, was it eight? It was a non-zero number greater than one.
…the unwritten rules of engagement in the long-simmering conflict between Israel and Iran have changed drastically in recent months, making it harder than ever for each side to gauge the other’s intentions and reactions.
Since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel…there has been escalation after escalation and miscalculation after miscalculation, raising fears of a retribution cycle that could potentially become an all-out war.
Even after it became clear that Iran would retaliate, U.S. and Israeli officials initially thought the scale of the response would be fairly limited, before scrambling to revise their assessment again and again. ...
It WAS fairly limited. Israel wants to attack Iran, that is what this is about. Israel wants a broader war, Armageddon, that's what this is.
…
“We are in a situation where basically everybody can claim victory,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran director of the International Crisis Group. “Iran can say that it took revenge, Israel can say it defeated the Iranian attack and the United States can say it successfully deterred Iran and defended Israel.
That is EXACTLY correct. As is this:
“If we get into another round of tit for tat, it can easily spiral out of control, not just for Iran and Israel, but for the rest of the region and the entire world.”
...
About a week beforehand, on March 22, Israel’s war Cabinet approved the operation, according to internal Israeli defense records...
Those records also outlined the range of responses from Iran that the Israeli government expected, among them small-scale attacks by proxies and a small-scale attack from Iran. None of the assessments predicted the ferocity of the Iranian response that actually occurred.
Those records also outlined the range of responses from Iran that the Israeli government expected, among them small-scale attacks by proxies and a small-scale attack from Iran. None of the assessments predicted the ferocity of the Iranian response that actually occurred.
To characterize Iran's response, which did virtually no damage and killed no one as "ferocious"--that is Israeli propaganda.
From the day of the strike, Iran vowed retaliation, both publicly and through diplomatic channels. But it also sent messages privately that it did not want outright war with Israel — and even less so with the United States — and it waited 12 days to attack.
All true. ALL true. There was nothing "unexpected".
U.S. officials found themselves in an... uncomfortable position: They had been 1) kept in the dark...by...Israel,[2) until the last moment] even as Iran...3) telegraphed its intentions 4) well in advance.
5) Israel attacked sovereign Iranian territory, destroying a structure and killing several people. I saw with my own eyes an official Iranian tweet quoting, correctly, international law on this point.
6) Israel was prepared--how could they not be! I also read a quote, which I believe I posted here, from Israel's Defense Minister, assuring the public that Israel was prepared and that it would take "several hours" for the drones and missiles to reach Israel.
Those points deserved the separate enumeration. The contrast is stark. It is insulting to me as an American to hear my government saying that Iran's response was "unexpected" and that it was "ferocious". Iran's retaliatory strike was under-proportionate to Israel's.
...
Turkey, relaying an Iranian message, told the United States that Iran’s attack would be proportionate to the Damascus strike, according to a Turkish diplomatic source. Abdollahian, Iran’s foreign minister, told state television the day after the Iranian barrage that Iran had given its neighbors 72 hours’ notice of the attack, although the specifics of that warning are unclear.
Israeli officials say that, thanks in part to international cooperation, they had a good idea in advance of Iran’s targets and weapons.
Insert shoulder shrug icon. You had no right to expect this level of granular detail in the warnings. You attacked sovereign Iranian territory, leveling a building, killing seven, three generals, and more of the Iranian military leadership than you ever had before in a single strike. Now you want revenge for a slap that did next to no damage and killed no one?! You're the bad actor here, Iz, NOT Iran.
...
The Iranian government went on an unusually open and broad diplomatic campaign, spreading the word that it saw the attack as a violation of its sovereignty that required retaliation. The government publicized that it was exchanging messages with the United States and that Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian was speaking with representatives of countries in the region, high-level European officials and leaders of the United Nations.
On April 7, Abdollahian met in Muscat, Oman, with his Omani counterpart, Badr Albusaidi. Oman is one of the main intermediaries between Iran and the West. The Iranian message at that meeting, according to a diplomat briefed on it, was that Iran had to strike back but that it would keep its attack contained, and that it was not seeking a regional war.
...
...Iran’s show of force was significant, but Israel, the United States and other allies intercepted nearly all of the missiles and drones. The few that reached their targets had little effect. Iranian officials say the attack was designed to inflict limited damage.
That's right! So drop the "unexpected", "ferocious" and "significant". How many projectiles would have been "insignificant"? One? Ten? Two hundred?
Initially, Israel’s military and intelligence services expected Iran to launch no more than 10 surface-to-surface missiles at Israel...By the middle of last week, they realized Iran had something much bigger in mind, and the Israelis increased their estimate to 60 to 70...
Okay. So initially 9, no prob. 60-70, would that have been okay? Do you want to attack Iranian sovereign territory again because your calculators were wrong?
Iran played a shell game, nerving Israel and allies with quantity when there was no quality, no "significant" intent to harm, nor realized harm, under any of the shells.
U.S. officials have been telling Israeli leaders to see their successful defense as a victory,
I disagree that that is what we should be telling Israel. We should be telling Israel that Iran demonstrated its bona fides as a responsible nation in not overreacting, in fact, in under-reacting. We should be telling Israel to see this for what it was, a "show" of force "designed" by Iran "to inflict limited damage." In short, that it was Iran's victory, and a victory for peace.
suggesting that little or no further reply is needed. But despite international calls for deescalation, Israeli officials argue that Iran’s attack requires yet another response, which Iran says it would answer with still more force, making the situation more volatile.
...
At 3 a.m. [following the Iranian show response], the Swiss ambassador in Tehran was summoned again — not to the Foreign Ministry, the usual practice, but to a Revolutionary Guard base, according to an Iranian and a U.S. official. She was asked to convey a message that the United States should stay out of the fight, and that if Israel retaliated, Iran would strike again, harder and without warning.
Iran cast its barrage against Israel as a measured, justified act that should not lead to escalation.
“We carried out a limited operation, at the same level and proportion to the evil actions of the Zionist regime,” Maj. Gen. Hossein Salami, commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guard, said on state television. “These operations could have been a lot larger.”
...
“The president urged the prime minister to think about what that success says all by itself to the rest of the region,” Kirby said Monday.
But in interviews, Israeli officials described the attack in far more dire terms, in part because of its sheer scale. They emphasized that this was a sovereign nation, from its own soil, attacking Israel directly, and not through proxies abroad.
The NERVE! Israel, "a sovereign nation," "from its own soil", "directly" attacked another sovereign nation, Iran, on its soil! smh
Financial Times
Iran warns of shift in nuclear stance if Israel threatens atomic sites
https://www.ft.com/content/c73b99ec-cd3f-49be-8024-6faf369b58e1
Iran has warned Israel it is likely to review its nuclear stance if its atomic facilities are threatened, as tensions rise following the Islamic republic’s weekend drone and missile attack on Israel.
I’m anti-braces and anti-shifts.
Reuters
Trump hush money trial loses juror who felt intimidated, judge says
NEW YORK, April 18 (Reuters) - A juror was excused on Thursday from Donald Trump's criminal trial after saying she felt intimidated because some aspects of her identity had been made public, the judge overseeing the case said.
The juror told the court that family, friends and colleagues had contacted her after deducing through press accounts that she was on the jury.
"I don't believe at this point that I can be fair and unbiased, and let the outside influences not affect my decision-making in the courtroom," said the juror, who had been one of seven selected earlier this week.
[Eerily, there was, I think, a tweet from someone warning of the amount of detail on juror’s lives that was made public even as Justice Merchan protected their identities with a transparent fig leaf of nominal anonymity. However, I don’t understand where this juror’s inability to be unbiased comes from when (s)he has not been threatened or intimidated.]
Wednesday, April 17, 2024
This is not racist. It is...what?*
Ahmed/The Ears/IG: BigBizTheGod 🇸🇴
@big_business_
WHITE BOY @raf_tyler
9:47 PM · Apr 17, 2024
·
20K Views
That's it, that's the tweet. raf_tyler is Tyler Herro's Twitter handle. Tyler committed the critical turnover, a backcourt violation, that led directly to the basket that lost the game for the "Heat". This guy all caps it as down to "WHITE BOY". I looked up "bigoted", it's not that. The closest term I could find is "negative racial stereotyping", which is cumbersome.* How about "anti-white"? It's bad, whatever the term for it, it's bad; offensive, racially offensive. If I wrote, "BLACK BOY", over my laughing white face, say about JR Smith thinking his "Cavaliers" team was ahead instead of being behind, and sent my comment to Smith's personal address, I would be called out, rightly, for writing something "racist". But a Black person cannot be a racist toward a white, because, I think, Blacks are a minority and whites the majority. At least in polite American society a Black person cannot be termed a racist towards whites (You also capitalize Black when referring to the race and don't capitalize white.).
FT 7’6”ers 105 45’s 104
Phila gets Manhattan Earthquakes in the playoffs; Mimi plays the winner of Wind (9)-Pigeons (10) Friday, in the second and final play-in, with the winner playing Beans (1) in the playoffs.
Wally
Mike Johnson Defies GOP Critics, Setting Up Ukraine-Israel Aid Showdown
House Republican leaders post three of four bills, with final vote expected Saturday
7’6”ers 88 45’s 89, 4:12 4Q, 45’s FTO
Butler is 5/18 (2/6); Herro 6/22 (2/11), a combined 13/40 (4/17). Jimmy leads the team with 19 pts.
7'6"ers (7th) 69 45's (8th) 74, End 3Q
The winner of this one qualifies for the playoffs as the 7th seed and will face Manny Hatty (2nd). The trump plays the winner of Wind-Pigeons for the 8th seed and will play Beans.
Apie
Iran president warns of ‘massive’ response if Israel launches ‘tiniest invasion’
Death to responses.
City Have NOT Been Themselves This Season
A repeat treble is gone! Might this shocking setback in the Champions League affect their ability to retain the EPL title? It is a bitter disappointment for Pep and Boys. Normally, no, it would not. This season?
He's going to turn me back to Democratic Socialist again!
Netanyahu brushes off calls for restraint, saying
Israel will decide how to respond to Iran’s attack
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron...said “it’s clear the Israelis are making a decision to act” against Iran...
Only applies to players, not to management
"There is nothing more important that protecting the integrity of NBA competition for our fans, our teams and everyone associated with our sport…”-NBA commissioner Adam Silver, announcing that owner Dan Gilbert, team president Koby Altman, and “Cavaliers” head coach BJ Bickerstaff have been banned from the Association for throwing the game against Charlotte Toronto reserve Jontay Porter has been banned from the Association for betting on games.
Adam never responded to my email either 🤷🏻♂️
I’ve always liked Alvin Bragg; considered him a hero, even
‘It’s a Very Winnable Case’: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial
David French, a Times columnist, hosted a written online conversation with the former federal prosecutors Mary McCord and Ken White to discuss and debate the Trump criminal trial in Manhattan and how, or if, the outcome will matter to voters.
…[French]: When the case was filed, legal analysts from across the political spectrum voiced concern about the case, mainly on legal grounds. I have expressed my own doubts about the case. Now that the trial is underway, what’s your assessment of the case today?
Ken White: We know a lot more now about the D.A.’s theory of the case than we did before. There was a lot of speculation about whether the predicate crime — the one Trump was promoting by falsifying records — was going to be federal or state, and whether it was going to be campaign-finance related or election-interference related. Now the prosecutors have shown their hand, and their lead theory is going to be that Trump meant to interfere unlawfully with an election by concealing information that the voters might have considered. A case tends to look stronger after the prosecution picks a theory and commits to it. The evidence of deliberate falsification of records is going to be very strong.
Mary McCord: I agree, the falsification of business records seems rock-solid based on the documentary evidence.
The question for the jurors will be Trump’s knowledge and intent. I expect some of the evidence of Trump’s knowledge and intent will come from witnesses with varying degrees of credibility, but other evidence will come from emails and text messages, including those that will corroborate witnesses with credibility issues, like Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and “fixer.” The picture that the prosecutors will paint for the jury, based on the judge’s pretrial rulings, will give the jurors plenty of evidence of motive: to prevent information damaging to candidate Trump from becoming public just weeks before the 2016 election. It’s a very winnable case for the D.A.
French: Let’s stick with the legal analysis for a moment. The D.A. has to prove that Trump falsified business records in furtherance of committing (or concealing) another crime. But Trump hasn’t been charged with that other crime. Why hasn’t the D.A. charged additional crimes, and how could that affect the case?
McCord: Because, based on New York law, the D.A. was not required to seek indictment on the crimes that Trump is alleged to have intended to conceal by falsifying business records.
White: It’s not unusual to charge cases relying on an uncharged predicate crime. It’s usually a smart decision by the D.A. to make the charges narrower and simpler.
McCord: The jury will be instructed by Justice Juan Merchan about what they have to conclude about Trump’s intent and whether the government’s evidence has proved that intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
[Here, I would make the argument were I the defense that the intent was to conceal the Stormy Daniels affair from Melanoma. The Access Hollywood tape was already out there and it indeed shook the Trump campaign. But they weathered it. What was one more? The affair with Stormy though, occurred, as I recall, when Melanoma was pregnant with Barron! That's a bigger family problem, maybe a bigger family problem than a political problem. For Trumpie's intent, certainly not causing the breakup of his family was a motive in getting the story killed. I would argue that if I were the defense.]
White: At the risk of getting all legal realist on you, jurors usually absorb case theories holistically — they decide if they accept the big picture and don’t get too bogged down with the details.
[I have found that to be true with regard to the charges and the why. And this theory is easy to understand: Trump killed the story with intent to interfere with the 2016 election. The problem is proving beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt that Trumpie's intent was election interference.]
French: Thanks for bringing up the jury. You’ve both picked many juries in your career. Can you help readers understand what kind of juror each side is looking for (or worried about)?
McCord: ...the defense will be looking for jurors who they think will be skeptical of the government’s case and maybe who are skeptical of the government generally.
[The defense didn’t get that with the first seven. They got two lawyers for crissakes.]
White: The defense wants someone who is independent and freethinking and willing to be the one holdout who hangs the jury — and, ideally, a secret Trump partisan.
[It doesn’t appear to me that they got a rogue and I am certain they didn’t get a MAGAt.]
McCord: Right, and so the government will be trying to weed out any potential juror they think could hang the jury. It likely will prefer well-read jurors, so long as those jurors are reading and listening to fact-based news. This is why one of the questions during jury selection asks potential jurors what media they visit, read or watch.
[The government got one nincompoop, the Black lady who wasn’t aware Trumpie had other cases, and who liked that he "speaks his mind."]
White: They’re both concerned about bias, but the government’s job is harder, since they need to convince all 12 jurors. ...
…
McCord: The government will be relying on witness testimony from those who spoke personally with Trump, like Michael Cohen and the former American Media chief David Pecker, but also on any corroborating evidence that doesn’t depend on credibility, like emails, text messages and other contemporaneous documentation.
White: It’s something lawyers view in a more complicated way than jurors do. Jurors tend to take things in a big-picture way. For years, legal pundits have been arguing that it’s hard to prove Trump’s intent because he’s so erratic and says so many contradictory things, so how can you draw inferences? But I don’t think a jury processes it that way.
[I dissent somewhat from this. The big picture theory, I agree, juror's will grasp. But there are two theories here (or should be), the election interference theory, and the family breakup theory. A theory, whether in physics or in law, has to be proven with evidence. The government's evidence has to prove their theory beyond and to the exclusion of the defense theory. The defense doesn't have to prove their theory, they just have to raise reasonable doubt on the government's theory. A reasonable doubt defense was, in my experience as a prosecutor, the most vexing defense. Look, if this case was all "big picture" simple, why did Alvin Bragg's juror profile include "well-read", and "some college?" Bragg has got two lawyers on this jury. They are going to parse theory and proof just as this lawyer has. One of my legal mentors, now a judge, had the view that a trial should be merely a tedious formality between opening statement and verdict. The "big picture" view of jury decision-making, which I largely hold to, includes, it must include, both an initial reaction to the theory and to the government's proof: "If they prove that, he's guilty." I don't know if Bragg will get that dual gut reaction after openings.]
McCord: This is also why it is important for the government to tell the whole story of the conspiracy to “catch and kill” allegations that would reflect poorly on Trump with voters and to elevate stories that would reflect poorly on his opponents. That broader scheme, dating back to 2015, suggests Trump’s intent not only to pay off Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet, but to conceal those payments through false business records. And the timing of the hush money payments just after the “Access Hollywood” story broke in October 2016 also provides clues about his intent given how close the election was.
[Mary McCord there brings in another very important step: concealment of the hush money payments as business records. So there are two steps: 1) pay hush money to conceal an affair (from Melanoma, in the defense theory) 2) cover up those payments as business records. Why would that be necessary if Trumpie's intent was concealment from his wife? Did Melanoma go over his checkbook to see if he was making any payments to Solid Gold? That's not reasonable. That doesn't raise reasonable doubt on the government's theory. Why did he only move to kill it in 2015 and not in 2006 when the affair occurred? I agree with McCord that the timing of the kill is a piece of evidence that does tend to prove the government's theory of intent to interfere with the 2016 election.]
French: How serious is this case for Trump, as a matter of legal jeopardy, especially given that he’d be a first-time nonviolent offender?
White: New York criminal practitioners seem fairly unanimous that a first-time offender convicted of something like this is extremely unlikely to do jail time. Add in his age and health, [What does he know that he is not telling about Trumpie's health?] and it’s even more unlikely....
McCord: I don’t think potential jail time is what is most important about this case. Being found guilty by a jury of a crime that was intended to influence a presidential election would be a huge deal, or at least it should be, especially if the person found guilty is running for president again.
French: Mary, I’m glad you said a conviction should be a huge deal. I absolutely agree. But would it be, truly? One side of me says that a felony conviction — especially following lurid evidence of the affair and coverup — could break through with at least some Americans. But then I remind myself that he has maintained his extraordinarily high floor of support through impeachments, indictments, a sexual abuse liability verdict and a pair of financially devastating civil judgments. Do you think a criminal trial has a unique chance to drive public opinion?
White: I’m afraid I’m a pessimist here. I think Trump has conditioned his base, perhaps 30 percent to 35 percent of the country, to see any conviction as unjust and illegitimate. The big question — on which the viability of the rule of law may hang — is what the people in the middle think. Will they care?
McCord: This is why the framing of the case is so important. Trump is not on trial for having an affair with a porn star. He is on trial for falsifying business records to give him an advantage in the election for president — and it was a close election. Today, Trump has used his claims of political persecution to solidify his base. But for those who don’t buy the persecution argument, conviction here might be enough to give them pause in November.
[I agree whole-heartedly with McCord in the importance of defining the case in that way. And my judgment is that any criminal conviction, even on a misdemeanor, would give some voters "pause."]
French: Let me ask a big-picture question. The rule of law is necessary for preserving our democracy, but I worry that it’s not sufficient. If enough people want Trump, can even a criminal conviction keep him at bay? Will the people get the Republic they want, law be damned?
[I agree with everything David French said there, but Trumpie is not going to win. Regardless of the outcome of this case, Trumpie will lose.]
White: The rule of law is not a deus ex machina that will save us from ignorance, prejudice and laziness. It’s not designed to, and is certainly inadequate to, fix our terrible politics. For that matter our political system might not be equipped to reject a populist like Trump. John Adams wrote: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He was probably talking about shared communal values rather than religious dogma. Without a shared set of values about what we expect from a leader, our system is probably not capable of defeating a tyrant.
[I agree with everything Ken White said there and I think we are sufficiently communal, or insufficiently non-communal that Trumpie will be trumped.]
McCord: Trump has exposed the weaknesses of a system that is based at least in part on the expectation that most people — both the governed and the governing — will seek to abide by the rule of law. But when someone like Trump comes along, we see that our system is slow and inefficient.
French: Rather than ending on a rather bleak note about American democracy, let’s conclude with…which witness — aside from Michael Cohen — are you most interested in hearing from?
White: Trump himself. No sane defense attorney would want to put him on the stand. But will this be the case where he overrules his attorneys? It’s a ploy that’s very unlikely to get him a not-guilty verdict, but might be effective in reaching that lone holdout.
[I think Trumpie will hang himself if he testifies. There will be no holdout if he testifies.]
…
French: This is pure speculation, but if the Stormy Daniels scandal emerged in October 2016, would Trump have won?
White: Yes. I think that sort of thing was already priced in. Nobody voted for him as a family man.
McCord: Coming on the heels of the “Access Hollywood” tape, this may have affected enough voters, particularly women voters, to make a difference.
[Both of those answers are eminently reasonable and I think both help the government's theory and its proof. A reasonable Trumpie would have concluded that whatever the effect on his marriage, having the Stormy Daniels affair exposed right before the 2016 election would have been politically damaging, whether it made a difference or not. What sticks in my craw is the question, "Did the government prove beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that Trumpie's intent was election interference?" My judgment is that Alvin Bragg will not convict Trumpie of the felonies but, if instructed on lessers, will convict him of the misdemeanors and that neither conviction on the one or the other nor outright acquittal will matter: President Biden will defeat Trump.]
Peaceniks Out! Purple Beam 118-94
Dark Lavender Laser now play Disgruntled Pelicans, trumps to La-La Bron-Bron. Trump of that goes home. Winner is 8th seed. Lawdy, how the mighty have fallen. Peaceniks from dynasty to trumps.
Tuesday, April 16, 2024
My fellow Demo 👨 and 🧑 are hopeful. They have some reason to be. Judge Merchan is a good judge who is giving Trump and the People a fair, no-nonsense trial. The jury looks fair to me. I have no doubt that if the People prove their case Trump will trump. And, allegedly, supposably, Alvin Bragg
is a “hero”, win OR lose! Head scratch. Some pencil, in Atlantic or Saloon or Slut, had a Revelation: He understands Alvin’s menu now and believes he can eat the w-h-o-l-e thing.
My fellow Blues, do remember for your emotional equilibrium that until this week this bullshit case was considered the “runt” of the prosecutorial litter. It still is the least serious, the least consequential, of the four, the three others being deadly serious and why Trumpie had to be prosecuted. Not this one, though. He didn’t have to be prosecuted on this one.
Remember too for your sakes that Alvin had to take this case to the grand jury twice, DOS, before gaining an indictment. Trumpie tweeted between, “I thought Grand Juries were rubber stamps. I applaud the Grand Jury for demanding more evidence.” And they did. They were not convinced (even to their rubber stamp standard) by Conehead. Practically Alvin’s entire office was in court to show support for the attempt to indict the second time and Alvin had to bring various other witnesses in to prop up said Conehead. I think Conehead hisself had to testify dos.
If a prosecutor has difficulty getting an indictment from a Grand Jury when Grand Juries indict ham sandwiches (or donuts), said difficulty at the rubber stamp phase of the proceedings is bad boding for the petit jury where the standard by which the government’s proof is measured is beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.
Recall too that learned legal eagles pointed out with some manner of consensus that Alvin’s legal theory to transmogrify these misdemeanors into felonies was “novel”, “untried”, and employed legal “bootstraps”; that it resembled in its complexity to argue, to prove, and for a jury to comprehend, a Rube Goldberg contraption.
There are tyoo lawyers among the seven jurors so far selected who know a thing or two about legal wheat and chaff, bullshit and a prosecutorial rock and they along with the other jurors are not going to cut Alvin Bragg any slack. This is New York City. Bullshit walks. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the only lingua franca spoken. Verily we can say, from Sinatra, if this case can’t make it here, it can’t make it anywhere.
FT Disgruntled Pelicans (7th) 106 La-La Bron-Bron (8) 110
DisPel still have another game🙄. They will play the Trump of Sac Town (9)-Peaceniks (10) whenever they decide it's 10 bells out there.
Trumpie: Judge Merchan "conflicted", "rushing" trial, "doing as much as he can for Dems", "Biden witch hunt"
From CNN's Aditi Sangal
Donald Trump, while leaving court for the day, called Judge Juan Merchan "conflicted."
"He's a conflicted judge," the former president said. "We're having a hard time with the New York state system."
Trump also commented on the pace of trial so far after seven jurors were chosen in the first two days.
Merchan is "rushing this trial. And he’s doing as much as he can for the Democrats. This is a Biden-inspired witch hunt and it should end," Trump added.
Violation of gag order? The judge is one of the protected targets. Three insults, with no basis: 1) the judge has a "conflict" 2) the judge is "rushing" the trial to do "as much as he can for the Democrats". 3) Biden-inspired witch hunt. The first two are directed squarely at Judge Merchan. I think the last, not directed at anyone in particular, probably would not be a violation. But the first two; man, those are attacks specifically on the integrity of the judge.
I wonder if backstrikes are permitted? A backstrike is a peremptory challenge against a juror already selected. In Florida, backstrikes are permitted until the venire is sworn. Each side has got four peremptories left. Maybe Judge Merchan swore the seven? I would think that unlikely. Jeopardy attaches once the jury is sworn. Maybe NY doesn't permit backstrikes? Judges don't like it! But under Florida law at least, they have no choice.
Jonah, formerly West, Bromwich was correct.
The first seated juror, who will be the foreperson on Trump’s jury, is a man originally from Ireland. He works in sales and has some college education. He is married but doesn’t have kids. He reads the New York Times and Daily Mail and watches some Fox News and MSNBC.-Noodles.
The second juror is an oncology nurse who lives with her fiancé. She’s a native New Yorker. She reads the New York Times and watches CNN.
The third seated juror is a corporate lawyer. He’s originally from Oregon. He gets his news from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Google. He’s a younger man who’s never been married and doesn’t have kids.
The fourth juror is an older Puerto Rican man who’s married with adult children and two grandkids. When asked about his hobbies, he said, "I guess my hobby is my family." He has an IT business for training and consulting and attended one year of college. He told the court he finds Trump fascinating and mysterious. “So many people are set off one way or the other and that is interesting,” the man said. “Really, this one guy can do all of this, wow.” Trump “makes things interesting,” the man said, but also didn’t indicate any strong feelings about his politics.
The fifth juror is a young Black woman who teaches English language in a public charter school system. She has a master’s degree in education, is not married and doesn’t have any kids. The juror said that as a person of color she has friends who have strong opinions on Trump, but she personally is not a political person. She said she tries to avoid political conversations and doesn't really care for the news. The juror did say she appreciates Trump’s candor: “President Trump speaks his mind and I’d rather that than someone who's in office who you don’t know what they’re thinking." She was also the only juror of 18 in the box Tuesday morning who said she wasn’t aware that Trump is facing charges in other criminal cases.
The sixth juror is a software engineer at a large broadcast company who recently graduated from college. She voiced no strong feelings about Donald Trump one way or the other and said, “I will be fair and impartial." She is not married and has no kids, currently living with three roommates in Chelsea. The juror gets her news from the New York Times, Google, Facebook and TikTok. She asked the judge whether her sister’s wedding on a Sunday in September would be a scheduling conflict. Merchan quipped, “If we were still here in September that would be a big problem,” garnering laughs in the courtroom.
The seventh juror is a civil litigator who is married with two kids and lives on the Upper East Side in Manhattan. Originally from North Carolina, he reads the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post and Washington Post. He said he has "political views as to the Trump presidency" and that he thinks there were likely Trump administration policies he disagreed with. "I don't know the man and I don't have opinions about him personally," he said. "I certainly follow the news, I'm aware there are other lawsuits out there. But I'm not sure that I know anyone’s character."
That would not be a prosecution's jury for a murder case in Miami. But this is neither. Trump did not get any young Black men. Nor any white working-class men.
Got one more! 7!
West, Noodles says Hoffinger is a PROSECUTOR, not a cop (investigator)
Prosecutors are now questioning the remaining potential jurors
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger is now questioning the potential jurors for the prosecution.
Done for the day in Manny Hatty!
No coat manana. Thursday, another panel of 96 to select the remaining six members of the venire and the alternates. They will have a full jury (+altos) by the close of bidness Friday at the latest, and maybe by Thursday evening. This is going so much like a Florida state criminal trial.
I was standing at my bathroom sink and looked to my left and saw reflected light moving, like shimmering off the shower sliding glass doors. I looked to see if the bathroom lights were vibrating, looked behind the shower doors to see if the source was coming from that direction, nothing. I thought something was wrong with my eyes or my brain, that I was seeing things. Luckily I had my phone with me and video’d it. It was real.
👻? 😂 I have NO idea what caused that.
God, Maggie Haberman, what is your fucking problem?
April 16, 2024, 12:58 p.m. ET
1 hour ago
Maggie Haberman Reporting from the courthouse
This is one of the most political jury selection processes we will ever see.
1 hour ago
Maggie Haberman Reporting from the courthouse
This is one of the most political jury selection processes we will ever see.
Narcolepsy?
Trump has largely remained engaged during the process, reviewing what appears to be a copy of the jury questionnaire and keeping watch over the prospective jurors as they tick through their answers.
But at times, like on Monday, he has been observed shutting his eyes, allowing his chin to slouch, then quickly jerking it back up.
Angry Trump Emerges from Court After First Day of Trial: ‘The Judge Isn’t Going to Allow Me to Escape This Scam’
Medialite is correct to focus on that statement: "escape".
?
This is today:
Trump at first appeared to be animated and engaged in discussions with his lawyers, pointing in the air with a pencil to punctuate his response. But after about an hour, Trump was seen periodically leaning back and closing his eyes, only to shift his weight moments later. Later, [i.e. at a different time] he had his eyes closed and his head tilted to the left. It was unclear if he was sleeping.
I don't know. I really don't know. I don't know why one closes one's eyes unless sleepy. I don't know why HE would close his eyes again after yesterday. He is so conscious all the time of how he presents in public, I would have thought he would do everything including propping his eyelids open with toothpicks if necessary today. One thing I would ask our court observers: Does he yawn? Has he yawned in these two days. That would be pathognomonic.
He DOESN’T look well in these
Snapshots can distort and I didn’t see what others saw in video. However these are FIVE snapshots and the chances of distortion are minimized—not eliminated—the more snaps there are. In four, Trump’s mouth is open as if he is laboring. In the fifth he looks haggard.
Contrast with these just from this weekend. The contrast is stark.
Trump's Trial
“I think that having to sit there and be captive while we all report on him is going to be deeply uncomfortable for him because he is someone who likes to control things,” she added.
Haberman elsewhere in her discussion with Collins described Trump as getting “bored and fidgety”...
Trump's New York hush money trial continues after sleepy start
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
