Predicting what a jury will do

[theevan]

In what universe is Benghazi and hiding transactions comparable?

[Cornflake]

Evan, your comment made me look into the history of the case. There's a timeline of events in this piece by ABC News.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-manhattan-district-attorney-case-donald-trump/story?id=98389444

It appears that the former DA, Cyrus Vance, had started investigating the matter in 2018 when Michael Cohen flipped. Vance convened a new grand jury to hear evidence against Trump in November 2021. He hadn't yet sought an indictment when he retired at the end of 2021 but the investigation was ongoing. When Bragg took over in January 2022, the two prosecutors in charge of the hush-money case wanted him to indict Trump then. Bragg didn't think the case was ready and he had his doubts at that point about whether they could get a conviction. Trump was indicted in 2023 and the case was tried a little over a year later. It looks a little pokey but I don't see anything nefarious in the chain of events. The fact that two different DAs thought the case was worth investigating tends to undercut the suggestion that Bragg pursued the case for political reasons.

I haven't heard any plausible theories as to who was supposedly orchestrating all this. By all appearances the DA's office made the relevant decisions. That's what DA's offices do.

Maybe I'm naive but I haven't heard anything that makes this proceeding look suspicious.

[Russell Letson]

May 31, 2024 17:17:35 GMT -5 theevan said:

In what universe is Benghazi and hiding transactions comparable?

In the universe of how old does an issue have to be (and be investigated) before it's declared arcane and who-cares-any-more. I'm pretty sure that if it were Biden being accused of similar accounts-falsification irregularities from eight years ago, the GOP's Congressional investigariat would be insisting that it's eternally relevant and prosecution-worthy.

[coachdoc]

Trump, felon.

[amanajoe]

You all think this is about getting Trump out of the election or hurting his chances of election?

I think you are missing the bigger picture. The game is afoot and the players that are paying attention know the real end game.

Most every constitutional lawyer has said that this case was shaky at best. Why does that matter? Because Bragg had to get just one conviction, 34 was surprising, but all he needed to get was one.

Why? Because everyone involved knows that Trump won't let it go at that, even if the judge just fines him and/or the RNC (see the recent Hillary Clinton fine for a similar sort of thing). No matter the outcome of the July 11th sentencing phase, Trump will appeal. It will be rushed forward. Regardless of the appeal outcome, under the Bush v. Gore rules it will fast track to the Supreme Court. Where, as the constitutional experts on both sides agree, it is likely to be dropped on constitutionality alone.

So what you say? There has been a non-stop push to find justices that can be accused of virtually anything to push them off the bench. Dropping the Trump case will be the last straw. With a Biden victory, they will use that along with the recent campaigns to oust Alito and Thomas to change the court (or if that doesn't work to pack the court). In case you weren't paying attention to stories that haven't been getting the same level of attention:

www.cnn.com/2024/05/29/politics/biden-pledge-progressives-supreme-court-vacancies/index.html

Biden seems to have inside knowledge about open seats at the court? Yes, Thomas and Alito are older 75 and 74, but the real game is, retire and we'll make all the terrible things we are saying about you go away. Two's not enough to break the majority, but with them going after anyone that over turns Trump v. New York, there may be 3 and not 2 or at the very least another argument for packing the court to 11.

Maybe I'm just not seeing things clearly, but the whole case, the way it was brought about, the judge appointed to it, the venue, all of it has a stink to it. I think everyone involved knows that and that they are willing to let it smell bad to everyone around to get to the end goal.

[theevan]

May 31, 2024 18:34:25 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

May 31, 2024 17:17:35 GMT -5 theevan said:

In what universe is Benghazi and hiding transactions comparable?

In the universe of how old does an issue have to be (and be investigated) before it's declared arcane and who-cares-any-more. I'm pretty sure that if it were Biden being accused of similar accounts-falsification irregularities from eight years ago, the GOP's Congressional investigariat would be insisting that it's eternally relevant and prosecution-worthy.

I quite agree on that point. It goes back to a prior post where I worry over the inevitable next round of escalating gotchas. I hate this, what preceded it, and what will surely follow.

On the other hand, Benghazi was a serious matter of betrayal, failure, and death of the highest order. I mean, a US ambassador, among others, was killed while begging for backup which was denied. In this sense it is in no way comparable to financial funny business.

[millring]

A few months ago Russ Douthat posited the idea that maybe Biden ought to step out of the race at the Democratic National Convention. The interesting article www.nytimes.com/2024/02/10/opinion/joe-biden-convention-2024.html gave some very interesting reasons why it might be a good idea and winning strategy.

Now it would be an interesting twist if the delegates decided to change their vote at the Republican National Convention. I don't know to whom they would throw the vote, but I'm guessing they're talking about doing so. I doubt another candidate would do worse than Trump at this point. If it was 20-30 years ago such a move would have hobbled the opposition from "research" by which to smear the new candidate (the only means by which anyone opposes anyone anymore). In today's information age, the new candidate would be demonized by the next day. Still, it might be better than an admittedly flawed candidate (Trump is "flawed" in the same way Michael Jordan is "pretty good" at basketball). It would significantly throw the opposition into disarray.

[theevan]

Jun 1, 2024 7:49:19 GMT -5 amanajoe said:

You all think this is about getting Trump out of the election or hurting his chances of election?

I think you are missing the bigger picture. The game is afoot and the players that are paying attention know the real end game.

Most every constitutional lawyer has said that this case was shaky at best. Why does that matter? Because Bragg had to get just one conviction, 34 was surprising, but all he needed to get was one.

Why? Because everyone involved knows that Trump won't let it go at that, even if the judge just fines him and/or the RNC (see the recent Hillary Clinton fine for a similar sort of thing). No matter the outcome of the July 11th sentencing phase, Trump will appeal. It will be rushed forward. Regardless of the appeal outcome, under the Bush v. Gore rules it will fast track to the Supreme Court. Where, as the constitutional experts on both sides agree, it is likely to be dropped on constitutionality alone.

So what you say? There has been a non-stop push to find justices that can be accused of virtually anything to push them off the bench. Dropping the Trump case will be the last straw. With a Biden victory, they will use that along with the recent campaigns to oust Alito and Thomas to change the court (or if that doesn't work to pack the court). In case you weren't paying attention to stories that haven't been getting the same level of attention:

www.cnn.com/2024/05/29/politics/biden-pledge-progressives-supreme-court-vacancies/index.html

Biden seems to have inside knowledge about open seats at the court? Yes, Thomas and Alito are older 75 and 74, but the real game is, retire and we'll make all the terrible things we are saying about you go away. Two's not enough to break the majority, but with them going after anyone that over turns Trump v. New York, there may be 3 and not 2 or at the very least another argument for packing the court to 11.

Maybe I'm just not seeing things clearly, but the whole case, the way it was brought about, the judge appointed to it, the venue, all of it has a stink to it. I think everyone involved knows that and that they are willing to let it smell bad to everyone around to get to the end goal.

Seems clear enough to me. And how about the administration allowing the #3 in the justice department leave to help in the prosecution? No ties to anything outside of New York? Riiiight.

[epaul]

Jun 1, 2024 9:23:39 GMT -5 millring said:

A few months ago Russ Douthat posited the idea that maybe Biden ought to step out of the race at the Democratic National Convention. The interesting article www.nytimes.com/2024/02/10/opinion/joe-biden-convention-2024.html gave some very interesting reasons why it might be a good idea and winning strategy.

Now it would be an interesting twist if the delegates decided to change their vote at the Republican National Convention. I don't know to whom they would throw the vote, but I'm guessing they're talking about doing so. I doubt another candidate would do worse than Trump at this point. If it was 20-30 years ago such a move would have hobbled the opposition from "research" by which to smear the new candidate (the only means by which anyone opposes anyone anymore). In today's information age, the new candidate would be demonized by the next day. Still, it might be better than an admittedly flawed candidate (Trump is "flawed" in the same way Michael Jordan is "pretty good" at basketball). It would significantly throw the opposition into disarray.

Two open conventions. Democracy as the Founding Fathers practiced.

(just, please don't sell the rights to some cable outfit, basketball has tapped me out.)

[Cornflake]

So far I don't detect a whiff of odor.

Why was the case brought in New York? Probably because, as I understand the facts, the people involved were New Yorkers, most of the relevant conduct occurred in New York and the conduct was alleged to have violated the laws of New York. I doubt that any other state would have had jurisdiction over the dispute.

What about the judge assignment? A quick search indicated that judges in New York are randomly assigned to cases, with some sensible exceptions. The New York State Office of Court Administration said Merchan’s assignment followed typical procedure. “As we’ve said repeatedly, including in April 2023, Judge Merchan was assigned to supervise the special grand juries that investigated the Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg as well as Donald Trump. He was, in turn, assigned the indictments that arose from those investigations, which is common practice since the judge supervising the grand jury investigation already has some familiarity with these often-complex cases and can manage them more efficiently,” OCA spokesperson Al Baker said in a statement. That's pretty much exactly how it would have been handled here.

I previously discussed the timing of the case.

This reminds me of "stop the steal." Lots of vehemence. Lots of serious allegations based on nothing more than speculation.

[epaul]

There are a lot of constitutional experts, seemingly one under every bush and in front of every microphone. The two I heard last night didn't think there was a snowball's chance in Hades of this getting to the Supreme Court, let along fast tracked. Time will tell on that one.

As for this being a deep game to dump Thomas and Alito, how so? The only way to dump either against their will is death or impeachment. Death follows its own game plan. And impeachment? How? A two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict? Not in this dimension.

And will either Thomas or Alito resign (or recuse, another matter) just because liberals are saying mean things about them? Alito will just turn off his hearing aid and Thomas has skin as thick as a rhino. If praise is needed, both are getting all they need from other quarters. Both these guys are living the high life and they are not about to do a 180 and crawl off in hopes someone at the Times will say a couple nice things about them.

[Marshall]

Jun 1, 2024 7:49:19 GMT -5 amanajoe said:

Biden seems to have inside knowledge about open seats at the court? Yes, Thomas and Alito are older 75 and 74, but the real game is, retire and we'll make all the terrible things we are saying about you go away. Two's not enough to break the majority, but with them going after anyone that over turns Trump v. New York, there may be 3 and not 2 or at the very least another argument for packing the court to 11.

“The next president, they’re going to be able to appoint a couple justices, and I’ll be damned — if in fact we’re able to change some of the justices when they retire and put in really progressive judges like we’ve always had, tell me that won’t change your life,” he said during a campaign rally in Philadelphia.

Interesting. I doubt very much that Biden has something on these justices. And I don't see them retiring in the next 4 years. They will be stalwarts for the Conservative agenda. Why would they retire to give Biden the choice? I believe this is just election rhetoric. Trump successfully campaigned on changing the Court. And he followed through. I expect Biden is using the Court issue like Trump did in 2016 to mobilize his side of the divide.

I know that stacking the Bench by adding more justices has been a topic of discussion since Roosevelt. But I doubt that the Ds will get a sizeable enough majority in Congress to ever push that through.

Seems like campaign talk to me.

[epaul]

And expansion of the Court? 20% would consider it. 80% won't. We may see term limits, but expansion?
Don't worry, don't hope, don't bet.

[Cosmic Wonder]

I find it beyond belief that there is some nefarious super secret end game plan in all this. Hell, four old farts and I can’t decide on where to meet for lunch, but New York Justice dept and the Feds are orchestrating all this? That meets my definition of Batshit crazy.

Mike

[epaul]

I would choose to say, "implausible".

I know you were referring to progenitors elsewhere. But, to avoid any possible misconstrual, Joe is widely regarded here as being both thoughtful and good-looking... well, make that thoughtful... very, very thoughtful.

[james]

Former criminal appellate defence lawyer, Teri Kanefield wrote a piece about criminal appeals generally. I think she explains law stuff for general readers well and in a fairly good natured way. I usually come away from her articles feeling a bit better informed about something or other in the US legal landscape.

terikanefield.com/all-about-appeals



Of the  Trump appeal in particular she writes -

Questions 

Will Trump have any issues on appeal?

Give me the complete record (it will not be complete until after sentencing), few weeks to spend full time reading and studying the record, and access to a good legal data base and I will tell you.

A lawyer with impressive credentials is getting lots of attention on Youtube. She sat through the entire trial and said Trump has no grounds for appeal!

That thump you just heard was me falling off my chair because I was laughing so hard. I’m also a little jealous. It would be fun to be that popular but I just can’t bring myself to provide that kind of bias-affirming entertainment.

[millring]

I wish I could remember which game I was watching. It was too long ago. It feels like it was either an LSU game or a Georgetown game, and it was the finals or close to the finals. The underdog suddenly realized that the only apparent weakness in their overpowering opponent was that they (specifically their big man) couldn't hit a free throw to save his life (much less the game). So they fouled him 'til the end and won the game.

Exploiting a team's weakness is how you win a game. It's not cheating. If you didn't see the obvious weakness in a Trump candidacy back in '16 (the Democrats certainly did, which is why they did everything in their power to make sure he was the candidate back then, and not some more serious contender), then you weren't paying attention.

This was always going to be the end.

The deck is culturally stacked against any Republican, but it took at least 50 years of hard, unrelenting work on the part of the Progressives to get here. It doesn't seem likely to ever get the deck back again, or even get it shuffled. But crazy things happen and perhaps progressive-ism will prove an oroboros and culture will take a new progressive turn toward a new common reason. Or maybe there really is something new under the sun and history won't repeat itself.

[Marshall]

Hack-a-Shaq

Bulls coach, Phil Jackson, hired 3, 7 footers to attack Shaq whenever he had the ball. That was 16 fouls per game.

[Hobson]

I don't know much about this source, but it's probably accurate because this would be easy to check. Lots of countries won't allow felons to visit. That would make for an interesting situation for a convicted president.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-conviction-countries-banned-canada-uk-b2554757.html

[Cornflake]

I wasn't aware of that, Hobson. It's an odd wrinkle.

I was thinking about a comment Evan made. While we don't agree about this prosecution, there is a risk that indictments and prosecutions of candidates could be used for political gain, which nobody wants. I think Congress might consider passing some laws that regulate that. I don't think candidates should get immunity but Congress could provide that such cases can only be brought in federal court and that proceedings will be stayed until after the election. Or something. It deserves attention.