4 Comments

Fortunately, Our President is well on his way to an historic, landslide victory with MAGA all up and down ballot. The only way the public's trust in the judicial system can be restored will be the complete and total prosecution of all involved in destroying that trust starting with disbarring of all involved officials, criminal charges for those guilty of that, and even treason charges should any be found guilty of that. How could such flagrant violations of our Constitution not be seen as treason? And it's past time to restore the traditional penalty for treason. Just a few in the public square would resolve much of what is wrong with our country.

Expand full comment

Ethically bereft morally bankrupt self-serving douche canoe is a terrible optic. I’m surprised you didn’t know that….

Expand full comment

Because the trial was not public, e.g., on CSPAN, the electorate received the clips and summary from Attorneys (Dershowitz, Turley), this was a great disadvantage. Nevertheless, I hope that most of America could understand by the closing arguments the injustice that was committed - in the place of justice. When the jury instructions were published, it became clear that this was not a functioning court. The defendant was not informed of the charges against him. The Prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (because they could not specify the crime to prove it, nor the unlawful means). I was unable to hear the closing argument, but the standard of proof was lowered, FOR THE CRIME THAT INCREASED THE TOLLED MISDEMEANORS TO FELONIES! And unanimity was dispensed with. If asked, most of America would likely not be able to describe what Donald Trump was convicted of. 50% would likely tie it to Stormy Daniels or the “hush” money, because why else would the Prosecutor have her testify? The truth is there is no crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt or any standard, because the Prosecution couldn’t prove even one. Thus he remains a misdemeanant, if that.

Expand full comment

I am so glad you cited precedent, Paul. Erlicher appears to be analogous. Will the high court review it?

Expand full comment