You have posted many informative pieces over the years; many have been hilarious as well. But this could easily turn out to be your most important one ever. I hope it provides a clear beacon for some who might otherwise get lost in the fog of the approaching propaganda storm. Bravo.
Great, thoughtful post. “But I know this: if we’re going down, we should go down swinging, not cringing” had me ready to run throw a wall, and I am a cynical and jaded bastard!
The fact that others in the system are unlikely to do the right thing does not excuse you from doing what is right, even if it is difficult. It's about who you are. Further, future consequences (long and short term) are unknowable, because no one can see the future with certainty. You should base your choices and actions on your character, not the anticipated consequences - otherwise we are all Trump now.
Jun 10, 2023·edited Jun 10, 2023Liked by Ken White
The long and short of it is that there is a tremendous amount at stake in this prosecution:
1. The possibility that Donald Trump might be convicted and sentenced to a jail term longer than his remaining lifespan;
2. The test of whether the jury system works in the face of MAGA propaganda, including the real possibility that one or more individuals will hide their true beliefs in order to get on the jury to guarantee that a conviction is impossible;
3. The possibility that we will test whether the Court system can handle a judge who is intent on doing the bidding of the criminal defendant in hopes of career advancement;
4. The possibility that the Court, as a physical matter, will be attacked a la the January 6 insurrection;
5. "A judge that's just aching to throw me in jail; an idiot who wants to fight me for $200; slaughtered pigs; giant loud whistles; I ain't slept in five days; I got no money; a dress code problem; and a little murder case that holds in the balance the lives of two innocent kids; not too mention your [stomps twice] biological clock, my career, your life, our marriage, and let's see what else can we pile on? Is there any more shit that we can pile on to the top of the outcome of this case?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX15un8nf3o
Really hope as many people as possible can read this. Sure I totally agree with it, but the explanation of why DOJ (acting through Smith) really *needed* to do this even with a ton of potential obstacles is very much missing from the discourse.
Totally agree. At some point someone has to do the right thing, even if the short term consequences are negative, or eventually no one does the right thing anymore.
And it’s possible that having this happen now will get all the brouhaha of takes over with and give Trump more space to turn off voters. Don’t think the indictment itself is changing any minds, but reminding people - even people who don’t love the idea of the current president’s Justice Dept indicting the last guy- that Trump comes with a crap ton of drama and stupidity isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
One thing I try to remember is that a Florida Grand Jury voted to indict, so that gives me some hope about jury selection. Judge Cannon is more worrisome; perhaps being rebuked by the higher court (I forget which one) may have changed her perspective.
Thanks for the prose and your analysis/explanation.
It's important to have this trial considering the facts presented in the indictments.
I read and hear comments about a trial hardening the MAGA-base to its debased god-king.
How can Trump's base (a majority of a minority) get any harder?
[They certainly can become that much poorer via his fund raising on his victimhood.]
An open trial will allow the country to hear and see Trump's depredations and cavalier attitude toward national security. [Think 1-6 Committee presentations.]
Hopefully, open-minded Independents will be horrified by him and his sociopathy to become the linchpin to vote to save the Republic from the Sessionist-in-Chief.
Now, Gen-Xer, you can say, "Okay, Boomer, thanks for the unicorns and pixie dust in regards to this issue."
Retired court reporter here -- retired from Branch 3, Kenosha County Circuit Court, that court, the court Kyle Rittenhouse was tried and acquitted. Several years retired from Branch 3, I watched the livestream events of that fateful night and the trial that ensued. Was I surprised at the jury verdict? No. Baffled? Yes. Perplexed? Yes. But not surprised. Countless times over my 30 years of service, many verdicts were perplexing, shocking, confusing. Should a defendant not be charged or tried because the process is too weighty, too difficult to obtain a conviction? Sure seems Jack Smith has considered all sides of this question. Our rule of law must hold. The defendant must stand trial.
Remembering the trial of a 25-year-old cold case, the verdict after the defendant testified it was his gun, he pulled the trigger, he killed the victim, he stood to hear his fate after jury deliberations: "Not guilty." I'll never forget his strange answer to a news reporter asking for his response. "I'm mortified," he exclaimed. Perplexing? Very.
Our system isn't perfect. Jurors are not perfect. Every single one of us brings with us our own perceptions, some kind of bias, our own life story that affects how we perceive and choose to think about outcomes. Voir dire is crucial in ferreting out those whose biases prove untenable. We must trust Jack Smith and let the process play out.
A good attorney will paint a clear picture, a story that makes sense, a presentation where the facts add up. Witnesses lie on the witness stand. Shocking? Shouldn't be. Judges have their own biases. Perplexing? Nah. Jurors are brought together from many walks of life. A jury of your peers? Not really. Trust Jack Smith, the prosecutor, knows all these things. This is not the first complex trial he has had.
Should Kyle Rittenhouse not have been charged? Should the 25 yo cold case not have been charged? Absolutely not.
We need to be bold, trust our system. Without the rule of law, we no longer have a democracy. Tyranny lurks. This is our crossroads. We are not to search for doubt. We are to search for truth.
After sharing this latest piece with my elderly mother (who voted for TFG twice) she has said the information is “mind-altering”. She also said she will never vote for Trump ever again.
The explanation of the Rule of Law was particularly helpful.
In terms of the junior associates, hopefully with time they will understand that it is more important for them to be competent, zealous advocates than to get the "win." I've had a few of the "must get the win" types as opposing counsel back-in-the-day. They are easily manipulated and waste their client's money. Winning is fun, but even the best of advocates loses cases and motions, sometimes deservedly and sometimes not. You will not always win, but there is no excuse for not always being a zealous advocate.
You have posted many informative pieces over the years; many have been hilarious as well. But this could easily turn out to be your most important one ever. I hope it provides a clear beacon for some who might otherwise get lost in the fog of the approaching propaganda storm. Bravo.
Great, thoughtful post. “But I know this: if we’re going down, we should go down swinging, not cringing” had me ready to run throw a wall, and I am a cynical and jaded bastard!
A Florida grand jury indicted him. A jury with a RW conspiracy theorist found him liable in NYC.
Miracles happen with regularity.
The fact that others in the system are unlikely to do the right thing does not excuse you from doing what is right, even if it is difficult. It's about who you are. Further, future consequences (long and short term) are unknowable, because no one can see the future with certainty. You should base your choices and actions on your character, not the anticipated consequences - otherwise we are all Trump now.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take
The long and short of it is that there is a tremendous amount at stake in this prosecution:
1. The possibility that Donald Trump might be convicted and sentenced to a jail term longer than his remaining lifespan;
2. The test of whether the jury system works in the face of MAGA propaganda, including the real possibility that one or more individuals will hide their true beliefs in order to get on the jury to guarantee that a conviction is impossible;
3. The possibility that we will test whether the Court system can handle a judge who is intent on doing the bidding of the criminal defendant in hopes of career advancement;
4. The possibility that the Court, as a physical matter, will be attacked a la the January 6 insurrection;
5. "A judge that's just aching to throw me in jail; an idiot who wants to fight me for $200; slaughtered pigs; giant loud whistles; I ain't slept in five days; I got no money; a dress code problem; and a little murder case that holds in the balance the lives of two innocent kids; not too mention your [stomps twice] biological clock, my career, your life, our marriage, and let's see what else can we pile on? Is there any more shit that we can pile on to the top of the outcome of this case?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX15un8nf3o
Really hope as many people as possible can read this. Sure I totally agree with it, but the explanation of why DOJ (acting through Smith) really *needed* to do this even with a ton of potential obstacles is very much missing from the discourse.
GENX FOREVER! #NotABoomer
Totally agree. At some point someone has to do the right thing, even if the short term consequences are negative, or eventually no one does the right thing anymore.
And it’s possible that having this happen now will get all the brouhaha of takes over with and give Trump more space to turn off voters. Don’t think the indictment itself is changing any minds, but reminding people - even people who don’t love the idea of the current president’s Justice Dept indicting the last guy- that Trump comes with a crap ton of drama and stupidity isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
One thing I try to remember is that a Florida Grand Jury voted to indict, so that gives me some hope about jury selection. Judge Cannon is more worrisome; perhaps being rebuked by the higher court (I forget which one) may have changed her perspective.
Ken,
Thanks for the prose and your analysis/explanation.
It's important to have this trial considering the facts presented in the indictments.
I read and hear comments about a trial hardening the MAGA-base to its debased god-king.
How can Trump's base (a majority of a minority) get any harder?
[They certainly can become that much poorer via his fund raising on his victimhood.]
An open trial will allow the country to hear and see Trump's depredations and cavalier attitude toward national security. [Think 1-6 Committee presentations.]
Hopefully, open-minded Independents will be horrified by him and his sociopathy to become the linchpin to vote to save the Republic from the Sessionist-in-Chief.
Now, Gen-Xer, you can say, "Okay, Boomer, thanks for the unicorns and pixie dust in regards to this issue."
Worth noting: the greatest starship captain in Star Trek canon cheated his way into turning the Kobayashi Maru exercise into a winning situation.
Unless you’re one of those weirdos who thinks Picard was the greatest captain in Starfleet history. In which case I don’t know what to say to you.
I always find your stuff fascinating. This time it’s surprisingly moving, as well.
Retired court reporter here -- retired from Branch 3, Kenosha County Circuit Court, that court, the court Kyle Rittenhouse was tried and acquitted. Several years retired from Branch 3, I watched the livestream events of that fateful night and the trial that ensued. Was I surprised at the jury verdict? No. Baffled? Yes. Perplexed? Yes. But not surprised. Countless times over my 30 years of service, many verdicts were perplexing, shocking, confusing. Should a defendant not be charged or tried because the process is too weighty, too difficult to obtain a conviction? Sure seems Jack Smith has considered all sides of this question. Our rule of law must hold. The defendant must stand trial.
Remembering the trial of a 25-year-old cold case, the verdict after the defendant testified it was his gun, he pulled the trigger, he killed the victim, he stood to hear his fate after jury deliberations: "Not guilty." I'll never forget his strange answer to a news reporter asking for his response. "I'm mortified," he exclaimed. Perplexing? Very.
Our system isn't perfect. Jurors are not perfect. Every single one of us brings with us our own perceptions, some kind of bias, our own life story that affects how we perceive and choose to think about outcomes. Voir dire is crucial in ferreting out those whose biases prove untenable. We must trust Jack Smith and let the process play out.
A good attorney will paint a clear picture, a story that makes sense, a presentation where the facts add up. Witnesses lie on the witness stand. Shocking? Shouldn't be. Judges have their own biases. Perplexing? Nah. Jurors are brought together from many walks of life. A jury of your peers? Not really. Trust Jack Smith, the prosecutor, knows all these things. This is not the first complex trial he has had.
Should Kyle Rittenhouse not have been charged? Should the 25 yo cold case not have been charged? Absolutely not.
We need to be bold, trust our system. Without the rule of law, we no longer have a democracy. Tyranny lurks. This is our crossroads. We are not to search for doubt. We are to search for truth.
After sharing this latest piece with my elderly mother (who voted for TFG twice) she has said the information is “mind-altering”. She also said she will never vote for Trump ever again.
The explanation of the Rule of Law was particularly helpful.
Great post, oh my!
In terms of the junior associates, hopefully with time they will understand that it is more important for them to be competent, zealous advocates than to get the "win." I've had a few of the "must get the win" types as opposing counsel back-in-the-day. They are easily manipulated and waste their client's money. Winning is fun, but even the best of advocates loses cases and motions, sometimes deservedly and sometimes not. You will not always win, but there is no excuse for not always being a zealous advocate.