10 thoughts on “Trump Triumphing Over Evil”

  1. In a related story, Katherine Maher skips out on testimony before Congress about the editorial policies of NPR. Claiming she couldn’t attend because of a prior conflict due to an internal board meeting. Instead she provided a written statement that according to Uri Berliner reads like an NPR pledge drive.

    As was said by a commenter: When the boss calls you into their office to discuss your performance and you skip out saying you have more important things to do, how long should you expect to keep your job?


  2. Assuming we get a hung jury in the Trump Manhattan Alvin Bragg case could judge merchan angrily declare a mistrial and then deliver a directed verdict finding Trump guilty anyway?

    I mean not even order a new trial just deliver said directed verdict saying any reasonable jury should have found Trump guilty and just find him guilty; can he legally do that and what would be the likely result?

      1. Both. The likely legal result and the practical outcome. Could he issue said directive finding Trump guilty and subsequently sentencing him to prison? SCOTUS would probably have to intervene promptly.

    1. I’m still trying to figure out what the jury is supposed to render a verdict upon?

      Whether Trump falsified a business record by claiming the payoff for an NDA with Stormy Daniels was not a legit business legal expense (a misdemeanor in NY State that is past its statute of limitation) or whether he can be convicted of a felony because the business record was falsified as part of the commission of another crime, when that crime has not been specified!

      Interference in a Federal election is the domain of the US District courts, not NY State courts. They have no statutory basis nor jurisdiction for prosecution of Federal election interference as best I understand it. And the US District Attorney for the Southern District of NY has refused to prosecute.

      No felony conviction in this case will stand scrutiny under appeal as far as I can tell.

      Trump should request any judgments against him as an outcome of this trial be held in abeyance until after the appeal is heard and ruled upon. Assuming the jury reaches a verdict. If not, that could actually be bad for Trump as the whole process could start over again in the case of a mistrial.

      But then again, IANAL. Esp. in make it up as you go NY State.
      Any corporation with its HQ still in NYC or NY State ought to be having the heads of its C-suite executives and BODs examined.

      Here is what ChatGPT 3.5 (also NAL) says:

      Q: In New York State, when a mistrial is declared due to a hung jury, can the judge deliver a directed verdict instead?

      A: In New York State, when a mistrial is declared due to a hung jury, the judge typically cannot deliver a directed verdict instead. A mistrial due to a hung jury occurs when the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict after deliberating for a reasonable amount of time. In such cases, the prosecution may choose to retry the case with a new jury. A directed verdict, on the other hand, is typically delivered by a judge during an ongoing trial if the evidence presented is insufficient for a reasonable jury to reach a verdict. This is a decision made during the trial itself, rather than after a mistrial has been declared.

      1. “In New York State, when a mistrial is declared due to a hung jury, the judge typically cannot deliver a directed verdict instead.”

        Good to know thanks for the info. The two lawyers on the jury are pretty good bet for a hung jury given the legal weakness of the case. They may even persuade some of the others to join them and my usual cynical view of human nature aside, perhaps we will all be surprised and they actually deliver an acquittal; (not holding out much hope for that).

        1. I would think that the lawyers on that jury would like to have the Arlen Spector option of finding “not proven.” That way they wouldn’t have to say the Orange Clown is “not guilty” (and commit “social suicide”) but instead blame the prosecutors for being so incompetent that they, like the St.Hillary!’s campaign losing a fixed election, couldn’t even win a show trial.

      2. “I’m still trying to figure out what the jury is supposed to render a verdict upon?”

        The prosecution’s argument is that the reimbursements to Trump’s “fixer” lawyer Cohen were illegally recorded as “legal expenses” instead of “campaign expenses”. But Trump’s former “comptroller” McConney testified that Trump never directed him how to record said reimbursements to Cohen that he (McConney) recorded that way on his own judgement because he believed that’s what they were. Said decision apparently had nothing directly to do with Trump how they were recorded. So even if they were “illegally recorded” it wasn’t at Trump’s direction so it is difficult to see how he would be legally liable.

        McConney says Trump didn’t direct him to set up repayments
        Following the direct examination of former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney, the defense began its cross-examination by laying out one of Donald Trump’s strongest defense arguments.

        “Michael Cohen was a lawyer?” defense attorney Emil Bove asked McConney.

        “Sure, yes,” McConney said.

        “And payments to lawyers by the Trump Organization are legal expenses, right?” asked Bove.

        “Yes,” said McConney.

        “President Trump did not ask you to do any of the things you just described … correct?” Bove asked.

        “He did not,” McConney replied.
        “And as far as you know, President Trump did not ask anyone to do those things?” Bove continued, before an objection.

        “In none of the conversations that you had with Mr. Weisselberg, did he suggest that President Trump had told him to do these things?” Bove asked again.

        “Allen never told me that,” McConney said.


      3. “In New York State, when a mistrial is declared due to a hung jury, the judge typically cannot deliver a directed verdict instead. ”

        Reassuring; however are we a 100% certain that “typically cannot deliver a directed verdict” under said circumstances means that it’s illegal for judge mercan to deliver said directed verdict? I don’t trust his objectivity honor or honesty. If he delivered that directed judicial guilty verdict against Donald Trump followed by a jail sentence he would be the toast of the town as far as MSNBC/CNN etc. they would love him and he would be basking in that love even if it was later overturned on appeal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *