A failure to pass on intelligence, or prevent illegal activity does not exonerate those who acted illegally.
It means that other people should be investigated as well, not instead of.
Once the Capitol rioters and allegedly complicit politicians and lawyers have faced justice, then the next step may be failings with respect to security and any complicit actors if it was deliberate, rather than incompetence, or failures in the system with respect to co-ordinating the many different agencies.
Given Trump's popularity increases every time he's indicted, it has crossed my mind that maybe he's deliberately goading Judge Tanya Chutkan with breaking the terms of his pretrial release.
If he's not, then he must either be remarkably stupid, or remarkably arrogant.
I don't think he's that stupid, despite clearly not having a grasp on many topics.
Whilst it has similar elements to the premise in the op and a comment I made about the courtroom not being big enough to seat the entire US population, you appear to have gone off on a tangent.
The statement in the op is about affording the US citizenry as victims of Trump's alleged crimes, the legal right to witness the trial, not for them to be witnesses in the trial.
The evidence uncovered by the J6 Committee investigation is an integral part of the federal prosecution in Washington and the state prosecution in Georgia.
It's irrelevant if Trump supporters laughed off the investigation, or have forgotten the evidence. The important issue now is that Trump gets fair trials where he has been criminally charged.
I think whether the trials are televised, or not, whether Trump is convicted, or not, whether Trump is elected to be the next president, or not, I agree that the division will deepen, at least in the short term.
I'm not sure both sides will become more intransigent in all cases, however. Whilst the indictment in Georgia includes 19 co-conspirators, I understand some 30 former co-conspirators have been named as co-operating witnesses in the 98 page indictment.
There maybe more plea deals to come in both the Washington and Georgia trials as people are faced with being held to account for their actions and the potential consequences.
Given the J6 rioters convictions, the politicians and lawyers prosecutions and more recently the arrest of Abigail Jo Shry, at some point maybe following protocol and law will be re-established in the US political arena. I suspect it will be more difficult to create division in the long term as a result.
Is that Lindell's idea of illeally flying drones around polling stations? A video document where Mike Lindell is recorded inciting illegal election activity?
Yes, but disproportionately poor people of colour, especially African American men.
There's your witch hunt.
When a black man gets a life sentence for stealing a lawnmower because of the three strikes rule, no one shouts conspiracy, election interference (despite the disproportionate disenfranchisement of black men), or what about the other criminal. There's just pats on the back all round that another dangerous criminal is off the streets.
It's a terrible shock when someone high up the race, wealth and status hierarchy is held to account for their actions.
I wouldn't like to say without hearing all the evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's associates were fully cognisant of crimes they were committing, nor if they were lied to and manipulated into committin said crimes.
From a few bits and bobs I've seen, there has been some well crafted legal arguments involved in the prosecution. It might be a bit less absurd than expected.
Absolutely, but the fact that there are no guarantees either way is a part of a fair trial for Trump.
I don't understand what you're saying here Would you mind explaining it to me, please?
If televising the trial could deepen the divisions, wouldn't that be a significant and/or meaningful effect?
"These people that are all involved in going after Trump that are employed by the government know that if Trump wins in 2024, there will be pay back by Trump."
Errr...you've just admitted you are aware that Trump will engage in illegal activity if he is re-elected.
Following orders may be a defense if the orders are given under duress (like threat to life), or with duplicity such that the perpetrator had no knowledge of the crime they were committing.
I imagine if Trump is imprisoned, he'd have to be kept in isolation for his own safety, as well as avoid him being disruptive. Given his particular personality traits and emotional needs, I think that will be torturous for him.
As for Guiliani, he's always been a self-serving prick. You just couldn't see it when he was taking advantage of 9/11 for his own ends.
On topic, if the trial is televised it would have to be accessible to all if it were to meet the conditions of Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 US Code section 3771. Companies that require subscription fees would exclude some US citizens from their legal entitlement to attend the trial.
If most of them get thrown out as you claim, then some won't. Don't you want there to be transparency with respect to the ones that do stick so you can see that everything is done properly?
As for your claim that Trump is being screwed by 'Biden's justice department', the Federalist Society is ultra-conservative (see Friendship's post on page one), Trump appointed judges will be presiding in some instances (like Justice Aileen Cannon re: sensitive documents) and it was the Supreme Court including Trump appointed judges who ruled that Trump's claims of election fraud had no basis.
It doesn't matter who appointed the judges, or what their personal political leanings are, if anyone acts outside of the law, or with bias in, or against Trump's interests, it can be legallly challenged.
And you still seem to be struggling with the reality that the two tier justice system in the US favours people like Trump. He's not being represented by public defenders with so many clients they only have a few minutes to spend with each before trial and he's not likely to be prejudged by a jury as criminal because of the colour of his skin.
In the absence of a courtroom gallery which seats 332 million, broadcasting is a means of fulfilling your legal right as a US citizen to attend and observe the proceedings.
On the other hand, trial by media may affect Trump getting a fair trial in some way.
I would have thought Trump getting a fair trial and his supporters being able to monitor the process for fairness would be of great concern for you.
Whining about corruption and saying you don't care if everything goes on behind closed doors all in one sentence is just a wee bit contradictory, isn't it?
Talking of flip, or not, think of how many people went along with the election fraud claims who might be held to account, especially if Trump is found guilty on those conspiracy charges.
There could be more potential for flipping than in an Olympic gymnastic tournament.
Clearly you haven't been paying attention, either to the reality of the two tier judicial system you have in the US which is about race and poverty, or to the blog topic
You have yet to offer an opinion about the possible televising of the Washington trial.
I've heard that Trump posted on Truth Social that one of the witnesses shouldn't testify to the grand jury which in Georgia counts as the felony 'influencing a witness'. In Washington a grand jury indictment in another state is regarded as 'probable cause' that a crime has been committed. Trump's pretrial release in Washington is on the condition that he doesn't break the law.
It may be that televising the court cases will be the only platform Trump has in the run up to the 2024 election. I'm beginning to wonder if Trump's repeated transgressions of his pretrial release conditions are deliberate. Maybe he's banking on his popularity increasing if he's detained.
If that's the case, I imagine he thinks he'll get special treatment and adoration in prison. I can't see him fairing well locked up in a wee cell 23 hours a day.
The blog is not about your personal pretrial verdict: Trump is innocent until proven guilty with respect to these J6 related charges.
The topic is about televising the trial.
Although I was rather amused by your comment regarding a two tier judicial system. The possibility of a wealthy white man being held to the same legal standards as everyone else in the US is a bit freaky, eh?
The video you cited suggests that Trump is already disqualified from holding public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and that anyone who puts him on the ballot will be breaking the law.
If that's the case, then the trial isn't necessary to disqualify Trump and the argument that the trial is about election interference is irrelevant. I'm not suggesting that Trump isn't also held accountable for his actions via a criminal suit in it's own right.
If, however, it must be proven that Trump is guilty of insurrection, rebellion, or any other action cited in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment before it can be applied, the video you cited bypassed the tenet that Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
I've looked at a number of presentations which explain the law very well, but I'm loathe to repost, or cite them if they imply that a guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion. If we do that, aren't we acting in the manner of which the defendent himsef has been accused?
However much we may believe he is guilty, or innocent, Trump is entitled to a fair trial including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. However well-crafted we may think that the prosecution case, or defense is, a verdict is never guaranteed until it is pronunced.
As members of the public, if we can't uphold the basic principles of the judicial system, should it be televised? I understand the importance of transparency, but maybe not at the risk of a fair trial, or appeals on that basis.
Will the transcripts of, and evidence in the trial be a matter of public record once the trial is over? If so, then there is no need to televise it as a matter of transparency.
I don't think it will be particularly transparent for most people because it won't be anything like a TV drama. The legal technicalities will be challenging at least some of the time and the sheer volume of evidence will likely be overwhelming. Jack Smith has presented that the prosecution side will take 4-6 weeks. The defense will give their estimated time frame a week from today, if I remember rightly. Together it could run into months.
I rather think a televised record in the public domain will provide a level of transparency that can be scrutinised long after the tensions of the moment have ebbed...by people who understand the technicalities.
Are you suggesting that the trial is unecessary with respect to eliminating Trump from from the race, ergo claims that the motive for the trial being election interference is moot?
I agree that supporters will likely complain either way, so why do most people want the trial to be televised?
If you were wealthy and/or influential prior to Nazi Germany you were expected to function at a high rank during Hitler's regime. Just like anyone else, non-compliance was a death sentence for you and your family, including your children. There was a spectrum of compliance from those who revelled in committing atrocities to those who made a public show of obedience whilst resisting in private in various ways.
And none of it was the fault of the children.
If we ignore, or revel in human suffering because of a group's collective 'otherness', what makes us different from a tyrant?
Besides, look at what happened after WWI: when people see their chilldren painfully starving they look for somene to blame. Also, anyone promising to save them will seem reasonable.
If the Russian people starve after the war, of course it will be the West's problem. It will be a humanitarian issue as well as in our best interests to provide relief. To be careless and cruel in those circumstances is perpetuate the cycle of abuse.
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,986)
RE: The Chief of Police on January 6 speaks out - an absolute must watch
There's a logical fallacy in Brand's rant.A failure to pass on intelligence, or prevent illegal activity does not exonerate those who acted illegally.
It means that other people should be investigated as well, not instead of.
Once the Capitol rioters and allegedly complicit politicians and lawyers have faced justice, then the next step may be failings with respect to security and any complicit actors if it was deliberate, rather than incompetence, or failures in the system with respect to co-ordinating the many different agencies.