Friday, August 04, 2023

The Coverage Of The D.C. Charges Is Promising To Be Particularly Bad

Reporters who cover politics, or who used to cover gossip (same difference, especially with Trump): (I have the receipts, as the kids say.), have no clue how legal proceedings, well....proceed.

So pundits imagine they know what "intent" means (and it's not "What did Trump know?").  And they understand the charges as political bombshells, rather than allegations of criminal liability.  What they don't understand are criminal trials:  how they work, why they work, and what can be expected there.

As emptywheel points out, we've had more than a few trials on many of the points in the indictment against Trump, and although "change the facts, change the outcome" always applies, there is some history we can look to for what the near future holds.

And what it doesn't hold is Trump getting very far with the "defenses" he and his counsel have made in public so far.
Weissmann told O'Donnnell, "So, I don't know why a defense lawyer is going to start giving facts about a critical moment…. It is such a damning thing when you put it in context because remember what the indictment alleges… (that) the reason this had to be done with the vice president is because prior to that, all the efforts that Donald Trump took with respect to the secretaries of state did not work. I just don't know why John, who is a good lawyer, didn't just zip it and not say anything."

1 comment:

  1. Neither Trump nor his "attorneys" understand they have a right to remain silent...

    ReplyDelete