As usual, Mr. Cowgill, a lucid analysis of the situation before us. However, I did want to take a moment or two to point out a couple of things.
First, you made reference to Ford’s pardon of Nixon. As I remember it, three of the leaders of the Republican Party in Congress, Rep. John Rhodes of Arizona; Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania ; and Mr. Conservative, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona; went up to the White House and told President Nixon that he had no support and should resign. Contrast that with what we have seen since yesterday at 5:00 pm. Republicans trashing the judge, the jury, the entire legal system. Senator Marco Rubio saying “this is what we see in a Communist country”. Senator Tim Scott talking about a weaponized legal system. All of which makes me wonder how “Sleepy Joe Biden “can be “incompetent,” “can’t put two sentences together”, and yet simultaneously can be criminal mastermind behind a nationwide conspiracy to undermine the Orange Messiah. But that may be for another day.
On a more practical level, I think that Trump’s legal eagles will work to get the actual sentencing postponed (until after the GOP National Convention?) and I fear that the Democrats of New York will put pressure on Judge Merchan to grant the postponement in order to demonstrate to the public that they are not “political.”
Good point. For all his corruption and paranoia, Nixon was still capable of feeling shame. And yes, there is considerable cognitive dissonance in the notion that Biden is a doddering master criminal. As for being "political," Bragg is an elected official but Merchan is not. And don't get me started on Tim Scott!
I like your idea -- reducing Trump's stay in jail to the symbolic equivalent of Henry David Thoreau's one-night stay in the slammer. Of course, Thoreau did it voluntarily: He refused to pay a poll tax as a protest against a government that supported slavery and the Mexican War. Trump, on the other hand, wouldn't know an act of civil disobedience if it hit him in the face. (Of course, he's always willing to ignore his tax bill, but that's another story.) As for the likelihood that Gov. Hochul will reduce his sentence? Not very. It would cost her too much politically.
Hochul would face a backlash from the left, but would also receive praise from those who are not fiercely partisan. Yet another reason for me to hate what the two parties have become.
Nothing has riled, discomfited, or alarmed me as deeply and profoundly as this trial. I didn't know I cared so much. This trial and subsequent verdict has elicited emotions I didn't think I would experience. It actually has little to do with Donald Trump, or the jury, actually. In a county that voted 87% for Joe Biden, I wouldn't exactly call the assortment found through voir dire "a jury of your peers". Of the 12--or maybe even the 18--maybe 1 juror who didn't hate Trump. Statistically.
No, what really gets me going is two things: Alvin Bragg and the State of New York. I'll start with the state of the state in which I reside, and have for most of my life. Proudly--up until now. I am angry that the politics of this state are dominated by the people who live south of the George Washington Bridge. There's another 8 million of us (minus Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse) who do not have the same political values as urban areas. We elect Republican congressmen/women. We don't want sanctuary cities. Abortion should not be legal up to the day of birth. Bail reform. I could go on, but I won't. There is a genuine dissonance between what many believe and what we have to endure--not to mention the taxes. Yikes. It's no surprise to me that residents are leaving the state in droves. If it weren't for my children and grandson, we'd no doubt be among them. Relying on Kathy Hochul to do anything is a fool's errand. She is many things, but chiefly a political animal, but not a very bright one. What this trial and Letita James' trial have done is to make sure no one comes to New York--not business, not conservatives, not anyone who wants to buy a home or start a life. We are a dying state, and that angers me.
Alvin Bragg. Initially, he wasn't going to try a case against Trump. After all, the DOJ had taken a look and passed on it. His predecessor, Cy Vance, said nope. But then lo and behold, he finds obscure connections and novel legal theory to cobble together a case. (Great article from Lawfare). I'm sure it helped that Michael Colangelo, Number 3 at DOJ, took a huge hit in pay and prestige to come to NYC to "help out" --strange vertically-challenged career move there. Alvin saw how Tish James was lauded for her case, so what did he have lose? He gambled--and won.
Here's another way to look at this whole mess. This is from US Attorney General Robert Jackson (April 1, 1940):
“If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm-in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.” (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-01-1940.pdf)
Hi Sharon. I have to disagree with you about the jury. If all but one, as you asserted, hate Trump, that does not mean they cannot set aside their animosity and make a fair judgement based on the evidence. I've covered trials before and interviewed jurors after the fact. The overwhelming majority take their duties seriously. Believe me, all jurors have opinions about the defendants, the trial lawyers and the judges. Jurors vote to convict those they like and exonerate those they despise all the time. When I was a reporter, I often had to cover people I disliked, but I tried to keep my opinions out of the reporting and I think I almost always succeeded.
I have some of the same feelings overall about Connecticut as you do about NYS. We are moving too far left here. Examples abound but here's an example. The state legislature has been completely controlled by Democrats since the 90s. Lawmakers passed a bill recently that included a provision allowing striking workers to collect unemployment benefits. What planet are they living on? This is just the kind of thing a business thinking of locating in CT would notice and view as the signal of an unfriendly business climate. Fortunately, the Democratic governor, a businessman himself, had the good sense to veto the bill. One-party rule inevitably leads to rot, no matter which party has the majority.
I'm glad you liked the Lawfare article. Lawfare is a fair-minded legal blog covering national security and legal issues since 2010, well before Trump supporters popularized the term to describe people causing legal problems for the boss.
As for Bragg, that's what you get for having elected prosecutors, as almost of them are in NYS. Fortunately in Connecticut, our prosecutors (and judges) are appointed, which typically makes them at least somewhat less political.
I have no idea if the jurors hated Trump or not. My point was that there was a strong likelihood they weren't "fans". I have faith in the jury system. I'd like to think/hope that they usually get it right. My problem with this case is that the defense was not allowed to present witnesses that may have added needed information (Fed election guy--only permitted to ID himself, not speak to federal election law), and his jury instructions practically guaranteed a guilty verdict. It is what it is. There was plenty of reversible error. In the meantime, Biden can call Trump a "convicted felon".
As usual, Mr. Cowgill, a lucid analysis of the situation before us. However, I did want to take a moment or two to point out a couple of things.
First, you made reference to Ford’s pardon of Nixon. As I remember it, three of the leaders of the Republican Party in Congress, Rep. John Rhodes of Arizona; Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania ; and Mr. Conservative, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona; went up to the White House and told President Nixon that he had no support and should resign. Contrast that with what we have seen since yesterday at 5:00 pm. Republicans trashing the judge, the jury, the entire legal system. Senator Marco Rubio saying “this is what we see in a Communist country”. Senator Tim Scott talking about a weaponized legal system. All of which makes me wonder how “Sleepy Joe Biden “can be “incompetent,” “can’t put two sentences together”, and yet simultaneously can be criminal mastermind behind a nationwide conspiracy to undermine the Orange Messiah. But that may be for another day.
On a more practical level, I think that Trump’s legal eagles will work to get the actual sentencing postponed (until after the GOP National Convention?) and I fear that the Democrats of New York will put pressure on Judge Merchan to grant the postponement in order to demonstrate to the public that they are not “political.”
Good point. For all his corruption and paranoia, Nixon was still capable of feeling shame. And yes, there is considerable cognitive dissonance in the notion that Biden is a doddering master criminal. As for being "political," Bragg is an elected official but Merchan is not. And don't get me started on Tim Scott!
I like your idea -- reducing Trump's stay in jail to the symbolic equivalent of Henry David Thoreau's one-night stay in the slammer. Of course, Thoreau did it voluntarily: He refused to pay a poll tax as a protest against a government that supported slavery and the Mexican War. Trump, on the other hand, wouldn't know an act of civil disobedience if it hit him in the face. (Of course, he's always willing to ignore his tax bill, but that's another story.) As for the likelihood that Gov. Hochul will reduce his sentence? Not very. It would cost her too much politically.
Hochul would face a backlash from the left, but would also receive praise from those who are not fiercely partisan. Yet another reason for me to hate what the two parties have become.
Honestly, I would like Trump stuck in jail for a lengthy stay.
Nothing has riled, discomfited, or alarmed me as deeply and profoundly as this trial. I didn't know I cared so much. This trial and subsequent verdict has elicited emotions I didn't think I would experience. It actually has little to do with Donald Trump, or the jury, actually. In a county that voted 87% for Joe Biden, I wouldn't exactly call the assortment found through voir dire "a jury of your peers". Of the 12--or maybe even the 18--maybe 1 juror who didn't hate Trump. Statistically.
No, what really gets me going is two things: Alvin Bragg and the State of New York. I'll start with the state of the state in which I reside, and have for most of my life. Proudly--up until now. I am angry that the politics of this state are dominated by the people who live south of the George Washington Bridge. There's another 8 million of us (minus Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse) who do not have the same political values as urban areas. We elect Republican congressmen/women. We don't want sanctuary cities. Abortion should not be legal up to the day of birth. Bail reform. I could go on, but I won't. There is a genuine dissonance between what many believe and what we have to endure--not to mention the taxes. Yikes. It's no surprise to me that residents are leaving the state in droves. If it weren't for my children and grandson, we'd no doubt be among them. Relying on Kathy Hochul to do anything is a fool's errand. She is many things, but chiefly a political animal, but not a very bright one. What this trial and Letita James' trial have done is to make sure no one comes to New York--not business, not conservatives, not anyone who wants to buy a home or start a life. We are a dying state, and that angers me.
Alvin Bragg. Initially, he wasn't going to try a case against Trump. After all, the DOJ had taken a look and passed on it. His predecessor, Cy Vance, said nope. But then lo and behold, he finds obscure connections and novel legal theory to cobble together a case. (Great article from Lawfare). I'm sure it helped that Michael Colangelo, Number 3 at DOJ, took a huge hit in pay and prestige to come to NYC to "help out" --strange vertically-challenged career move there. Alvin saw how Tish James was lauded for her case, so what did he have lose? He gambled--and won.
Here's another way to look at this whole mess. This is from US Attorney General Robert Jackson (April 1, 1940):
“If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm-in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.” (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-01-1940.pdf)
Robert Jackson is spinning in his grave.
Hi Sharon. I have to disagree with you about the jury. If all but one, as you asserted, hate Trump, that does not mean they cannot set aside their animosity and make a fair judgement based on the evidence. I've covered trials before and interviewed jurors after the fact. The overwhelming majority take their duties seriously. Believe me, all jurors have opinions about the defendants, the trial lawyers and the judges. Jurors vote to convict those they like and exonerate those they despise all the time. When I was a reporter, I often had to cover people I disliked, but I tried to keep my opinions out of the reporting and I think I almost always succeeded.
I have some of the same feelings overall about Connecticut as you do about NYS. We are moving too far left here. Examples abound but here's an example. The state legislature has been completely controlled by Democrats since the 90s. Lawmakers passed a bill recently that included a provision allowing striking workers to collect unemployment benefits. What planet are they living on? This is just the kind of thing a business thinking of locating in CT would notice and view as the signal of an unfriendly business climate. Fortunately, the Democratic governor, a businessman himself, had the good sense to veto the bill. One-party rule inevitably leads to rot, no matter which party has the majority.
Amen, brother! You understand what I'm saying. Rot is a good description for what's happening in NYS.
I'm glad you liked the Lawfare article. Lawfare is a fair-minded legal blog covering national security and legal issues since 2010, well before Trump supporters popularized the term to describe people causing legal problems for the boss.
As for Bragg, that's what you get for having elected prosecutors, as almost of them are in NYS. Fortunately in Connecticut, our prosecutors (and judges) are appointed, which typically makes them at least somewhat less political.
I have no idea if the jurors hated Trump or not. My point was that there was a strong likelihood they weren't "fans". I have faith in the jury system. I'd like to think/hope that they usually get it right. My problem with this case is that the defense was not allowed to present witnesses that may have added needed information (Fed election guy--only permitted to ID himself, not speak to federal election law), and his jury instructions practically guaranteed a guilty verdict. It is what it is. There was plenty of reversible error. In the meantime, Biden can call Trump a "convicted felon".
In the meantime, I hope you'll have the opportunity to read this: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2024/05/31/how-might-voters-react-to-a-trump-conviction-n2639727 This article--more accurately than anything I've read so far--truly expresses my feelings more eloquently than I ever could.
If Hochul does that, I will pay for your trip to Hawaii. BDL- DEN then you need to rent a car to get the rest of the way. All the best.
You're on, Wayne. I've always wanted to drive from Denver to Maui anyway!
This came from my Travel Agency days. Client wanted to fly to LA and drive to Hawaii.
Hah, I figured it was insider humor!