Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial Begins

Multiple Slate people have pointed out that the Manhattan criminal trial, which officially began yesterday, has merit and bite. Some are on the train now, especially with all the others delayed. I supported this from the beginning.

Trump being brought to criminal account matters. He is upset that he needs to do basic things like show up every day like some average defendant. Consequences are for other people, like Michael Cohen, who was prosecuted for taking part in this scheme.  FT. Equal justice for all. 

We can debate the political benefits to one or the other side here. Reports of him dozing off ("Sleepy Donald") don't sound helpful. Some polls suggest various swing voters care about him being prosecuted. If he somehow gets off, that might be positive. Look how OJ (died) came off when that happened, correct? I don't think it turns on this but multiple "meh" sorts say this is what really matters. If he is defeated in the fall. So. 

One person on Twitter said that his civil judgment for his financial fraud should get more attention. But, this is part of a wider whole. The claim is that he broke financial regulations in the promotion of election interference. And, yes, we can call it that. He was trying to hide information relevant to the 2016 election. The rules didn't apply to him there. Rinse/repeat.

[See also, his campaign engaging with the Russians and denying that they were doing so and/or being helped. I think the whole thing is all connected. We can talk about them all. Instead of helping him by belittling it! STOP!]

I find Rick Hasen's handwaving wrong and annoying. "It might be overturned on appeal." When? 2025? We are seeing now how many delays are in place in the other cases? So far, Trump has lost legal challenges, including trying to delay or get around a gag order, in this case. And, I guess the civil fraud case is bad too (as some say) since it might be overturned too.  

The limited prison time involved also is cited. So what? I still doubt the guy will ever see a jail cell. A conviction matters.  Once we have a precedent of a criminal trial, the others can be more smooth going since it is no longer a totally novel thing. 

It won't push the envelope in the polls that a candidate is a criminal, as part of a scheme that continued while he was in the White House, because the penalty might only be for a few years or so? Well, if people like that asshole (is he still pushing his "Democrats filibustering Gorsuch has no value" line?*) belittle it, maybe. Who knows? It won't alone be an issue!

Hasen years back granted Trump would be liable under federal law. It was blocked because he was in office, Barr was the attorney general, and for other not totally clear reasons. Now, after someone else got punished, the chance to prosecute should be ignored? It is "meh"? Trump gets off again.

(Don't say all of these people are soft on Trump. They will get mad. They might have a "baby bear" perfect way to do it. Like a federal path blocked here. Or, the national secrets trial blocked. Or. When something is actually brought to trial, it's not the way to go.)

Can I have a list of crimes Trump has done that we should not prosecute since it is so small potatoes? My take, as a resident of New York (it is "People of the State of New York v. Trump"), is that breaking state law to cover up something as part of a scheme that your lawyer was prosecuted for deserves to be prosecuted. 

He is being forced to actually restrain himself (up to a point) like other criminal defendants. I think of this as a sort of "undercard" prosecution. It is less important in large part because he did so many bad things. A typical former president charged with this sort of thing could be in a lot of trouble.  

Like his "grab her by the pussy" comments not mattering enough, we are pushed to normalize him so much that this first criminal trial of a former president (or whatever he is) is treated as a "meh" by some people.

Not here. I am not on the bandwagon, which always finds a way to belittle attempts to obtain some justice and consequences. People belittled both impeachments. The Georgia trial is now about the prosecutor. Judge Cannon's blatant bias is granted and people still say it's silly to think she should be removed. Not me. 

===

* No, I am not going to let that one go. He repeatedly tweeted the piece he co-wrote about that business and it pisses me off.

I respect Rick Hasen but you can still disagree with people you respect. For instance, he thought it a bad strategy for the Democrats to support a big election reform package. He wanted a "skinny" one. 

But, there was no actual chance that the Republicans in the Senate would support that. So, you are in effect negotiating against yourself, instead of having stuff you can compromise away if you could obtain Republican support. People noted this at the time. 

I felt it clueless. Hasen is also at times easily triggered. A fellow professor said Hasen is usually smart but is not here. Hasen made out as if the person said Hasen was not smart because the two disagreed over something. Strawman. He thinks -- on the merits -- Hasen isn't being smart about a specific thing.