Trump Trials Updates

[New York]

The people of New York are against Donald Trump because he allegedly misused his businesses to cover up some campaign-related sex scandals. 

Three specific incidents are involved, one granted to be false. Then, there are two other sexual relationships with women, including porn star/director ("adult film" star is a bit silly) Stormy Daniels. She testified this week. 

Trump has denied anything to do with Stormy Daniels except for one meeting in public. He probably had to admit that because there is a picture. We are not dealing with a case like Bill Clinton granting he had irresponsible relationships but debating framing. Trump has almost a complete denial.

No one -- except those who want to be fooled -- takes that seriously.  This makes what has to be proven here a lot easier. 

The original events took place almost twenty years ago. Barron Trump is now eighteen. People generally remember the "gist" of things. They will over time view them somewhat differently. But, the general gist is what matters here. 

The coverage notes that Stormy Daniels frames sex with Donald Trump as "rapey." Multiple news sources provide a sympathetic take, which appears to be partially a product of #MeToo. Daniels does not say she lacked consent. 

But, various details show she now believes it was not completely consensual. Life tends to sometimes have shades of gray. Trump is a sexual predator. The only real debate is over details. 

On that front, the cross-examination tried to frame her as a golddigger. If the NDA was somehow motivated by money on both sides, it doesn't change (1) Trump is lying about the details (2) He broke the law. It's an attempt to get one or more jurors to not convict for non-germane reasons. 

One detail highlighted by some accounts is that Trump did not wear a condom. He made sure that Daniels carefully protected herself professionally. But, the person who later bragged about helping to overturn Roe v. Wade, did not wear a condom. 

The case went back to more boring technical issues after she stepped down. Michael Cohen -- his former personal lawyer who has been prosecuted partially for events involving the overall scheme at issue -- might testify next week. 

[D.C.]

We await the Supreme Court's ruling regarding proper immunity for presidential actions. The federal election interference / January 6th trial is therefore still in abeyance. 

The trial was originally scheduled for early March. I share the sentiments of a range of people, including former federal judge, Michael Luttig (conservative-leaning) that this case should not have been taken.  

The Supreme Court, after screwing up the Colorado insurrection/keeping Trump off the ballot case, took this case and completed a slow walk that started back in December. The special counsel asked them then to take the case. Instead, they waited until the very last minute, the oral argument the very last one in the term. 

ETA: Stephen Bannon stonewalled the 1/6 Committee in October 2021. A grand jury indicted him for obstruction the next month. He was convicted in July 2022. The judge sentenced him to four months and a $6500 fine. The court of appeals finally got around to upholding the conviction. 

[Florida]

Judge Aileen Cannon, confirmed in mid-November 2020, has decided to hold the national security documents case indefinitely. She dragged things out continuously mixed with convoluted rulings that continuously helped Trump. Then, she decided she did not have enough time. 

The people have every right to see this as a failure of the justice system. It is not that we want "courts to save us." We want them to work competently. Courts are part of the system. We should not have to rely on a single election to save democracy. The rule of law should not work that way. 

The problem here is not specifically that a judge was nominated by Trump, is conservative, or is inexperienced. These things combined are problematic, especially in a case of such fundamental importance. 

She had no business presiding over this case at some point. She has shown herself as incompetent and biased. The appearance of bias counts. Actual bias is a reasonable conclusion too. 

I realize the rules in place make removing a judge extremely hard unless the person fits a small number of boxes. If they do, including relatively trivially (including holding a small number of stocks in a company), it is an easier call. Nonetheless, at some point, blatant cases occur. 

This is one of them. The people who at times patronizingly tell us removal is impossible still do things like grant the government (in a strong case) has no chance of winning with this judge. So, is the system fixed? Oh well. 

[Georgia] 

It is a parlor game to blame Merrick Garland for delaying the Trump trials, even the national security documents case where the evidence is particularly weak. 

He is a general scapegoat, repeatedly lashed out at, even when our focus should be elsewhere. Fani Willis did not receive such treatment, even though her case took a long time. Oh well. She has joined the party.

Fani Willis had a romantic relationship with a prosecutor that she chose for the case. As someone on Twitter noted, but is not cited much to my knowledge, he was the third choice. Two other people did not want to be involved, especially given the attention that would be placed on them.

The defense flagged this though I share the sentiments of many that it is extremely unclear how it truly is a due process problem. The details do not change my sentiment. Allegations that someone the prosecution financially benefited (unclear on the facts) do not change the bottom line. How did the defense suffer? 

The prosecutor is competent. How many times do prosecutors choose people in part because of their personal connections to the person? There was an extended hearing, resulting in a lot of soap opera, including Willis lashing out. The judge chided her on that. Nothing really changed. 

The bottom line is that the other prosecutor left the case, and Willis continued on. I think this took too long but fine. Now, the appeals court has accepted review.  Again, my general mood is pissed off. 

Anthony Michael Kreis (local law expert), who agreed with the judge's ruling, was surprised. He also tossed out how much Fani Willis messed up and that the trial is not likely to start until 2025. People nodded, saying she had to act like "Mother Teresa" given the stakes. Impossible standard. 

Prosecutors are not going to act like "Mother Teresa." People like myself are not just giving her a pass. We are mad because all of this appears to be a weak attempt to delay. 

Meanwhile, the "stakes" do not result in anything happening to Judge Cannon or Justice Thomas being on cases in which his wife was involved. 

Ditto his continual violations or going close to the line of gag orders. If we are supposed to accept, quite rightly to some degree, the stakes, why is so little notice given to that? A few thousand dollars in fines does not change the bottom line there.  

==

A few more Republican senators should have voted to convict him in the second impeachment trial. 

Nonetheless, the Constitution itself shows that impeachment is a limited remedy. Conviction in a court of law is an important safeguard in our system. Multiple Republicans who did not convict assured us that that remedy remained. 

The goings there have been troubling.