International reaction to "the verdict"

[scruffy]

I imagined a couple different responses were likely. The most likely I assumed that the Trump Fanboys would come up with was a rant about how the immigration policies of the whole world make way more sense than ours do. I figured the second most likely would be to point out that the President, when he travels, once Trump is elected, does so under Diplomatic Immunity and the receiving nation is honored to receive Trump under those circumstances. Trump being so loved by the world’s leaders, and the world, or something.

What I didn’t figure on, and I guess I should have, is accusing me of having TDS, again. I mean, it wasn’t something I wrote. It was a news article. It was an article linked to by Drudge, which means millions of people saw it last evening. It was a news article that, if it was wrong, would have been easily demonstrated. There is no way I wrote the news article. So accusing me of having TDS is just not logical, or rational is it?

I’m assuming that the accusation of TDS is a knee jerk response. Any time information comes out that is not welcome, the individual in question must have TDS. Even if the information is gospel truth, that doesn’t matter, what really matters is the person posting the information must have TDS.

I don’t know, perhaps one of your fellow Fanboys will be posting how the other nations have way more common sense immigration and visitation laws than we do.

It doesn't matter if you have TDS or not.

If you're supporting Democrats, you're voting for evil.

This recent conviction is the most dangerous thing that's happened in America in 150 years.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Interesting. I never said I was gleeful. I said the trial appeared fair. I think it is interesting. I am curious as to what grounds Trump will claim when he appeals.

I think the defense was lacking. I think the best defenses start with a narrative and carry it through every witness. I say best because those are traditionally the most successful. The Trump narrative was how awful everyone was to testify and make these claims.

I support, and have said so on my occasions, the ideal that it is supposed to be hard to convict someone. I’ve said I absolutely support the idea of a vigorous defense in criminal trials. I’ve supported the ideal that it is better for a thousand guilty men to go free than one innocent man go to prison.

Those are not so much Ideals as Principles. Core beliefs if you will. And if you want to know why, I’ll say this. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution. And those principles are enshrined in that document that I swore to defend. The principles and ideals contained within.

This is a little off topic. But it may show you how I think. Wednesday night, as the jury deliberated, by coincidence I watched a YouTube video with the wife. It was two youngsters reacting to the movie 12 Angry Men. I like this movie for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is I saw it in school. It was a sort of advanced Civics class. We watched the movie and discussed it.

I was taught and firmly believe that our system is best served by vigorously debating the issues. Truthfully. Honestly. And being willing to change your opinion when you see evidence you can’t explain.

One thing sticks out now, as it did Wednesday. A closing lesson from the Teacher. At the end of the movie you don’t know if the Defendant killed his Father. All you know is that a man was murdered. The prosecution had a case they didn’t question. And the Defense was awful not asking questions so obvious an architect could get the ball rolling by asking a couple.

I wish the Trump defense had been better. I wish they had a narrative like Sonny Seiler presented for Jim Williams in Savannah. A narrative explains the evidence with an alternate story. Without that narrative a defense is essentially just a child screaming no.

With the evidence I saw reported. The testimony. The documentation. The audio recordings. Finding Trump guilty is understandable. There were 22 witnesses who testified that Trump did what he was accused of doing. There were documentation including checks signed by Trump, emails, text messages, all of which showed Trump doing what he was accused of. There was audio recordings where Trump discussed in his own voice doing what he was accused of.

The claims of political partisan whatever don’t hold up. So far. But let’s say the Judge was half as determined as it is claimed to jail Trump. Why didn’t he toss Trump in jail for the Gag order violations? Why did he keep warning him time after time, finally after months of violations slapping a tiny fine on Trump?

If you can answer those questions I’m curious to see your reasons.

What was lacking in the trial was articulating a crime, as many legal scholars pointed out.

As for why the Judge didn't throw Trump in jail, it's easy. He didn't want a backlash against democrats running for office. Especially since the trial itself was so questionable.