Just like everyone was a doctor during Covid and everyone is a combat expert in regards to Russia and Ukraine...
Trump may continue to argue that all these references to “top secret,” “secret,” and “highly confidential” material pertain to magazine and newspaper articles. Don’t expect a jury to believe it, even if — as has been reported — investigators have not yet found the specific document in question. They found enough classified material to make the point, and juries can and often do act on circumstantial evidence and testimony like this — especially when it comes from the defendant.
I think this misses the entire point of a trial where the defendant is assumed innocent and it is up to the prosecution to "prove" their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution wants you to believe that Trump was looking at a specific document (rather than his assertion he was looking at other accounts of these events) then I would think that producing that document would be a relevant manner to show proof. You cannot prove someone showed a specific document if you cannot show that this person actually ever had such a document. A prosecutor asking the jury to "trust them" doesn't work and wouldn't even be allowed.
But this is an article from Ed Morrissey posted in Hot Air, so that is a conservative giving a conservative opinion? I mean if conservatives are thinking this... then it must be true?
Well not so fast, there are a lot of levels of conservatives when it comes to Trump. Everything from those who think the GOP should follow Trump and those never Trumpers who wish he never entered politics. Morrissey is not exactly a full scale never-Trumper, but he is much closer to a never-Trumper than he is to being a big Trump backer. He has held plenty of luke warm to negative views and written many negative articles about Trump.
Now if one really takes the time to really look for why most conservatives decide to oppose Trump, the lion's share of them focus on his personality rather than his policies or politics. In fact, many concede that his policy choices are superior to many others, but they simply cannot take the drama that the bad orange man creates. In many ways he is the political equivalent of pig-pen from the Peanuts where a cloud of dirt follow him around wherever he goes. Only in Trumps case it is a cloud of controversy, rather than dirt.
So obviously many of these Trump doubters probably view the upcoming trial with a healthy bit of skepticism toward Trump (and probably project that on to others). They also tend to focus on his bad qualities (of which there are plenty) and hold a particular bias as to how this will play out in front of a jury. This would be the opposite of those who tend to see the DOJ and Jack Smith as corrupt and will hold an opposite bias as to how this would play before a jury. Moreover, their own bias takes over and they simply would not believe Trump themselves, and expect others to follow suit. But if this was a random person, we might need evidence before we conclude someone is lying. I believe Smith would have to actually show some. Not just take for granted that everyone will think Trump is lying.
Moreover, without actually having proof of what documents were being shown (or referred to) in this audio tape, there is a chance that the recording might not even be allowed. Could very well be that much of this is being leaked for political reasons or to taint the jury pool with information they will never hear at trial. Again think about all the evidence against O.J. that was played out in the media but never saw the light of the courtroom for a variety of legal reasons. This certainly tainted a larger popular American television jury pool who couldn't quite understand how he could be acquitted with all that evidence (much of which the actual jury never saw).
At the end of the day, we will have a lot of armchair lawyers over the next few months. I strongly suggest we listen to those attorneys who have some experience and are not never-Trumpers. Never before will we have witnessed a trial this political. O.J. was certainly a spectacle, but it did not really affect the country as a whole.
2 Comments