Trump's Manhattan Trial Begins - It Should Be A Fair Trial

 Donald Trump's first trial officially began yesterday in Manhattan with jury selection. 

A large part of the population loves Trump. An equally large part hates him. Trump's lawyers will try to make sure no rabid Trump haters make it onto the jury. The prosecution will be equally diligent in trying to keep Trump cult members (Q-Anon, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc.) off the jury.

I hope both sides are successful in that endeavor. The trial is not about Trump's popularity or unpopularity, and that should not even enter juror minds. The trial is about only one thing - did Donald Trump commit the crime he has been accused of (committing business fraud to further election fraud).

If jurors believe he committed the crime, he should be convicted. If they believe he did not commit the crime, he should be found not guilty.

Regardless of the jury decision, millions of Americans will be unhappy. That does not matter. The jury decision could also affect the upcoming presidential election. That does not matter.

The only thing that matters at this point is that he receive a fair trial. I trust that will happen.

Are Blacks & Whites Treated The Same In Justice System?

 

The charts above are from the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between November 27th and 30th of a national sample of 1,500 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

Note that only Republicans think that Blacks are just as likely to get a fair trial in the U.S. as Whites. It is just one more example of how Republicans are out-of-step with the rest of America. It also shows they are the party of racists.

Senator Harris Asks For A Fair Trial In The U.S. Senate

The House of Representatives has impeached Donald Trump. He was impeached for 1) Abuse of Power, and 2) Obstruction of Congress.

Now the impeachment articles are supposed to move over to the U.S. Senate for a trial on whether to remove Trump from office or not.

Whatever people think about the impeachment, I think they want and expect a fair trial in the Senate -- a trial that is fair for both sides.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to be what Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is planning. He has already said he expect (and wants) Trump to be allowed to remain in office -- and he is denying the Democratic request to allow witnesses to testify in the trial.

That sounds crazy, a trial without witnesses providing evidence, but that is what McConnell wants. He's not interested in fairness, but only in protecting Trump.

Senator Kamala Harris is demanding a trial that is fair to both sides. Here is the op-ed she wrote in The New York Times:

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump. That means that sometime early in the new year, I will take an oath on the Senate floor to uphold the Constitution, review evidence and follow the facts wherever they lead, regardless of party or ideology. Every one of my colleagues will be required to do the same.

As a former prosecutor, I understand the importance of holding powerful people accountable. I know that every trial requires fairness and truth. Having worked my whole life serving the people, I know that any trial that abandons the pursuit of truth cannot be considered fair or just.

But the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, appears more interested in covering up the president’s misconduct than in pursuing truth and fairness. He is already trying to limit the impeachment trial by preventing witnesses from testifying, and he has all but announced a verdict. In doing so, he showed the American people that he has no intention of honoring his oath.

Let’s be clear: Mr. McConnell doesn’t want a Senate trial. He wants a Senate cover-up.

Fortunately, Mr. McConnell does not have the power to unilaterally undermine this trial. Every single senator will be empowered with an equal vote on how the trial will proceed. Though in just the past year, Mr. McConnell has used his position to unilaterally block legislation to restore the Voting Rights Act, lower the prices of prescription drugs and address the gun violence epidemic, he cannot wield the same authority in a Senate impeachment trial.

In this trial, senators will be far more than jurors. Every one of us will vote to determine the rules for the trial, decide which witnesses testify and ultimately serve as both court and jury. Each of us will be called on to uphold our oath with every decision we make. We will all be held accountable by the American people if we refuse to discover the facts relevant to the articles of impeachment.

The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, has made a reasonable request to hear from four additional witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the president’s misconduct and to review documents that shed light on why the administration initially decided to cut off military aid to Ukraine. 

We need to hear from Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, who admitted to Mr. Trump’s bribery scheme on live television, and from the former national security adviser, John Bolton, who has been shopping stories about Mr. Trump to book publishers instead of speaking with Congress. Every senator should want to hear from anyone who can speak directly to the president’s misconduct related to the articles of impeachment.

Even Richard Nixon allowed the key figures behind the Watergate scandal to speak to Congress, and he eventually turned over incriminating portions of his Oval Office recordings to investigators. But Mr. Trump has stonewalled Congress and inhibited our ability to seek justice by demanding that those closest to the center of the Ukraine scandal stay silent.

Senators must be allowed to subpoena relevant witnesses and submit questions to them directly. The Senate should not vote on any article of impeachment or consider a motion to dismiss the trial until we have reviewed the additional testimony and evidence that Mr. Schumer has requested.

I have never been in a courtroom where the accused can unilaterally block witnesses from testifying or prohibit prosecutors from asking witnesses questions. No court would allow a trial to proceed this way, and neither should any member of the Senate.

Ensuring the integrity of this trial is a solemn responsibility for every senator, with consequences that extend far beyond any one presidency. My colleagues and I have a duty to use our voice and our vote to insist on a fair trial, rooted in the pursuit of truth. We must demonstrate to the American people that in our system of justice all are equal under law, and that there are not two sets of rules, one for Donald Trump and another for everybody else. We must conduct the Senate impeachment trial in a way that is fair and that reflects impartial justice.

History will judge the actions taken by the United States Senate at a time when our Constitution and the rule of law were at stake. I’ll be fighting for justice and accountability, and my colleagues should too.

Justice In America And The Death Penalty

California has 748 inmates on Death Row, but has not executed anyone since 2006 (8 years) -- even though about 40% of those inmates have been on Death Row for at least 19 years. Because of this, a federal judge in California (Judge Cormac J. Carney, a George W. Bush appointee) declared the death penalty in that state unconstitutional. He said it violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and said, "no rational jury or legislature could ever impose: life in prison, with the remote possibility of death".

I can understand the judge's ruling, but it does seem to fly in the face of the state's desire to make sure of guilt and a fair trial before executing anyone. That probably doesn't really end the death penalty in that state though. I expect the decision to be appealed, and if an appeals court doesn't overturn the decision, the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court undoubtably will do so.

But this does put the death penalty back on the front pages -- and it makes me wonder why Americans have a split personality on the death penalty and the justice system. As the chart above shows, A significant majority of Americans support the death penalty (about 60%). That's slightly down, but still about twice the number who oppose it -- and it has been that way through the first 14 years of this century.

Although I am basically against the death penalty as a punishment, I could understand the public's stand -- if the public was sure that the justice system in this country was fair to all citizens. But that's not what the public believes. Note the charts below.

Americans are split on whether the system of justice in the United States is fair or not. While 42% say it is fair, another 43% say it is not (and 15% don't know if it is fair or not). That means that 58% say the system of justice is not fair or have doubts as to that fairness. And those numbers are even worse when people are asked if the system is fair for the poor. Only 33% say it is fair, while 67% believe it is either not fair (49%) or have doubts as to its fairness (18%) for the poor. The we have the racial and ethnic judgement of the system -- where 46% say it is fair and 54% have serious doubts about that.

Frankly, these are shocking numbers. How can 67% believe the justice system may not be fair to poor citizens, but 60% are still in favor of administering the death penalty? Shouldn't those two beliefs be mutually exclusive? If only 33% are convinced the justice system is fair to the poor, but 60% support the death penalty anyway -- doesn't that mean about 27% of Americans support the death penalty even though they think the poor don't get a fair shake in our courts? How can that be? is a quarter of our population really so bloodthirsty that they would execute people without believing they got a fair trial?
What kind of nation does that make us?

The Gallup Poll at the top of this page was done between October 3rd and 6th of 2013.

The Rasmussen Poll (the three bottom pie charts) was done on March 20th and 21st of 2013 of 1,000 likely voters, and has a 2 point margin of error.

Guilty As Hell !

I must admit that I figured Tom Delay, former GOP House leader and poster boy for corrupt politics, would probably get off without being convicted of the crimes he had been charged with five years ago.   I'm happy to say I was wrong.   Yesterday a Travis County (Austin, Texas) jury, after 19 hours of deliberation, convicted Delay of money laundering and conspiracy to launder money.

Sentencing has been set for December 20th in Austin, and the judge in the case has a wide range of sentences he could impose.   The most serious of the two charges is money laundering.   The judge could sentence Delay to as little as five years or as much as a life sentence on that charge (parole is possible after 30 years on a life sentence).   I doubt Delay will get a life sentence, but 5 or 10 years is a distinct possibility.

This whole thing comes from Delay's believing he was so powerful that he no longer had to follow the rules and laws that applied to others.   Back in 2002, Delay tried to pull an end-run around the campaign laws in Texas.   The law said a corporation couldn't give money to a political candidate's campaign, so Delay took the corporate money and funneled it through the RNC and then to the campaigns of Texas politicians -- a clear violation of both the letter and intent of the law.

Now, years later, it is time for Delay to pay the piper for his corruption.   Delay was obviously shocked at his conviction and tried to pass it off as just politics.   He said,   "This is an abuse of power.   It's a miscarriage of justice.   And I still maintain that I am innocent.   The criminalization of politics undermines our system."

That's just nonsense.   The District Attorney was not playing politics, but bringing a criminal to justice.   To prove that point, the DA pointed out that they had just convicted another politician of corruption less than a month ago -- a Democrat (Kino Flores).   DA Rosemary Lehmberg said,   "This case is a message from the citizens of the state of Texas that the public officials they elect to represent them must do so honestly, ethically or they will be held accountable."

Delay is now being held accountable.   I don't know if it's possible, but I hope his sentence is not probated.   Giving him a few years of jail time will remind all politicians (of all parties) that they are not immune to the laws all other citizens must follow.   Besides, he'll look great in a prison jumpsuit.

Gates Says Guantanamo Should Be Closed

It looks like some in the Bush administration may finally be figuring out what a public relations disaster the torture facility and illegal prison at Guantanamo Bay really is. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is now calling for Guantanamo to be closed.

But don't confuse his call for "Gitmo" to be closed with any desire for justice or fair play. He just realizes that the facility's existence is stark proof to the rest of the world that the United States does not believe in justice for anyone who is not an American.

Gates thinks that if the facility was closed down, we could go on mistreating people and no one would be the wiser. He obviously thinks the leaders of other nations are as stupid as he and his boss. He wants to destroy the symbol and continue the injustice. He says at least 100 of the prisoners would need to be incarcerated "forever".

He's even gone so far as to say Congress needs to pass a new law to "address the concerns about some of these people who really need to be incarcerated forever, but that doesn't get them involved in a judicial system where there is the potential of them being released."

How much clearer could he be? He wants Congress to pass a law that would deny any kind of fair trial to these people. Evidently, he thinks that even the rigged military tribunals are not unfair enough.

Didn't we stage a revolution in the late 1700's because we were not being treated fairly by the British government? What would Jefferson, Washington and the other founding fathers think of passing a law specifically to deny a fair trial to anyone? I think they would be shocked at the unfairness of the Bush administration! I think they would use words like "scandalous", "traitorous" and "unconstitutional".

Our forefathers understood that if you can deny a fair trial to anyone, then you can do it to everyone. They established our system of justice because they believed that even the most villainous among us deserved a fair trial. Now Bush and his henchmen are doing their best to destroy that system of justice.

Closing Guantanamo will not make the world think we are wonderful (even though it does need to be closed). They will still judge us by how we treat our enemies. The rest of the world is well aware that if we mistreat these prisoners now, we could do it to them tomorrow.

By the way, Guantanamo now holds about 385 prisoners. If only about 100 are truly dangerous to us, why are we still holding the other 285?