Trump, the New York jury, and New York City’s voters

The New Neo Posted on by

In yesterday’s thread on the Trump trial, commenter “Nonapod” observed:

I confess that I find it somewhat mystifying that we can’t count on the integrity and respect for the law of at least 1 out of 12 NYC Democrats. Trump derangement must be severely debilitating among such people, overriding most rational thought.

My response is that, if it was just the population of NY we’re talking about, it actually would be likely that someone on that jury would vote to acquit Trump. After all, in 2020 in Manhattan (where the trial is taking place) the vote for Trump was 14.5%. That’s approximately one in seven.

But if it were to include all of New York, the news would be even more hopeful for Trump. In other boroughs, the tally for Trump in 2020 was better: 17% for Trump in the Bronx, 25% for Trump in Brooklyn, 30% for Trump in Queens, and Trump won Staten Island (New York’s only Republican borough) 61.6% to 37.6%.

And those are Trump supporters in New York, people who actually voted for him and not just people who might be persuaded to not convict him in a kangaroo court trial.

The problem, however, is that the jury is not necessarily representative even of Manhattan, where one in seven people support Trump. It consists of a very carefully selected group of people, and the sample is small. The process of jury selection is a good part of the tactics of winning a trial. I know next to nothing about who these people are, but I know they have been carefully selected. Who knows how it will go? But I do know that if the jury were truly representative of the Manhattan population (and certainly of the NYC population as a whole), Trump would get at least a hung jury.

It has also been my experience that most people’s opinions of a trial are heavily influenced by their political positions, especially in a political trial. That is true of both left and right, although I believe that it’s even more common on the left, because leftists openly state that the ends justify the means and that law is a purely political power play.

Why write so often about Israel and Palestine?

The New Neo Posted on by

It seems that lately I’ve been writing a great deal about three subjects: Israel/Palestine, the current Trump trial in New York, and the 2024 election. Plenty of other important things are happening – and I do write about them. But my focus has been on those three.

The latter two obviously affect us all. But what about Israel/Palestine? Why so much about that? I often see the sentiment from commenters on blogs on the right (not on this one, however) to the effect of: who cares? Let them duke it out. It doesn’t affect me at all.

My answer is a variation of the old “you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” There’s plenty in the Middle East conflict that affects us all and will continue to affect us all: the clash between left and right, the transformation of our universities into indoctrination factories, the leftist bias of the press, lessons in history and propaganda, and the aims of Islamic radicals to take over the Western world (yes; it is their aim, and they state it quite clearly). In furtherance of that aim they are more than willing to kill not just the Israelis, not just the Jews, but anyone who gets in their way. There’s also the revelation of the foreign policy aims of the Obama/Biden coalition.

Then there are the moral issues. This is a war in which Israel our ally, and the most Western nation in the Middle East, was cruelly and barbarically attacked during a ceasefire by a group that states its desire to do it again and again and again until Israeli and the Israelis are destroyed. The Israelis are fighting a necessary defensive war. And it’s no accident that their enemies consider Israel to be the Little Satan and the US the Great Satan:

The epithet was coined by Iranian religious leader Ruhollah Khomeini, who used it in a speech on 5 November 1979, one day after the onset of the Iran hostage crisis. In the speech, he condemned the United States as an imperialist power that sponsored corruption throughout the world.

Note Khomeini’s clever use of terms that would appeal to Western leftists: the US as an “imperialist” power. Of course, in the familiar Orwellian inversion of language, Islam is a hugely imperialist movement and has been since its founding, and Iran has taken over many countries in the Middle East and influences and promotes the war against Israel and the spread of terrorism as well as anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, anti-American, and anti-Western propaganda.

Note also that one of the first actions of the Islamic rulers of Iran after the 1979 revolution was to take Americans hostage.

Michael Cohen is the world’s worst witness. Will it matter?

The New Neo Posted on by

Everything depends on whether there is anyone of integrity on the jury. All it would take would be one person, and that person would have to be strong enough to resist extreme pressure and even threats. I wouldn’t count on it, although it’s possible.

The NY case against Trump is bogus in so many ways, many of which have been discussed on this blog and all of which have been touched on elsewhere. No need to recap them at the moment. But the utterly contemptible corruption of the prosecution’s star witness, Michael Cohen, grows more apparent every day – and it was amply apparent to begin with.

Yesterday I wrote about how even Anderson Cooper was remarking on it. But today I saw this series of other videos featuring equally gobsmacked TV newspeople noting how poorly Cohen had performed and had well Trump’s attorney had shown him to be a vengeful former employee who had been lying constantly, and lying on the stand as well.

You might want to follow that link and take a look at the videos there. But here’s an especially colorful one:

And here’s Jonathan Turley, speaking about Cohen even before yesterday’s dramatic testimony on the stand:

So, what does it all mean? Nothing, as I said, unless there’s at least one juror with integrity and courage. If the judge had any integrity and courage, this case would be decided for Trump in a directed verdict, because no evidence has been produced that could reasonably convict him. But I feel pretty safe in saying that this judge will not do that. If the prosecutors had any integrity (I know; don’t ask for something impossible) this case would never have been brought in the first place. But it was, and here we are.

They didn’t televise this trial despite the fact that it would have gotten very high ratings, because they knew how terrible it would look. They knew it would expose the hollowness of the case against Trump and the duplicity of the prosecutors and the witnesses against him. Too many people watching it might be shocked enough to vote for Trump when they saw for themselves, up close and personal, just how corrupt these people are, and how completely and utterly unprincipled the whole thing is.

So they thought they’d filter it for the public through the MSM and could count on the jury to convict, and although a conviction would probably be reversed that didn’t matter because it would happen after the election. But what they didn’t quite bargain for was that Cohen would be so awful that even the MSM would notice and some sort of vestigial reporting instinct would kick in for some people, at least for a day.

I doubt that instinct will last any longer than that.

I would dearly love to see a video of what happened in that courtroom yesterday. But we’ll probably never get to see it, and I doubt it even was allowed to be filmed. But apparently there was a real Perry Mason moment, the type of drama that was common on the TV series but actually is rare in real life.

It is also informative to listen to Costello, who was Michael Cohen’s attorney (the one referenced by Turley in the above clip). Costello has his own tale to tell of Cohen’s motives and statements:

NOTE: Court is not in session today because they allowed Trump to attend his son Barron’s high school graduation. How very kind of them.

As it dawns on Anderson Cooper that Michael Cohen might not be the most reliable witness in the world

The New Neo Posted on by

How bad must it be for Anderson Cooper to admit that Michael Cohen appears to be a liar?

Of course, the jury might not care, because they hate Trump so much. And Cooper tries to limit the idea of Cohen as a liar to just this little itty bitty bit:

It was another bad day for the case against Donald Trump after the former president’s legal team absolutely destroyed Michael Cohen. But don’t take my word for it. Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, was so effective at boxing Cohen in on his lies that he left CNN’s Anderson Cooper absolutely stunned.

“But the last 20 minutes of court today right before the lunch break, it was incredible,” he admitted. “Elie Honig on my program last night had talked about, on a cross-examination, lawyers want to kind of put the witness in a — build a box around the witness and then slam it shut. That’s what Todd Blanche did to Michael Cohen.” …

“I think it’s devastating,” Cooper added later. “I mean, for Michael Cohen’s credibility on this, I mean, on this one particular topic.” [The topic was a certain phone call in which text messages both before and after the phone call contradicted Cohen’s testimony about the call itself.]

[Cooper] added, “Yes, I think, if I was a juror in this case, watching that, I would think this guy’s making this up as he’s going along or he’s making this particular story up.”

This particular story.

Actually, you could say about Cohen more or less what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman: every word he says is a lie, including “and” and “the.”

The Netherlands’ government moves further towards supporting Israel

The New Neo Posted on by

Recently:

In an advanced draft for a coalition agreement between four right-wing Dutch political factions, the partners agreed to look for the “appropriate time” for moving the embassy of the Netherlands to Jerusalem.

The draft agreement published Thursday morning follows the November general elections in the Netherlands, in which the pro-Israel, far-right Party for Freedom of Geert Wilders received the highest share of the vote with 37 seats out of 150 in the Dutch lower house.

The draft states that research will be conducted into “the appropriate time in which the move of the embassy to Jerusalem can occur.”

If the Netherlands does follow through, it will be the sixth country to open an embassy in Jerusalem, following Papua New Guinea, Kosovo, Honduras, Guatemala and the US.

This was started by Trump, of course, when he announced such a move for the US.

There’s also this:

One clause on immigration in the draft agreement states that the Holocaust will be included in the integration exam, which anyone seeking Dutch citizenship needs to pass.

Another said Dutch asylum and immigration protocols would be reviewed. “Concrete steps will be taken towards the strictest ever entry rules for asylum and the most comprehensive ever package to control migration,” the agreement said.

Interesting. Elections have consequences.

NOTE: If I were to ask people, “What do The Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Kosovo, Honduras, Guatemala, and the US have in common?” I doubt whether anyone but those reading this post could answer the question.

King Charles’ portrait: the Red King or the King of Hearts and Butterflies?

The New Neo Posted on by

My goodness. Take a look at Charles’ portrait (copying it seems to be blocked, but if you click on the link you can view it):

The bold portrait, painted by British artist Jonathan Yeo, is the first official portrait of the 75-year-old king since his May 2023 coronation. It was unveiled inside Buckingham Palace on May 14.

The portrait, drenched in the color red, depicts Charles wearing the red military uniform of the Welsh Guards, as he sits with his hand on his sword, amid a vibrant red background. A monarch butterfly hovers over the king’s right shoulder.

Everything looks red except the king’s face, and that is painted realistically and showing every line and sag.

The artist says:

… [M]uch like the butterfly I’ve painted hovering over his shoulder, this portrait has evolved as the subject’s role in our public life has transformed. I do my best to capture the life experiences and humanity etched into any individual sitter’s face, and I hope that is what I have achieved in this portrait.

Count it achieved.

I actually think if the artist had painted the rest of the portrait in that same style and with realistic colors, it would have been fine. But then it wouldn’t have been talked about so much. It would have have in line with tradition – although I suppose that tradition dictates a more flattering and softening look, particularly for the face.

I remember Charles as a little boy, when I was a little girl. ‘Nuff said.

The overwhelming redness of the painting gives the whole thing an otherworldly and creepy air. It also reminds me of Lewis Carrol’s queens. There’s the Red Queen (the metaphor being a game of chess):

And the Queen of Hearts (the metaphor being a card game):

Romney: Biden should have pardoned Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

Gee Willikers, says Romney:

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, argued that President Joe Biden should have pardoned Donald Trump after the Justice Department brought indictments against the former president and pressured New York prosecutors not to pursue Trump’s ongoing hush money trial. …

“I think it’s a terrible fault for our country to see people attacking our legal system — that’s an enormous mistake. I think it’s also demeaning for people to quite apparently try and run for vice president by donning a red tie and standing outside the courthouse. It’s just — I’d have felt awkward.”

Fascinating. Note the strong word “attacking” – in “attacking our legal system.” Our legal system is an institution that people need to respect in order for it to function properly and to maintain civil order; that’s me writing; not a quote from Romney, but it’s what I think he’s trying to say. And it’s true.

But what Romney leaves out – and it’s not a detail but rather the heart of the matter – is that in order to be respected, the legal system or any other system must act in a way that earns that respect. And what’s happening now in that courtroom is a perversion of our legal system and an outrage.

As a lawyer, Romney should know that. Does he know that? Or is he saying this cynically, despite knowing it? Perhaps, but my guess is that he’s still living in a dreamworld in which if we all just acted with decorum then everything would be just fine and dandy and peachy keen. And Trump – terribly disrespectful and coarse, not Romney’s “type” at all – has upset everything. Romney is keen to show us that he, Romney, is very much a different type. A polite type.

Trump and those who support Trump make Romney feel awkward.

On the other hand, Romney says:

The Utah Republican argued that Biden should have pardoned Trump when the Justice Department announced charges against him and that the president “made an enormous error” by not pressuring New York prosecutors to drop their case against Trump. (Presidents can pardon only in federal cases.)

“He should have fought like crazy to keep this prosecution from going forward,” Romney said, referring to Biden. “It was a win-win for Donald Trump.”

The word “error” leaps out there. In a sense, it may have been an error on the part of Biden and company – but only because it may end up backfiring and causing a great deal of sympathy for Trump, especially among minority groups but also just in general. Oops! Not their intent. But otherwise it was no error, and in fact it was orchestrated by Biden and/or his aides and/or the Democrats as a whole, as were all the prosecutions. This was not Bragg acting on his own; the thought is ludicrous.

And yet you have to say that – at least so far – Romney is correct in the practical sense when he says that Biden “should have fought like crazy to keep this prosecution from going forward … It was a win-win for Donald Trump.” It is also true in the moral sense that Biden should have prevented it, but neither Biden nor the left is operating morally, except that they think that anything is morally acceptable in order to stop Trump.

Romney added:

… [H]ad I been President Biden, when the Justice Department brought on indictments, I would have immediately pardoned him. I’d have pardoned President Trump. Why? Well, because it makes me, President Biden, the big guy and the person I pardoned a little guy.

So Romney, when you voted to convict Trump after he’d been impeached on bogus charges, did you do it because you thought it made you the big guy or the little guy? My answer is “the little guy.” What’s yours?

So it looks as though there will be presidential debates after all

The New Neo Posted on by

And with the unusual twist that both of the two participants – Biden and Trump – actually have been presidents.

Biden suddenly accepted two debates under certain terms that were favorable to him, and Trump agreed. The two debates will take place in June and September. Trump must think he can wipe the floor with Biden, but that didn’t happen last time because even 50% coherence from Biden was considered a victory, and of course the playing field will once again be slanted towards Biden: CNN.

Biden went into macho swagger mode and acted as though Trump had been the one dragging his feet: