Reactions to the Trump verdict

The New Neo Posted on by

I spent the evening with a friend, trying to take my mind off things. Sometimes you just need to take a break.

But now I’m back. And I started to wonder what’s being said about the Trump conviction – not on the left; I’m pretty sure I know what they’re saying, and I have no interest in it; but on the right.

So here are some samplings.

From Ron DeSantis:

“Today’s verdict represents the culmination of a legal process that has been bent to the political will of the actors involved: a leftist prosecutor, a partisan judge and a jury reflective of one of the most liberal enclaves in America — all in an effort to ‘get’ Donald Trump,” DeSantis posted on X.

“That this case — involving alleged misdemeanor business records violations from nearly a decade ago — was even brought is a testament to the political debasement of the justice system in places like New York City. This is especially true considering this same district attorney routinely excuses criminal conduct in a way that has endangered law-abiding citizens in his jurisdiction.

“It is often said that no one is above the law, but it is also true that no one is below the law. If the defendant were not Donald Trump, this case would never have been brought, the judge would have never issued similar rulings, and the jury would have never returned a guilty verdict. In America, the rule of law should be applied in a dispassionate, even-handed manner, not become captive to the political agenda of some kangaroo court.”

Marco Rubio said much the same thing. And this from Tim Scott:

This was a sham trial and the clearest example we’ve ever seen of election interference. I am furious and no American is safe from Democrat political persecution. Joe Biden and the Democrat machine manufactured a legal case against Trump to win an election. I went to New York to stand with President Trump and the American voters will stand with him this November.

From Speaker Mike Johnson:

Today is a shameful day in American history. Democrats cheered as they convicted the leader of the opposing party on ridiculous charges, predicated on the testimony of a disbarred, convicted felon. This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one.

The weaponization of our justice system has been a hallmark of the Biden Administration, and the decision today is further evidence that Democrats will stop at nothing to silence dissent and crush their political opponents.

The American people see this as lawfare, and they know it is wrong—and dangerous. President Trump will rightfully appeal this absurd verdict—and he WILL WIN!

From Ted Cruz:

This is a dark day for America.

This entire trial has been a sham, and it is nothing more than political persecution. The only reason they prosecuted Donald Trump is because Democrats are terrified that he will win reelection.

This disgraceful decision is legally baseless and should be overturned promptly on appeal. Any judge with a modicum of integrity would recognize that this entire trial has been utterly fraudulent.

Elise Stefanik, J. D. Vance, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Mike Barrasso said similar things. So far, I see nothing from Mitt Romney. But much to my surprise, Mitch McConnell came through with this. It’s not much but it’s definitely something:

“These charges never should have been brought in the first place. I expect the conviction to be overturned on appeal,” McConnell wrote in a social media post on X.

McConnell’s surprise decision to weigh in on the outcome of a court case that he has refused to talk about for months may indicate that Trump’s conviction could have a unifying effect on the GOP — rallying even his biggest skeptics within the party to his defense.

Likewise, we have Susan Collins of Maine:

“It is fundamental to our American system of justice that the government prosecutes cases because of alleged criminal conduct regardless of who the defendant happens to be. In this case the opposite has happened. The district attorney, who campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, brought these charges precisely because of who the defendant was rather than because of any specified criminal conduct,” Collins said in a statement Thursday evening.

“The political underpinnings of this case further blur the lines between the judicial system and the electoral system, and this verdict likely will be the subject of a protracted appeals process,” she said.

McConnell and Collins were two of the biggest Trump skeptics in the Senate GOP conference to slam the Bragg decision to prosecute the former president but other Republican senators not especially close to Trump also rallied to his defense.

Thune was another one:

“I’ve been on a flight, but just landed and saw the news. This case was politically motivated from the beginning, and today’s verdict does nothing to absolve the partisan nature of this prosecution,” said Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.), who opposed Trump’s effort to block the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory in 2021 and whose career Trump later tried to end in an act of retaliation. …

“Regardless of outcome, more and more Americans are realizing that we cannot survive four more years of Joe Biden. With President Trump in the White House and a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate, we can finally end the disastrous Biden-Schumer agenda that’s crushing American families and businesses,” Thune said in reaction to the verdict.

I said I wouldn’t take a look at what Democrats said. But I couldn’t help but notice, in the same article I got those quotes from, that Schumer’s statement was rather short and not exactly full of gloating:

No one is above the law. The verdict speaks for itself.

Indeed. And we know what it says: Democrats are utterly corrupt, utterly power-mad, and will do anything – including framing an innocent man – to hang onto power.

The verdict is in: GUILTY

The New Neo Posted on by

As we expected. But that doesn’t make it any easier.

I keep thinking in dramatic terms, such as: We have crossed the Rubicon. Or, this country is finished; it was nice while it lasted.

Then again, I tend to be a pessimist. So I try to consider more optimistic alternatives, such as: Maybe this will be a wakeup call for a lot of people. And, maybe this will backfire on the left.

One thing I know is that the left is drunk with power and never, never never wants to relinquish it. They believe their capture of the institutions is nearly complete, and so they no longer have to pretend. The only frontier left to conquer is SCOTUS, and they’ve been working on that for quite some time. Is it possible that SCOTUS will intervene in the Trump case?

You can find some of the details of the verdict here as well as here.

Who is Keir Starmer and why might he be the next PM of Great Britain?

The New Neo Posted on by

If you’re been following the upcoming British election – July 4 – you’ll have heard that the Labour Party is poised for a huge victory, perhaps as much of a parliamentary majority as 150 seats. As best I can tell, it seems to be a backlash against the recent Tory governments rather than any groundswell of love for the left. The British Conservative Party haven’t been very conservative either fiscally or otherwise, and Boris Johnson squandered a lot of goodwill with his COVID policies and hypocritical personal behavior while in office. And no one is enthusiastic about the bland Rishi Sunak, whose achievements have been underwhelming.

The Conservatives are widely perceived to have run out of chances and run out of steam. Thus, the pivot to Labour. But here’s the thing – why do people who are angry at the Tories for not having kept their promises think that a great way to deal with that would be to vote for the left? Isn’t that “from the frying pan into the fire”? And yet in the past I’ve seen that sort of reaction here, too; “I’ll show them! I’ll vote for something far worse!”

It’s interesting, also, that the head of Labour, a man named Keir Starmer, has positioned himself as a moderate. Is he in fact as moderate as he says? I certainly don’t know, but I do know that he’s the head of a party that isn’t moderate, and in recent years (although not now) he has supported things like the nationalization of major industries. Here’s some information:

A few days into the general election campaign, Keir Starmer surprised some voters by declaring himself a socialist. “I would describe myself as a socialist. I describe myself as a progressive. I’d describe myself as somebody who always puts the country first and party second,” he said. …

The Labour leadership shows little inclination to introduce radical policies, renationalise on any scale or boot the bosses out. Its hallmarks are political caution, economic stability and reassuring business leaders – not exactly a rerun of 1917. The expectations of many who describe themselves as socialists are low, and they may get even lower as the election campaign goes on.

Clear as mud.

Much more here:

Are Starmer’s milder positions just a ploy to get elected, and after that he will pivot to the real agenda – either voluntarily or as a result of pressure from his left flank? I don’t know, but if I had to guess my answer would be in the affirmative.

NOTE: A bit of trivia about Starmer is that he went to school with Andrew Sullivan

[Starmer] passed the 11-plus examination and gained entry to Reigate Grammar School, then a voluntary aided selective grammar school. The school was converted into an independent fee-paying school in 1976, while he was a student. He was exempt from paying fees until the age of 16, and his sixth-form study fees were paid by a bursary he received from the private school’s charity.Among his classmates were the musician Norman Cook, alongside whom Starmer took violin lessons; Andrew Cooper, who went on to become a Conservative peer; and future conservative journalist Andrew Sullivan. According to Starmer, he and Sullivan “fought over everything … Politics, religion. You name it.”

I wouldn’t call Sullivan a “conservative journalist.” But I guess, to the Brits, he qualifies.

One thing I’ve learned about waiting for a verdict …

The New Neo Posted on by

… is not to read tea leaves.

Did this juror look at Michael Cohen funny? Why did the jury ask for those instructions to be read to them again? What does it mean that they’re still deliberating?

Impossible to know.

In the Trump case, I feel a great deal of anxiety while waiting. But I’m not sure why because the trial has already been terrible in its most basic aspects: that it was brought at all, the extreme bias of the judge in his rulings during the trial, and his charge to the jury right out of the Alice stories.

So, what difference will the verdict make? Perhaps not much, as any lingering trust in the fairness of the court has been destroyed. But I still hope for a hung jury, because that may at least offer us the bare bones of a campaign season in which Trump is allowed to move around freely and meet the people.

What will happen if Trump is convicted and imprisoned?

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “physicsguy” writes: “I haven’t seen anyone else express my real fear: a conviction and tossing Trump into jail is the spark that ignites CW2. Again, maybe that’s the Democrat long game to force marshal law, as well as keep Trump out of the WH.”

I don’t know the answer. We are in uncharted waters, at least in the history of this country. The left is in power and wants to make sure it never again relinquishes it. They have already gone much further than ever before in the US, but it comes from a combination of confidence and fear.

Confidence because they hold the reins of so many institutions: the presidency, the Senate, much of the judiciary, the MSM, much of social media and search engines, the DOJ, the FBI, the State Department, education at all levels, Hollywood, book publishing, the arts, the CEOs and higher-ups of many corporations and even of much of the military, and I’ve probably left out a thing or two.

And what’s the origin of the fear? It’s that, now that the left’s mask is off or at least partially off, they are afraid of the wrath of the people. They know that this is a top-down imposition of leftist values on a reluctant populace, and there’s strength in numbers. They talk about “our democracy” but are tremendously afraid of it, which is why they must control sources of information and also are not above election fraud if necessary. The fact that they are executing lawfare against Trump makes it crystal clear that cheating is something they are willing to do; is it any wonder people don’t trust the election process anymore?

Personally, I don’t think there will be any CW2. There certainly might be violence, though. For that reason, I think the left may stop at merely convicting Trump rather than imprisoning him, and may be satisfied – for the moment – with merely labeling Trump a felon. If so, I sincerely hope it backfires on them in November by encouraging Trump’s election.

By the way, the point of the persecution of the J6 defendants was to let it be known how any sort of violence from the right will be met by the government.

Caroline Glick: what Hamas expected to happen, the international courts, and the function of anti-Semitism

The New Neo Posted on by

This is an excellent talk by Caroline Glick. I’ve cued up sections that I find of particular interest. If you’re impatient like me, click on “settings” and speed the video up for listening.

First is a very short section I want to especially highlight about a certain Muslim leader in Michigan; it’s about two minutes long:

Here’s another extremely interesting (and short; about 3 minutes) section that describes something Trump did to the ICC during his presidency of which I was previously unaware, but which is just another reason he must be elected. She also says something very important about anti-Semitism:

Here’s a much longer segment. In it, Glick discusses many topics, including what Hamas expected would happen as a result of 10/7:

American Jews and “Christophobia”

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “Cornflour.”]

Arnold Kling has written a fairly short piece entitled “Jewish Christophobia.” In it, he says:

One reason that most Jews are reluctant to move right is that they have what I call Christophobia. This is not a fear of Christ. It is a fear of Christians. Many Jews fear that Christians are either out to convert Jews or otherwise make American Jews feel uncomfortable and unwelcome.

I was surprised, though, when I read the piece, that it leaves out quite a bit. What is left out is what I’d roughly call “history,” although there are other things left out, too. So I’ll try to fill them in a bit.

(1) Many of the Jews that Kling mentions are ethnic Jews only, and as atheists or agnostics some of them fear traditional religion and the religious in general. They believe – in some cases correctly – that some people who are extremely religious are out to impose their beliefs on others. Not all Jews of the atheist variety support Israel, either, for similar reasons, nor do they identify with it. The rise of anti-Semitism post-10/7 may have given them cause to re-evaluate these points of view, because it’s not the religious Christians who are visibly anti-Semitic these days, it’s their fellow atheists and leftists. But that realization is new.

(2) And then there’s history. The history of anti-Semitism has a long long Christian phase. One doesn’t have to go all the way back to the Crusades to find it, either. Although the Holocaust and the Nazis were NOT a Christian undertaking – the Nazi leaders themselves were anti-Christian for the most part and many members of the German resistance and in particular the plot to kill Hitler were devout Christians – the truth is that the Holocaust happened in Christian nations. Most of those who participated and/or cooperated in a lesser way would probably have described themselves as Christians.

It wasn’t just the Holocaust, either. Pogroms happened in Christian countries, in particular in Eastern Europe and Russia, in times so recent that many American Jews heard grandparents or even parents talk about them, depending on the age of the listener. It’s not at all unusual for American Jews to have had grandparents or great-grandparents murdered in a pogrom, and although pogroms had many motivators one of the things that was often present was the anger of Christians at the alleged Christ-killers, the Jews. This was especially the case the further back in time you go, and it’s mostly absent today. But that’s a relatively recent phenomenon. You can read about the history here, and note that there were Jew-blaming portions of Christian liturgy until quite recently. And apparently some Christian branches still contain such things as this:

The Holy Friday liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as the Byzantine Rite Catholic churches, uses the expression “impious and transgressing people”, but the strongest expressions are in the Holy Thursday liturgy, which includes the same chant, after the eleventh Gospel reading, but also speaks of “the murderers of God, the lawless nation of the Jews”, and, referring to “the assembly of the Jews”, prays: “But give them, Lord, their reward, because they devised vain things against Thee.”

(3) Kling writes, “many Jews will say that ‘the only reason Evangelicals support Israel is because they believe in a prophecy that when all the Jews move to Israel they will be converted to Christianity.’” I think that’s a correct statement of the beliefs of at least some Jews, and for the most part I think it’s a false belief. But note that I say “for the most part.” It is certainly the case – I see it over and over – that at least some Evangelicals support Israel for exactly that reason. Christianity, unlike Judaism, is after all a proselytizing religion, and the goal and hope of some – not all, but a significant number of – devout Christians is that the Jews will indeed convert to Christianity some day. In the very olden days, that was sometimes accomplished by violent and/or coercive means, and these days it’s peaceful. But the idea that some Jews might still see the goal of conversion as a potential threat is neither crazy nor completely unjustified, and it is up to Christians to show otherwise.

I believe that more and more Jews are realizing as time goes on that Christians are their best friends and allies. But there are very strong reasons why this understanding has been somewhat slow in coming.

NOTE: In 2015 I wrote this long post on a related theme, entitled “On Jews disliking evangelicals.”

What do you get when you cross Alice’s trial with Kafka’s The Trial? Judge Merchan charging the NY jury in the Trump case, that’s what

The New Neo Posted on by

This afternoon I was trying to explain to a friend what’s been going on today in the NY “hush money” trial and why I’m so perturbed about it.

It’s not easy to capture in its full surreal horror, although Lewis Carroll and Franz Kafka have given similar trials a go. But what I told my friend was something like this: The judge has told the jury they don’t have to agree on the elements of the supposed crime that elevated at most a misdemeanor barred by the statute of limitations into a felony that could be tried. They don’t even have to agree on what that crime might be. They just have to figure there was some sort of crime and Trump was some sort of guilty. And oh, by the way, in their summation Trump’s defense attorneys can’t criticize this monstrous ruling by the bench.

Ghastly. Outrageous. But hey, Merchan has the power and he’s going to use it. The left isn’t even pretending to play by the rules. They know there is no check on them from the MSM or leftist lawyers, who will say anything to get Trump.

So in the end it rests on the wisdom of the American public to see through all of this. Or perhaps on the shoulders of one juror with integrity, if there is such a thing in this case.

As Ace writes:

The prosecution wants a Choose Your Own Adventure style verdict — jurors can pick from three offered predicate crimes. And they don’t even have to agree on which of the three possibilities they’re convicting Trump under; five jurors can pick Possible Predicate #1, four can pick Possible Predicate #2, two can pick Possible Predicate #3, and one can even make up his own predicate. As long as they all say that some predicate is present, they can convict.

This is against the law. The Supreme Court has ruled that juries must be unanimous about all elements of a crime to convict.

Now we know why the crime that supposedly occurred was never specified: it didn’t have to be, as long as a compliant judge was willing to prostitute himself and twist the law into something unrecognizable, and a New York jury would take his word for it that they could pretty much wing it and give vent to their imaginings about the evil crimes Trump must have committed or intended to commit.

For what it’s worth, here’s information about the defense’s closing arguments, which have been completed. This is an unusual order of things; ordinarily the prosecution goes first with its closing arguments and the defense gets to go last, although the prosecution gets to rebut briefly at the end.

Newsweek writes that “It is common practice in criminal trials for prosecutors to summarize their closing arguments last … .” Actually, it’s not common at all for the prosecution to give its closing arguments last. What does Newsweek mean by “summarize”? Do they mean the rebuttal? This is deliberately vague. The rest of the article is filled with quotes from attorneys saying that Trump is so incredibly stupid and ignorant to expect to have the last word. But this is, once again, deliberately confusing the closing argument order with the final rebuttal.

This is rather obviously what Trump was referring to – the reversal in this trial of the usual order for closing arguments themselves. Here’s the usual order:

Under the Sixth Amendment, defendants have a right to present a defense. They are also entitled to give a closing argument. Usually, the prosecution first makes a closing argument, then the defense attorney. The prosecutor, who has the burden of proof, frequently gets the chance to respond to the defense’s final argument.

So yes, the prosecution ordinarily gets a chance to be last, but not for its main closing argument – it’s just an opportunity to rebut what the defense has said. In the Trump trial, with the defense going first for their main closing arguments and then the prosecution last for their main closing arguments, will Trump’s lawyers get a chance to rebut? Apparently not.

I’m curious if there are any trial lawyers out there who can say how often it is that the prosecution goes first for the main closing argument, and how it is handled and why it would happen.

ADDENDUM:

You can read more on the subject here (from Scott Johnson) and here (from Byron York).

And here’s Jonathan Turley. His whole Twitter (“X”) page is of interest, but here’s one tweet from it:

I guess the anti-Trump lawyers quoted in that Newsweek piece would say Turley is stupid and ignorant, too.