|
Aug 2023
1:24pm, 18 Aug 2023
21,753 posts
|
larkim
The thing about Trump is that he is absolutely not a character of Machiavellian cunning. He's fundamentally a loose cannon, shooting his mouth off about all and everything, and inevitably, once he gets into legal deep water this will be his downfall. He'll say something which all the normal protection he has won't be able to help him with.
And yet, he is still on a pedestal for many Reps who have bought into the "outsider" narrative. At this point, even if the Supreme Court were filled 100% with staunch republicans, if they ended up upholding a conviction against him his supporters would still claim there is some conspiracy of the elite to keep Trump out.
Which is why he remains so dangerous - too many people in the US have invested so heavily in him that they can't back down unless he tells them to. Whilst defeat would be inevitable, if he directly called for an insurrection they would follow him. And worryingly, if he ever called off the dogs, I suspect enough of them would believe it to be a deep-fake and / or coercion from the "Washington elite" that they'd ignore it too.
|
|
Aug 2023
1:29pm, 18 Aug 2023
47,522 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Not sure if it's politics, except in the sense that the rule of law is fundamental to our society and its democratic rule, but the guilty verdict in the Lettby trial (nurse found guilty of murdering babies) makes me very uncomfortable, especially hot on the heels of the Malkinson miscarriage. Perhaps it's just the salacious reporting and (my perception) satisfaction of the police that makes me uncomfortable. But majority verdicts, on circumstantial evidence... not questioning the details, as I obviously don't know the details. But just wondering how much I trust British justice?
|
|
Aug 2023
1:40pm, 18 Aug 2023
23,921 posts
|
Dave A
G. My crude understanding, as I don’t and never will investigate anything as serious as that which requires circumstantial evidence, is that to use circumstantial evidence there has to be hard evidence that the circumstantial evidence supports.
|
|
Aug 2023
1:42pm, 18 Aug 2023
17,838 posts
|
JK *chameleon*
At least, after Monday, the media circus will move on for a time and I'll be able to skip out for my lunch without eyes swivelling around to me.
I'll reserve any comments on the case due to various reasons.
|
|
Aug 2023
1:44pm, 18 Aug 2023
47,523 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Dave, I claim no knowledge other than BBC reporting here, so I may be totally wrong, but the report made it sound like it was *only* circumstantial. Because of the timing (2015-16, 1 year of abnormal baby deaths, then 3 months of investigation by consultants, then a hospital investigation for another year etc. etc.) the police were only called in after the event, several years after. So there was no direct evidence, no witness, no forensic, nothing?
|
|
Aug 2023
1:45pm, 18 Aug 2023
4,707 posts
|
J2R
larkim, I'm not suggesting for a moment that Trump's falling foul of the law would persuade his nutjob supporters, as they are so completely invested in their delusional world that nothing would. But falling fall of the law does have direct, practical consequences - it's not just a matter of swaying public opinion.
|
|
Aug 2023
1:46pm, 18 Aug 2023
23,922 posts
|
Dave A
No idea, tbh. I think given the burden of evidence we now need to get a shoplifter through the magistrate courts, then something of this magnitude probably has a decent amount of evidence.
Let’s see if she appeals?
|
|
Aug 2023
1:50pm, 18 Aug 2023
30,782 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
The thing about Trump is that he is absolutely not a character of Machiavellian cunning. He's fundamentally a loose cannon, shooting his mouth off about all and everything, and inevitably, once he gets into legal deep water this will be his downfall. He'll say something which all the normal protection he has won't be able to help him with. It's the inevitable consequence of Dunning-Kruger narcissism - he really believes he's the superhero his deluded supporters think he is, and doesn't have the wiles to keep quiet when necessary. Normally he would have highly skilled legal advisers keeping him out of danger, but the quality of the people he has advising him has gone down and down, as no-one half capable wants to be associated with him.
100% agree. I expect he will burn through even more lawyers before this is over:
Because otherwise he will corrupt them the way he corrupts everything
Because they will realise he is a dolt who shoots them in the foot every time he opens his maw
Because their careers and reputations mean nothing to him
Because it's all just too much
|
|
Aug 2023
1:57pm, 18 Aug 2023
3,161 posts
|
paulcook
Problem is with reporting on court cases, they often cherry pick a few minutes here or there, from hours each day. And this case has lasted what, 10 months was it. The journalistic copy, while it needs to be fair, balanced and legal, will often report what sells more copies / gets more clicks, rather than necessarily providing exact details of everything that's happened.
The jury, clearly, has much more information and guidance, than an interested reader.
Not that any of that is my own view on the verdict either way.
|
|
Aug 2023
2:10pm, 18 Aug 2023
23,923 posts
|
Dave A
Ultimately the burden of proof for a conviction is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, very high threshold. Something that the jurors would have known.
To get a case to court the reviewing prosecutor must feel there is a realistic prospect of conviction.
Obvs there are mistrial, dodgy convictions etc, but they are few and far between. Probably less likely nowadays.
|
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
