@Teri_Kanefield
Thank you for another thoughtful post! But as someone who avoids partisan legal punditry, I still think you overestimate the legibility of the actual legal facts to non-lawyers. For example, you mention googling parallel cases, but most of us don't know of any parallel cases or even what issues would make a case parallel (though I did learn that Oliver North went to trial after 11 months, and Steven Rosen didn't, even after years). So I got there, but I value your explanations!
The extent to which lawyers and politicians are held in low regard reflects our American sense of "entitlement." We feel entitled to have Right* prevail, to have lawyers only represent the innocent (or us), and to have politicians always deliver on promises as if they were Kings.
I'm a fan of both maligned groups: it takes a certain temperament to pursue either challenging career. Hat's off. To teachers and librarians, too.😎
@Teri_Kanefield what a wonderful piece. Thank you.
I think many people don't want to think about how hard it is to prove a conspiracy, and a lot of what is being tried ... are conspiracies.
In the end, they have to convince a jury, not a bunch of people who have already made up their minds.
As frustrating as that may be (Trump may win .. we don't know), that doesn't mean conspiracies shouldn't be tried. They ARE crimes.
Just like the documents case. It's a serious issue.
Patience.
@Teri_Kanefield not directly related to your topic, but I have been sort of following the Manhattan case. and I still feel like they have a looooooong way to go to prove a felony. And if they are planning on wrapping up in a week or so, I don't see how they will make it.
Of course I am not on the jury (and not a lawyer!) so I could be way off base!
@kkeller A few weeks ago I read and analyzed the opening statements (the transcripts are posted on the court website) and I came to the same conclusion. At least in the opening statements, there was no clear statement of a theory of the case.
Add comment