Indictments Are Hurting Trump
The people want a fast trial and think he's guilty and should go to jail.
A Politico/Ipsos poll released yesterday has some bad news for former President Donald Trump’s bid to regain his previous office.
New Politico Magazine/Ipsos polling finds that most Americans feel former President Donald Trump should stand trial for the federal 2020 election subversion case before the Republican primaries in early 2024 or before the general election in November 2024, something that has held steady between the sensitive documents case and the 2020 election subversion case. However, compared to Politico Magazine/Ipsos June polling, slightly fewer Americans say they understand the charges against Trump, even as a majority say they understand the various cases.
Still, most feel that the Justice Department’s decision to indict Trump in the 2020 election subversion case is rooted in a fair evaluation of the evidence and law.
Former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori analyzes the poll and provides some interesting graphics. I’ll leave it to you to read his analysis, which mostly focuses on the topline findings. Here, I’ll use his graphics to instead focus on the partisan breakouts. (I’ll caveat at the outset that the margin of error for those is relatively large but these numbers are all I have to go on.)
The first is the least surprising and the least interesting:
First off, the timing of the trial(s) is not going to be dictated by public opinion. Second it’s not at all surprising that a solid majority want to get this over with before the election. That a third of Republicans join them—and a slight majority of them aren’t firm No’s—despite Trump’s opposition is the only thing remotely interesting here.
This is more interesting:
Given the overwhelming public evidence of Trump’s guilt, that the topline and Independent numbers are barely at a majority is noteworthy. That Democrats almost universally think he’s guilty is unsurprising. That 21% of self-identified Republicans say Don’t Know, though, is interesting. I read that as “Yes but I’m not ready to admit it yet.”
Again, I’m surprised that the topline and Independent figures are so low and unsurprised that Democrats almost universally want to see him go to jail. While it’s disheartening on the surface that 43% of Republicans want no penalty even if he’s convicted, the same number want some penalty.
From a systemic standpoint, the final two graphics are reassuring:
Again, Democrats are in lockstep, with high 80s on all of these questions. Still, roughly two-thirds of Independents and a quarter of Republicans agree that the proceeding has been fair. The latter, especially, is not bad considering how much propaganda they’ve been fed by Trump and his media enablers. (It’s interesting that there wasn’t an Unsure option on this question.)
Alas, he doesn’t provide a partisan breakout for this one. But here’s what it shows on page 6 of the polling breakdown:
The Democrats aren’t at 88! This is harder to interpret but my guess is that this means Dems think Biden, the DOJ, etc. are moving too slowly, not that they’re acting dishonorably. And I honestly have no idea how to read the Independents: they have unfavorable views of everybody concerned—wildly so for everyone but DOJ—but that could be for hot or cold reasons.
Regardless, none of this bodes well for inmate P01135809.
https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1695263474400546923
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1695169210341580840
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4ZzaWfXMAEiQYc?format=webp&name=medium
Televised trial maybe misses the October date, bur still likely not helpful to the orange demigod.
Get out the begging cup!
@charontwo: I think the idea of having a “preview” trial in October is a great idea, especially if Powell is one of the defendants. However it comes out (I am optimistic for convictions) will tell the rest of the group what they are in for.
If a prosecutor says “if you are truly innocent” follow by a demand, they are trying to get you to give up your rights. See the DAs that complained about the accused getting lawyers and not talking to the police. DAs that demand gag orders when their case falls apart because there are no rules of evidence (meant to protect the accused) and perjury for statements by the accused to the public.
@Paul L.:
Has Trump been issued a gag order???
@Paul L.: What does it mean when trump says it?
@Paul L.:
You know, dude, as dumb as MAGA propaganda always is, you somehow manage to make it even less coherent. Here’s my suggestion: don’t try to use your own words because – and I’m not trying to be unkind, just accurate – you are a moron. Get some quotes from other sources. It’ll still be bullshit but maybe the rest of us won’t have to waste time trying to figure out WTF you’re talking about.
Until I see a drop in Republican support in several polls to create a consensus, I’m not believing any individual poll. I think the GOP base doesn’t give two shits about anyone but Trump. And if he holds on to just 30% of the GOP primary electorate, he’s going to cruise to the nomination, despite indictments, trials, or convictions. I mean the freaking guy was found guilty of sexual assault, and a judge reiterated that it was rape, and his numbers – among the GOP base only – went up.
Sexual assault. Numbers went up. Sick, man. Just sick.
And the USA needs Trump to be the nominee, because I believe he will suffer a humiliating defeat that will also bring back the House to the Dems, while keeping the Senate – and, possibly, finally breaking the MAGA fever dreams.
Write it down. IF Trump is the nominee of the GOP. Biden wins either 337 or 307 electoral votes, with only Florida as a swing state. MI, WI, GA, NC, AZ, and NV all go comfortably blue. Heck, I see a scenario, due to abortion, where the Dems end up with 354 EC votes.
@Michael Reynolds:
You predicted Michael Cohen had the goods on Trump that would allow Mueller to indict, convict and imprison Trump.
What should scare the fuck out of Republicans are those independent numbers. They’re closer to us than to Trump. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes in 2016 and by seven million in 2020. In 2024 he’ll lose by 10 or 12 million votes and likely take the House down with him.
If this was politics Republicans would be frantically looking for a replacement candidate and be doing everything they could to stop Trump. But it’s not a politics, it’s religion, and cults of personality don’t make rational decisions.
Trump is not their president, he’s their messiah, floating down from heaven on an escalator with his creepy trophy wife, come to smite all liberals. But buried beneath their worship is a memory of what happened to their previous messiah – you know, the Jew with the full set of carpentry tools. That dude ended up spread-eagle with nails in his feet and hands. I’ve said before, in their shriveled little hearts they know how this has to play out. They know they’re losers. They know they’ll be much more comfortable as losers nursing their grievances in a new lost cause myth. It’ll be a great excuse to pop another fentanyl.
@OzarkHillbilly:
Trump has too much faith in Law Enforcement. He still believes the myth that the criminal justice system is not corrupt.
Immunity, Plea bargains and Forbidding recording of trials.
@Paul L.: You are missing his point.
Benito’s been hurt by about 75-95% of what he does and its consequences. Call me when he gets hurt enough.
@Steven L. Taylor: I think you finally got through to him! Someone call the Internet News Service and report this first time event!
@CSK:
Has Trump been issued a gag order???
Glenn Kirschner #TeamJustice
I get my progressive legal analysis from Glenn Kirschner, MeidasTouch and Legal Eagle on Youtube.
So you know my standard is their level of bad faith legal hackery.
@EddieInCA:
I don’t at all mean to excuse the MAGAs, but it’s not so much that they applaud Trump for raping someone as they purport not to believe he did. E. Jean Carroll is an evil conniving woman who lied about the incident to cause trouble for Trump. He’s a blessed innocent.
@CSK:
The fact remains he was found responsible for sexual assault. And then that was reiterated by a judge who said, “Yeah, you raped her.” And yet…. make no difference to the MAGAs. That so many women support a man who is guilty of rape, it just… well…., shocking. Still.
@CSK:
MAGA (especially Steven Miller) has undermine sexual assault survivors with their rape apologetics by undermining due progress with their public statements on rape trials that should be private (TitleIX) making the narrative too toxic, insulting and hurtful requiring progressives to forbid the subject in their spaces.
@CSK:
I don’t agree entirely. I think there are two groups of Republicans: morons and liars. The morons actually believe; the liars pretend to believe and say they believe either for profit or out of sheer spinelessness.
But even the morons don’t really, really believe. They have an aspirational faith, much like any religion where people pretend to believe in an afterlife then bankrupt their families and endure medical torture to hold onto another day of life. As we watch Trumpie defendants flip we’ll see the equivalent of the final moments of a Christian’s life when they cry out not to Jesus, but to the doctors for something, anything to avoid going to the bosom of the Lord. In this case all these bargain basement Peters will cry out to the prosecutors, looking for a way to sell out their messiah, anything to avoid prison.
What do people really, really believe in? Gravity. People take a great deal more care to avoid falling from a high place than they do to avoid pissing off the Creator of the Universe. People want to believe in God, in Trump, in astrology or Gwyneth Paltrow’s vagina, but they don’t really.
@Paul L.:
I will admit, I was unaware that Trump, or any other citizen, has an unfettered and completely protected First Amendment right to intimidate judges, jurors, and witnesses.
@al Ameda:
No citizen has an unfettered and completely protected First Amendment right to undermine the rule of law, our justice system and the brave men of law enforcement who are public servants of the highest order that protect us by pointing out their mistakes and misconduct.
*cough Larry Nassar *cough
Three things:
1) Please don’t feed the troll.
2) Tyranny: when the rules and system you implemented or favored are applied to you or your side.
3) Please don’t feed the troll.
@Michael Reynolds:..People want to believe in…
Add karma to that list.
@Paul L.: Were ANY of the several statements you posted today supposed to mean ANYTHING?
@EddieInCA:
Oh, I know. But the MAGA response to the judge’s finding is that the judge is corrupt and a tool of the Deep State. Trump is innocent of all charges!
@Michael Reynolds:
For those MAGAs who’ve merged their identities with Trump–I’m him; he’s me–it’s an impossible situation. They can’t admit to any wrongdoing on his part, because that means they’re guilty, too.
@just nutha:
ACAB and raining on the wishcasting here.
@Paul L.:
Once again you have found a point of agreement. Glenn Kirschner is honestly one of the worst legal analysts out there. Coasting on his background as a US Attorney, he regularly gets his analysis wrong, often commenting on State/county level prosecutions where he doesn’t know the law. His business is selling his audience what they want to hear and not the facts. I’ve been meaning to write on why he isn’t someone to ever listen to for a while.
And that also brings me to two serious questions I have as I think about all your thoughts on this matter. You’ve long been our most skeptical commenter when it comes to prosecutions at any level (and I appreciate you acknowledging how bad Trump is on Law and Order issues).
That said, yesterday you posted this and I’m really curious about how that squares with your viewpoints:
This seems to suggest that you think Ruby Freeman might have done something wrong. Which is weird because the case of Ruby Freeman seems to be one of the examples of an aggressive attack by a former Federal Prosecutor (Rudy Giuliani) on a private citizen. Giuliani has had to essentially admit in court filings he was lying about Freeman. Further, it appears that Trevian Kutti, who was working with Giuliani, used threats of federal officers, to get Freeman to with them:
To date, no one has been able to deliver any evidence in court that Freeman did anything wrong. This seems like the type of textbook harassment that you have long decried. The only key difference was that Giuliani and company were just pretending to have the backing of Federal Law Enforcement. So what makes the Freeman case different?
Also, I sometimes get confused with your argument by individual cases. On the one hand you bring up Duke Lacrosse to suggest that prosecutions on sexual assault are out of control? Possibly made up in most cases. And definitely how county prosecutors are corrupt.
Yet, when it’s time to attack Federal Law Enforcement, your go-to example is the initially botched investigation into Larry Nassar… who, checks notes, was prosecuted at both the County and Federal on a multitude of sex crimes. And clearly, you think he did it and should have been prosecuted.
I mean we all contain multitudes, but some of your arguments seem a bit contradictory (at least how you are currently making them). Or am I missing something?
@Paul L.:
Rule of Law isn’t synonymous with the law. It is the idea that the law applies to everyone regardless of status–social, economic, or political.
I think you would be hard pressed to find many regulars here who are not a.) for the rule of law; and b.) critical of how the criminal justice system functions.
Trump is one of the relative handful of people who has the resources to bend the criminal justice system to his advantage. In fact, he can easily be made the poster child for what is wrong with the criminal justice system.
Taking all of that into account:
-if he committed crimes, to not prosecute would violate the principle of the rule of law.
-if the government were to refrain from prosecuting evidenced crimes because he is running for President, it would violate the principle of the rule of law. But also note that because Trump, his allies, and his surrogates have made the claim that his prosecution is political rather than legal, the question is fair game because those assertions also undermine the rule of law.
-if the government were to defer to his elevated political and economic status when deciding whether to investigate and/or prosecute suspected criminal activity, it would violate the principle of the rule of law.
-if you’re decrying the trial by media aspect of American culture, cool. But I would point out that defendants are usually advised to let their legal representatives speak to the public because it benefits the accused not because they are prohibited from doing so.
-Most importantly, the fact that money and political status qualitatively changes the way that suspected crimes are investigated and prosecuted in itself undermines the rule of law should make it pretty easy to any observer to conclude that trying Trump is the only way to uphold basic principles.
Can that unfairly aid the prosecution? Probably in many cases. But whether that is true in the case of Trump requires more than the generic assertions that you make.
—
Unsolicited advice: there are countless threads here wherein one commenter responds to another asking for clarification or more detail. The result is usually that the op provides answers to those requests.
What you are trying to point out is often unclear and you ignore requests for explanation. If you are actually trying to engage, clarifying would help achieve that goal. Even less clear than your assertions and arguments is your intent.
If you want to be treated like a thoughtful commentator, make your intent known via coherence. If you want to be treated like a low-effort troll, keep doing what you’re doing.
FTFY
@Paul L.:
ACAB. Does that stand for All Cops Are Bastards?
@mattbernius: ACAB (except for MY bastard)? Taking a page from the foreign policy of his (?? maybe only my) childhood?
@Paul L.:
I will point out that, as often, there is a nugget of truth to what Paul is writing. Restriction of speech orders are a bit of a fuzzy First Amendment issue that haven’t been well tested.
Smith’s requests so far have been really narrow and seem to largely be focused on controlling the sensitive documents that will be shared with the defense as part of discovery. Willis’s, as is often the case with county prosecutors, are much more sweeping. I don’t share Paul’s interpretation of why that’s being put in place, but that’s to be expected.
Honestly, Trump has deep enough pockets and enough of a speech concern–in particular that he’s running for President*–that this could lead to some Federal findings that might better clarify court-imposed speech restrictions of defendants. That would honestly be a good thing either way.
* – A prime example of this is the question of whether or not Trump can comment on things that Mike Pence, another candidate for the Presidency, says about him or his take on facts around the conspiracy to overthrow the election.
@EddieInCA:
I’ve heard that a lot of Black voters just sort of acknowledge that the white dude their voting for is probably a racist, and then shrug and pick which racist is more likely to be better for them (usually the Democratic racist). I think you can find some of our Black commenters who have said this on this very site.
I expect a lot of women have similar feelings towards men and misogyny and even sexual assault. They may not use those words, particularly on the right, preferring something like “boys will be boys”
And at that point, the big difference between Trump and others is that Trump has been persecuted for political reasons.
@Paul L.:
Leaving aside the former, I agree that there is a lot of wishcasting on the Democrat and progressive side about these trials–in particular that they will happen quickly and “take care of Trump” before the elections.
That said, you also seem to be engaging in a bit of wishcasting as well–namely confidently suggesting that there is no fire here and that Trump and is co-conspirators are not in trouble (or that the Government doesn’t have the evidence that they are claiming to have). That doesn’t seem particularly grounded in reality either.
Are these prosecutions slam dunks? No. As I’ve written elsewhere, I think the Willis kitchen sink approach has a lot in it that’s going to be difficult to prove. And, if they have the evidence that they are saying that they have, the Former President is in significant legal jeopardy.
@Matt Bernius:
I’ve often wondered if Paul’s unstated goal is to point out hypocrisy. However, his writing style can be interpreted as designed to get the answer he’s looking for rather than point it is it to the reader. If this is true, it’s easy to take his posts as intended to serve his own priors about OTB commenters as an avatar for progressives/Leftists/Dems or whatever. What group he’s aiming it is just as unclear as most of his posts.
@Kurtz:..What group he’s aiming it is just as unclear as most of his posts.
Anyone who takes the bait?
(as I have)
@Kurtz:
I think that’s one of his goals.
I say think because to your point they are often pretty opaque.
And I also think Paul really sincere when he is being critical of prosecutors and law enforcement in general.
@Michael Reynolds:
Close to my long term taxonomy – the two kinds of Republicans are the ones who are profiting from it and marks. Never lose sight of the fact that this is pluto-populism, it’s all a con to maintain the wealth and power of the Kochs, Mercers, Thiels, etc., etc., etc.
Speaking of which Paul Singer and Harlan Crow, who have no business in front of the Supreme Court (take that either way), through the Manhattan Institute are trying to influence a minor tax case with major implications, Moore v US. It concerns a $15,000 tax bill under a Trump era tax provision. It has to do with what counts as income and is really an invitation for the Federalist Society, aka SCOTUS, to declare any wealth tax unconstitutional.
@mattbernius:
Paul L., Trump, and MAGA know Ruby Freeman did nothing wrong. They’re just dishonest white supremacist scumbags who are trying to get Ruby Freeman and her daughter killed, in service of Trump’s sore loser election lies.
If some nut hurts Freeman and Wandrea Moss, people like Paul L. will have blood on their hands. Paul L. and his ilk deserve to rot in hell for how they’ve terrorized these women, which should not be downplayed or minimized.
@Matt Bernius:
Is that correct? Is there any question that a Mafia Boss under indictment who publicly announces that “bad things will happen to anyone who testifies against me” will have bail immediately revoked? Judges routinely put all kinds of conditions on the release of defendants on bail, “You can’t visit the person you are charged with assaulting”, “You can’t discuss the case with them”. If they don’t accept those conditions then they don’t get bail. This goes back centuries, perhaps farther. I find it hard to believe it’s never been litigated up to this point.
@mattbernius:
Agreed. Outside of the view that his posts are incoherent, I’m most confident in this conclusion.
@Kurtz: I had a high school teacher (a Catholic Brother, of all things) who really opened the class’ eyes to symbolism and deeper meaning in prose, poetry and music and he did so by having us discuss the lyrics of rock and pop songs. We really got into it and he gave us several songs with meaty symbolism. When we were all excited and gung ho he gave us “Splish Splash” by Bobby Darin and we got into it. What did Darin mean to imply when he said “I didn’t realize there was party going on”? He let the class go on for a while and then pointed out that sometimes a goofy song is just a goofy song, and perhaps we shouldn’t read too much into it.
Why do I bring this up? Well, the individual you are trying to converse with has been around for years and has never responded to queries or criticisms in a meaningful way, but nonetheless some here persist in calling him out. Perhaps, after all this time, there is no there, there?
IRL people are often very different than how they come across on the internet. The individual in question could be a wonderful individual who you just want to stick to movies and sports in conversation, or he could be something much darker. About the only thing we can say with certainty is that he is obsessed by people who have been accused of rape. But I don’t even know what that means. Was he falsely accused of rape? Is he a rapist? Was he abused by someone he trusted? Alas, the window the internet provides is a flawed one, as through a glass, darkly.
@DK:
The Government can Show don’t Tell.
The Government has shown multiple times you can’t trust what they say. Hunter Biden Laptop is [“has all the classic earmarks of a”] Russian [dis]information operation.”
Just release the proof that Ruby Freeman did nothing wrong. Release the chain of custody records and surveillance video.
Not appealing to authority with an election official “reviewing” the surveillance video saying just trust us.
So no reason for bipartisan Congressional Hearings and the victims suing the FBI?
@MarkedMan:
With the provision that IANAL, these issues are far more complex than what lay people think.
First of all, what you are just referring to is a “True Threat” issue, which would be illegal no matter what–even if a “gag order” wasn’t in place. Entirely different set of laws. So let’s leave that completely aside.
There are a number of things that fall into what are colloquially called “gag orders.” That includes speech restrictions in pre-trial release documents (like what SBF ran into) and protective orders around the sharing of discovery. When I say that there has not been a lot of scrutiny and review, I am thinking specifically of those.
And that’s far less cut and dry–especially in the Trump case. I need to go and reader the pretrial release stipulations for Trump… which sounds like the basis for a good post.
@Paul L.: Hahaha, lectures about trust from you, a bootlicking Trump sycophant peddling his sore election lies? Lolololol. Self-awareness not your strong suit huh?
Patholgical lying traitor Trump and his brainwashed slaves cannot be trusted. Ruby Freeman is sympathetic figure — a decent, honorable American. Multiply-indicted thug Trump is an unpopular, unpatriotic, untrustworthy pervert who tweeted a White Power video on 28 June 2020 and repeatedly made gross comments wanting to bang his own daughter. His anti-American MAGA extremist minions are similarly deplorable.
Just keep doing what you’re doing, alienating swing voters by trying to relitigate your lost cause. There’s no way to prove a negative. Your smears of Ruby Freeman merely demonstrate to black voters, educated whites, youth voters and others why Republicans are unfit. So please proceed, Biden and Democrats thank you.
You and your slavemaster Trump don’t have a shred of evidence Ruby Freeman has done anything wrong. Trump-voting Republican officials in Georgia looked into your bogus allegations multiple times and repeatedly refuted them. Trump’s fact-free sore loser election lies were laughed out of court dozens and dozens of times by his own judges.
So like I said: your attempt to get Ruby Freeman killed is evil. And for this, you deserve to die a slow painful death, and burn in hell. I hope you rot, and soon. Till then, keep it up. You are why Trump lost.
@Paul L.:
Again, where is any evidence of chain of custody issues significant enough to warrant that level of transparency? The election and the two hand recounts have been reviewed by, check notes: the Republican government of Georgia and everything was found to be in order:
https://georgiarecorder.com/2021/10/14/judge-tosses-suit-to-inspect-fulton-ballots-after-investigations-confirm-no-fraud/
There were other corroborating checks too:
https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/06/17/fact-check-fulton-county-not-missing-ballots-or-hundreds-of-drop-box-custody-forms
So in the face of that, please provide some links to any claims that people have been willing to back up in court under threat of purgery.
“This happened with no evidence I’m willing to show” is exactly what Rudy Guiliani just admitted to not having any evidence to back up.
That’s what True the Vote claimed and then has resisted any and every request by the State of Georgia to turn over the “evidence” that they were using to make their claims. At this point, they are literally being sued by the State for making apparently false claims. See this for further details:
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-sues-true-the-vote-produce-evidence-mules-documentary-claims
Hell its why D’inesh Dosuza had to walk back whole sections of 2000 Mules: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/25/1131077739/heres-what-changed-in-dinesh-dsouzas-2-000-mules-book-after-it-was-recalled
I’m all for transparency, but just because some crank claims fraud happens isn’t a reason, after multiple audits for the government to have to bend over backwards to “prove it did no wrong.”
This is exactly what I mean by wish-casting on your part. No one has been able to provide any evidence to support this theory. And there is significant counter-evidence. And yet, it seems like mounting counter evidence seems to make you think even more that they are hiding something. If you are going to believe the government is engaging in a conspiracy unless they are willing to meet your easily movable goal posts for “proving no wrong doing” then, spoiler alert, no evidence will ever be sufficient enough for you because you are taking this as a matter of faith rather than fact.
@Paul L.:
Sit down and STFU.
eta: I gotta say folks, what more need be added?
@Paul L.:
Not addressing this to Paul L, but for the general commentariat:
I have found over the years that thinking that “the government” (especially when capitalized) is a unitary agent is a tell for derangement. Anyone who has ever been involved with government employees, public officials, etc. knows that “the government” is many different agents with many different agendas, different values, different priorities. This is especially true when you try to generalize across agencies, tiers, or areas — anyone who cites (say) past Department of the Treasury actions as evidence for what the Ohio State Troopers are like is a loon, not to be reasoned with or listened to.
@Paul L.: Why?
Why should anyone try to satisfy you with any “release of chain of custody” stuff?
What evidence do we have that even if such were released, that you would believe it and not just come up with some other excuse to not accept it?
What evidence do we have that you are arguing in good faith?
Why do you think that you are so important that the legal and electoral system of the U.S. should be turned on its ear and be forced to do something that it has never done before simply to satisfy you?
Dude, it’s not about you. Look in the mirror each day and repeat that to yourself 100 times. Grow up.
@Michael Reynolds: “People want to believe in God, in Trump, in astrology or Gwyneth Paltrow’s vagina, but they don’t really.”
Well, if I could be giving physical proof of one of these, I know which one I’d choose.