The arguments are expected to give the 12-person jury — but, just as importantly, the voting public — the clearest view to date of the allegations at the heart of the case.
It's amazing how, even ten years ago, even one of the things Trump did would have killed another candidate's political career, if not toppled an entire government.
I thought that shit Bush II's people got a pass on was bad, but this is next-level banana Republic, Silvio Berlusconi "Hey, I thought she was 18" level stuff.
Bush mostly operated under plausible deniability (we totally thought they had WMDs guys!)
Trump operates off of his cult of personality, so being subtle about his lies isn’t really in his playbook. He does better when he bullies his followers into rejecting the truth outright.
Also Bush's people still stick to the lie. Heard Condoleezza Rice do something a while back and and she still says they had WMDs. They've committed to the lie. Trump just admits shit. I mean he's straight I've already said he was guilty in this. He doesn't even have to bother.
Bush mostly operated under plausible deniability (we totally thought they had WMDs guys!)
Only if one was a complete idiot. We all knew there were none, the IAEA said there were none, even Colin Powell's pitiful lie was bullshit on the face of it, not to mention the SOTU's Reel Srs FacE pulled when he said "yellowcake uranium . . . . from Africa" was all horrifyingly bad lying.
They even gave it up themselves a couple of years later when Il Dubz looked under his chair at the WHPCD and said "those WMD's have to be somewhere! Hyuk hyuk"
Never plausible. Never. Just theatre. All for Fox news and the talk radio masses to snort up and get ready to kill for.
That one was even manufactured. If you were in the room it didnt' sound like that. By taking the microphone's line out only and stripping the crowd noise out it sounded weird. All the news orgs knew it at the time and ran it anyway. Just for funsies. And we got Bush II II.
Are we going to do this "making history" bit with every phase of the trial?
"Prosecutors made history by calling their first witness..."
"End of historic first day of a President on trial...."
"First ever bathroom break in the historic trial of Former President Trump. Sources close to the President say he didn't wash his hands (or his ass, from the smell of it)."
I mean, I get it. We're all excited to hope that he might finally be held accountable for some of his crimes. And it is a big deal that he's on trial, but like... Can you just let us know when he actually faces consequences?
It's perhaps a bit tin-foil hat, but I think this is the kind of wording that the right (and Trump) want to be used. If after an "unprecedented" and "legendary" trial nothing happens (or a verdict is delayed until after he wins) then the spin will be that he faced the most persecution of any president, and walked away in charge.
"a historic day in the court room today, as the court recessed for 15 minutes for a diaper change--interrupting the testimony from the very first witness called by the state."
The best part is seeing trump after the day ends going out in front of cameras and undercutting his own defense...you love to see it. It's like he's trying to outdo the prosecutor
I get that hope, but for the sanctity of the legal process, I wouldn't really want a transcript until after the verdict (and sentencing as appropriate).