These are discouraging times, but we must take our pleasures where we can. It is somewhat satisfying to watch things play out in the courts as the genius is faced with the reality that he is no longer entitled to the bogus presidential immunity that has somehow become black letter law in this country.
The latest and one of the most encouraging developments is a judge’s decision that Eric Swalwell et. al. have sufficient grounds to proceed in their lawsuit accusing the genius for fomenting the attempted coup. It should come as no surprise that the right to free speech, even for a president, does not include the right to incite an attempted coup. Of course, you never know what the Trumpian appellate judges may rule on the issue, but I do suspect they will let this ruling stand, as they have got what they want from the genius, and prefer to spend their time smoothing the way for Republicans to steal future elections. For instance, see here, where they have once again refused to protect the genius from Congressional investigators.
This puts Trump and his various co-conspirators (Rudy, et. al.)in the position of having to either sit for depositions or suffer a default, as Alex Jones did both here in Connecticut and in Texas, when he refused to produce relevant documents through discovery. If he does sit for a deposition he can take the Fifth, but if he goes that route he might as well take the default, because it raises an adverse inference against him. If he answers questions he’ll fuck up and basically admit everything because the days when he could think rationally, if there ever were such days, have long since passed. He’ll incriminate himself unknowingly even while trying to lie his way out of liability.
And here is where we come to the fly in the ointment, which I’ve written about before, but have yet to see discussed elsewhere. Whether the case goes to trial as to liability, or just to a hearing in damages after a default, a jury will have to decide the ultimate outcome. In any rational system, anyone who voted for Trump, or at least anyone who believes the Big Lie, should be excluded from the jury pool. These are people who are not interested in facts and will not feel bound to go where those facts may lead.
The question is: can the judge exclude them, either legally or as a practical matter. True MAGA types would no doubt lie in order to get on the jury, and unless they left tracks on social media that the plaintiffs lawyers could use to disqualify them, they could get on the jury even if the judge sought to exclude them. If we assume excluding them would somehow be successful, would that exclusion hold up on appeal? I think it’s entirely possible that on this issue the appellate courts would throw Trump a bone. It wouldn’t be hard to come up with a bullshit justification for doing so.
But we can always hope.
Post a Comment