Trump Trial Round 1

Posted: February 10th, 2021 | Author: | Filed under: News | Tags: | Comments Off on Trump Trial Round 1


.:.I unfortunately find boring trial things to be cool and interesting, because I like watching the lawyers think, reason, and use their art and science of jurisprudence. I’ve been watching Trump’s Impeachment trail from the beginning, and will most likely watch the whole thing till the end.

I like Jurisprudence. As a Buddhist, sectarian/religious/doctrinal jurisprudence is very important. For example: Is it “lawful,” for a national “soldier” of a Buddhist country such as Thailand, who is a “professed” “Buddhist,” to be a soldier, carry weapons, and use such weapons to “kill” enemy soldiers? On the one hand, the Buddhist soldier kills enemy soldiers, which causes Dukkham in the family of the killed enemy soldiers. On the other hand, if the Buddhist soldier, does not kill enemy soldiers, the citizens of his country may suffer, should they be enslaved or tyrannized by the aggressive enemy nation.

The first round I think went to the Democrats. I’m a registered Republican. I only vote for Republican candidates. I thought the Democrat Lawyers had a very solid and well structured and well articulated case and set of arguments regarding the legality and constitutionality of trying a “former” elected official in the Senate. I really enjoyed watching the democrat team present their arguments and data. What I didn’t like was the use of that video because it can be used as a tool to appeal to the emotions. I also disliked the intentional use, on the democrat teams part, of the word “insurgence;” and I disliked their intentional pre-conviction language and vocabulary they used where they talked about Trump as being the person and source of the alleged “insurgence” and “insurrection.”

Unfortunately, the Republican Team of Lawyers, during that first round, seemed to be goofballs. The first Republican Lawyers, Bruce Castor, had a very incoherent “argument,” or “arguments.” I had trouble understanding what exactly his case was that he was trying to present. It’s more effective if and when you present one argument at a time. Like how the Democrat Lawyers did it. The Democrat Team focused on whether or not trying a former president in the Senate was legal and constitutional.

Whereas Bruce Castor rambled on and on and was all over the place. In the beginning he mentioned the idea of the First Amendment, where he said roughly that people have the right to express their opinions and speak their mind, even if such opinions are strong political views, and even if other dislike such strong political views. Which I agree with. Just because a person, or group of people, have strong political views, such as the case with many of the Capitol Hill rioters, does not mean that such people will physically use force and violence to perhaps physically express their views and opinions.

For example: you have worked long hours at your job and are driving home and are stuck in traffic, and a person cuts you off, you get angry and vocally express that the person who cut you off should die or that you’d like to kill them. Just because you vocally said that, and just because you had strong emotions, does not mean that (A) you have the intent to commit a murder & (B) that you will murder the guy who cut you off. And so therefore: just because an individual may be racist, or harbor discriminatory feelings and opinions about other races, and may be a self-identified “neo-nazi,” does not mean that such people are criminals or terrorists. They right to possess their own thoughts, and even express their thoughts in word or in writing is protected by the Constitution.

But then Bruce’s argument menders in all sorts of directions, and he begins to talk about a Speculative/Rhetorical argument, where he basically said: If this trial goes forward, it will set a new precedent, because if Trump is tried when he is out of office, then it could be that in the future, any former officer the “other party” doesn’t like can be impeached and barred from holding office just because the “other party” doesn’t want them in office. Rhetorical and Speculative argument don’t belong in court cases, simply because they are speculative and not factual arguments [arguments based on known facts and precedents]. It becomes a logical fallacy if and when you judge or deliberate a case by pondering on speculative arguments, because Objectively, a speculative argument simple does not exist in the real world.

What I liked about Bruce Castor was his calm demeanor, and his ability to engage contact with his audience via eye contact and body language. The second Republican fella, David Schoen didn’t have that calm demeanor, and lacked the same body language and eye contact. David Schoen kept his eyes mostly on his papers.

I found David Schoen presentation of argument to be troublesome for a number of reasons. He first reminded me of a bald Woody Allen. Secondly, he had this gross habit of licking his mouth and teeth like an old man or a lizard. And thirdly, he had this bizarre habit of putting his hand on his head each time he drank water. His carriage and demeanor was so odd, that it distracted you from what he was trying to say. I was so curious as to why he had to touch his head every time he drank water, that I actually don’t remember what David Schoen’s arguments were.

I was one of the ones who thought David Schoen was trying to keep a toupee on his head from falling. So, I spent my time looking at his head to see if I can see a toupee. Fortunately, the internet told me what this fella was doing. I hypothesized, when I was watching the show live, that this guy was a practicing Jew and that his strange habit was most likely something Kosher and Jewish. Boy, Trump really knows how to pick a defense team doesn’t he!?

The unfortunate thing about trials is that not only is your argument important, but your presentation, body language, and demeanor are also important as well, because your job as a lawyer is to try and convince other people to accept your argument and case. And, from a perusal of this first round, it appears Trump has a couple clowns on his defense team.

Despite his two clowns, Trump may not have anything to worry about, because the Senate’s Republicans are in the majority still behind him. And so, in all intents and purposes, this “trial” – insofar as the trial in the Senate goes – is a kangaroo court. The Senators are not a jury proper. A jury is methodically picked, questions, examined, and vetted, before they become members of the jury. What’s happening in the Senate is more properly a “Peer Review Process,” where peer public officials are judging a fellow peer public official [or former public official]. Therefore, this Senate “Trial” is in actually a Political Show: a TV show, where the arguments and cases being presented are in actuality being formed and presented for the American Public.

Being such, you can then see or discern the subtextual strategy the Democrats and their Lawyers are trying to use: The Democratic Team presented a solid argument and case, and used video footage as a means of appealing to emotions not to convince Republican Senators, but to present such to the American Public. Meaning that, what the Democrats are doing is they are trying to apply pressure on the Republican Senators where the Democrats are basically saying to said Republican Senators: “Look here… we’re presenting our case to the American people, and we’re going to manipulate and appeal to their emotions by showing videos of this insurrection, by displaying empathy, by using language and vocabulary of treason and insurrection, such that, if you Republicans do not convict Trump like we desire, then you Republican Senators and your political careers may be at risk, because the American People will lose faith in you, corporations that financially support you will distance themselves from you, blah blah blah.” It’s a sly move. What’s interesting is to watch to see if those Republican Senators will cave in out of fear, or if they will stand ground and maintain their defiant position.

The Republican Party and the Republican Senators have very little choice but to maintain their position, and try and show support for Trump. Why so? Because, all things are a product of its environment, and the social and ethnic topography and demographics of America is changing. In two generations, Latinos and African-Americans together with other ethnic minorities will be the majority.

What does that mean? It means that politics will look like it does in California and New York. California is virtually a one party system where Democrats control the California State Government. In such context, the Republican Party risks becoming irrelevant within a couple generations [circa 60 years]. Irrelevancy for a political party means loss of power.

Therefore, the Republican Party has two primary options it will have to take: 1) Begin to present their platform to the conservative and traditional sectors of ethnic races & 2) follow Trump’s lead, and continue to establish connections with Trump’s marketbase and audience, who are mostly Right wing oriented.

Given the said conditions and cultural circumstances the Republican Party is in, my hypothesis about this Senate Trial is that: (A) Trump will not be convicted, and he will be acquitted OR (B) if Trump is convicted in the Senate, then such conviction will be accomplished by a narrow majority where a small minimal amount of Republican Senators will defect; which is to say that the majority of Republican Senators will stand ground as a way to appeal to the marketbase and audience.

In the End, whatever the case may end up being in the Senate, the Democrats will win the cultural sentiments of the American Audience, and will gain further financial support from corporations, because big corporations are by default Left oriented, being that such corporations desire to make large profit/money, and so the majority population is were such money comes from, and if the majority population is non-Whites, then you as a corporation have little choice but to be Left.

I’m trying very hard not to be divisive. I’m Republican, like my whole family is. But I’m trying to be fair. Culturally speaking, the Democrats will win. The Democrat Lawyers had a very good, coherent, solid argument and case. The Republican Lawyers were so far clowns, to my personal dismay [and amusement]. Logically, my intellectual opinion, based on the given context and parameters, is that Republicans should acquit Trump. But Emotionally, I feel that it’s sad and disgusting that Trump and Friends can manipulate their fanbase, groupies, and supporters, to have them be Pawns and Patsies who then stormed the Capitol, and then said people are discarded like used tampons and disowned. But I know that emotions are just that: emotions. And emotions are strong and irrational by nature. And one should not govern a country or one’s life, with strong and emotive beliefs.

Lastly, I don’t believe that the Government of the United States is sinister or nefarious and so, I do not believe that the Government will convict and charge the majority of those people who stormed Capitol Hill, because the majority of them are not criminals. The majority of those people where acting on strong, irrational emotions. Yes they may have broken laws where they breached that building and destroyed property, but the intent/intention to actual engage and manifest a coup/insurrection may not have been present in the hearts and minds of a majority of those people. Regardless of what journalists in their sensationalistic articles say: journalists are not judges, they are not courts of law, they are not a tribune, they do not make verdicts and judgments, and do not have legal power to declare a person or group of people to be criminals and terrorists. Due Process is still Constitutional, as some of the Senate Lawyers stated and re-affirmed, and people/suspects are still innocent until proven guilt in a court of law. Journalists are not courts, judges, lawyers, or members of a jury. I hate journalists for this reason: that they present themselves to be some kind of legal authority who can dictate criminality in people just by writing an article.




Comments are closed.