The Trump trial: I'm waiting to see the evidence

Has anyone in America not made up his mind about whether ex-President Donald Trump is guilty of inciting the mob’s raid on the Capitol last month?

I’m raising my hand because I’m waiting to see the evidence. Will the House prosectors have enough evidence to prove their case? Will Trump’s attorneys be able to prove that the evidence comes up short.

Time-honored presumptions about innocent until proven guilty have evaporated in this political circus. My own view about this rush to judgment: Democrats are aware they’ll lose, but are pushing ahead for political advantage. In this, I agree with John Kass.

But I also see that Trump encouraged the march on the Capitol and that his suggestion that it be peaceful is far outweighed by his various angry appeals to fight. Whether that is only figurative is a matter of interpretation. It’s a close call.

I think that proceeding with the trial is unconstitutional, as do the Trump attorneys. But his attorneys made a hash of their case, leaving the arguments of the House prosecutors grossly unanswered. If Trump’s team doesn’t do better, the ex-president is a goner.

The prosecutor’s video at the opening of Tuesday’s debate was irrelevant to the issue being debated. It was a slick presentation designed to inflame the jury against Trump–but without persuasive evidence that Trump with malice of forethought planned to incite the insurrection. It achieved its purpose as commentators spotlighted the video as evidence of something everyone already had stipulated–the attack on the Capitol was awful and unlawful. The video was effective only in pointing out that the insurgents must be punished.

The debate over the central issue starts now in a little over an hour. I’ll be watching as if I am a juror. So should you. Someone who is opened minded and smart enough to decide for yourself instead of being led by the nose by either side.

To subscribe to the Barbershop, type your email Address the address in the box and click the “create subscription” button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.


Leave a comment
  • So you think he did not incite the goons who wanted to take down Congress and hang the Veep?

  • Well, the goons thought he did.

  • Even though everyone keeps pointing out to you that this is not a criminal case, you keep acting like it is. It isn't. In a criminal case, the standard is that the defendant must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A bit subjective, but still reasonable and most people understand what is meant.

    In a civil case, the standard is "a preponderance of the evidence". Basically, that means "51% likely", which is much less than for a criminal case.

    So, an impeachment is not a criminal case. You keep acting like it is, but it isn't. So, is the standard the same as for a civil case? Is it more? We know it is less than for a criminal case.

    Perhaps if you formulated your questions a bit more precisely, then someone might be able to answer you. But, just sort of angrily stating that you aren't seeing enough proof, without even attempting to define what you think 'enough' is, seems unreasonable.

  • So, now waiting to hear the evidence is a bad thing? Concluding that it makes me buy the “goons’” story? How? T’aint a criminal nor a civil trial. Your distinctions are meaningless.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    I missed the person who said that waiting to hear the evidence is a bad thing.

    Also, you didn't reply to anyone, so we aren't sure who "Your" is and we aren't sure what those distinctions are that you are referring to.

  • You may not know it, but you are seeing evidence if you are watching. Films may be more reliable evidence than eyewitness testimony. So may copies of tweets.

    I think anyone who is honest will acknowledging that the House managers are presenting a pretty damning case. We'll see how effective the defense will be in challenging it.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    I’m waiting for all the evidence and to hear the other side. Unlike your star chamber.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    So am I.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    I will get blasted for this, but I’m not paying any attention to any of this “evidence” or trial. Either side. These are the days of video editing for sensationalism, photoshopping, and so on. How many times was Chuck Todd caught editing comments, like with William Barr? The pictures of Trump border cages that were really from the Obama era? Sure, show a picture of Trump talking and superimpose the rioters on it without context. I am not defending any one, Trump is gone, move on to more serious issues. I am tired of seeing all these videos that can be easily manipulated to enrage viewers and promote a point of view. Remember, I said both sides, and the media is equally culpable, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Newsmax. What evidence do you believe or want to believe?

  • In reply to Get out of IL now!:

    So, are you one of those people that Dennis describes as willing to be led by the nose?

    You know, if facts don't impact your opinion, then your opinion is based on facts. Thanks for clarifying your position on this. I think the term for people who let their feelings decide for them is 'snowflake'. Is that correct?

  • In reply to dave77:

    How can I be led by my nose when I am skeptical of many “facts” from both sides? Rolando Cruz received three death penalty convictions based on “facts” though Brian Dugan confessed. How many “facts” did Jon Burge manufacture to get so many convictions? Jackie Wilson spent 36 years in prison based on fake “facts”. Vietnam was based on “facts.” And the “facts” are more easily manipulated nowadays and more motivation to manipulate public opinion. What are the “facts” on covid? Depends on who’s giving them to you. The only opinion I have is that I don’t trust any politician (or most lawyers) going back to LBJ, Nixon, both Clintons, and Trump, all of whom were caught in lies about “facts”. Let alone any of today’s politicians. Skeptical, yes. Cynical, yes. Hard to call those feelings “snowflake.”

  • In reply to Get out of IL now!:

    If you don't pay attention to evidence on what do you rely in forming the strong opinions you generously share with us?

  • So, Dennis, you've seen the evidence, and there will be more today.
    Do you agree with Lindsey Graham that the presentation of the evidence is "offensive and absurd"?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Can't I wait to hear the other side?

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    Here's a quote from someone who voted to acquit Trump:

    "Former President Trump's actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty," added X. "Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day."

    Oddly enough, X was directly responsible for the schedule and claimed that there was no way to try Trump before Biden was sworn in. Odd, isn't it?

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    The Senate clearly found Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection, although they acquitted him of the impeachment count. The vote to convict on that count was 57 to 43. A large number of the 43 Republicans who voted to acquit were following the McConnell jurisdictional dodge--deciding they did not have jurisdiction to try him , but agreeing that he is guilty as hell. This is a dodge because the Senate had already decided on February 9 that they had jurisdiction, by a vote of 56 to 44.

    There should be no doubt. Donald Trump betrayed his country.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    I think we are unlikely to hear more from Dennis on this because there was no evidence presented by the other side. They ignored the part of the Constitution that said one of the reasons for the impeachment was to bar Trump from holding office again (and Trump has stated that he would run again). They also said that the Senate doesn't have authority to try someone who wasn't in office, even though the Senate itself said that it did.

    Sometimes, I wonder what Dennis true motivations really are.

Leave a comment