The Political Junkie Thread

[Phredd3]

Surprising Op-Ed in today's NY Times from David Brooks, who is a lifelong Republican (though I believe was fairly anti-Trump) speaking very positively about Biden's work thus far. Unlike the other Republican NYT columnist Bret Stephens (who was very anti-Trump) who uses his space now to take constant cheap shots at Biden and the Democrats - during the Trump administration I really enjoyed reading him because he was one of the few rational Republicans who would actively criticize Trump but now I can't read him anymore - I like hearing what the other side has to say if it can be said in a reasonable way - Stephens was doing that before but now he sounds like Fox News. Several of the other NYT columnists are at the other extreme in super woke land, which is only slightly better.

Brooks has always been extremely anti-Trump, he's just been anti-Trump in his usual, understated way. But he vehemently opposed to Trump and has been since well before the 2016 election (which I believe was the first time he did NOT vote Republican in the national presidential race). I don't necessarily agree with David Brooks' desire for small government, but I've always respected the man and have been able to find a good deal of common ground with him. His methods for getting where he wants to go have always been very forthright and grounded in the same values I was raised with. I listened to him speak at Duke once, a few years ago, and he was a very engaging, very personable man. I have great respect for David Brooks, even though I'm not all that close to him on political policy objectives.

He's the embodiment of what I wish the Republican Party still were.

[CameronBornAndBred]

While he's knocked out for a colonoscopy today, Harris will assume Biden's powers and thus become the first woman to do so.

[dudog]

While he's knocked out for a colonoscopy today, Harris will assume Biden's powers and thus become the first woman to do so.

Progress.

[dudog]

While he's knocked out for a colonoscopy today, Harris will assume Biden's powers and thus become the first woman to do so.

Progress.

And then I just saw the Rittenhouse verdict.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

While he's knocked out for a colonoscopy today, Harris will assume Biden's powers and thus become the first woman to do so.

Progress.

And then I just saw the Rittenhouse verdict.

I haven't been following the case too closely. But I was out with a group earlier this week including a trial lawyer who previously worked in the US Attorney's office. Someone asked him about it and he said that the prosecutor was absolutely horrible and he was sure that Rittenhouse would get off.

As you all know, I'm a rabid Democrat (though a moderate one). I have lived my whole life surrounded by more diversity than the vast majority of America. I generally understand why people were very upset in the summer of 2020 and wanted to express that (I am supportive of some of the issues that caused angst more than others). But the destruction that was done by those who started destroying property is going to really set this country back a long way. Not to oversimplify things. There are plenty of police officers who over-reacted and should be punished. And there likely were some instigators.

[Phredd3]

And then I just saw the Rittenhouse verdict.

I mad as hell about Rittenhouse himself, but not about the verdict. Rittenhouse deserved the slammer, right up until the point those idiots assaulted him. I'd have been afraid for my life, too, if I'd been Rittenhouse. The thing is, I wouldn't have been in that position. Neither should he have been. But once he was there, we were stuck with an immature idiot holding a semi-automatic weapon, and the assaults gave him just what he needed: justification for stupidity. I'm not even 100% sure the judge was wrong to throw out the weapons charge. The Wisconsin legislature may well have intended that exact result.

The whole situation is just horrible. But probably legally correct. Which makes it even more frustrating.

And seeing the latest post, I'm not sure that even a crackerjack prosecutor could have done any better with these facts and this judge.

[lawgrad91]

I haven't been following the case too closely. But I was out with a group earlier this week including a trial lawyer who previously worked in the US Attorney's office. Someone asked him about it and he said that the prosecutor was absolutely horrible and he was sure that Rittenhouse would get off.

As you all know, I'm a rabid Democrat (though a moderate one). I have lived my whole life surrounded by more diversity than the vast majority of America. I generally understand why people were very upset in the summer of 2020 and wanted to express that (I am supportive of some of the issues that caused angst more than others). But the destruction that was done by those who started destroying property is going to really set this country back a long way. Not to oversimplify things. There are plenty of police officers who over-reacted and should be punished. And there likely were some instigators.

As a prosecutor, I have to concur with your friend's assessment. I didn't get to watch a lot of it (we are playing catch up due to Covid and a lot of other things), but it seemed to me from beginning to end, this was terribly handled.

[Phredd3]

As a prosecutor, I have to concur with your friend's assessment. I didn't get to watch a lot of it (we are playing catch up due to Covid and a lot of other things), but it seemed to me from beginning to end, this was terribly handled.

I'm not a prosecutor, and I'd love to get an education on what you would have done differently to get a guilty verdict in this case. Unless you mean something by "terribly handled" other than "should have gotten a guilty verdict and didn't".

[CameronBornAndBred]

As a prosecutor, I have to concur with your friend's assessment. I didn't get to watch a lot of it (we are playing catch up due to Covid and a lot of other things), but it seemed to me from beginning to end, this was terribly handled.

I'm not a prosecutor, and I'd love to get an education on what you would have done differently to get a guilty verdict in this case. Unless you mean something by "terribly handled" other than "should have gotten a guilty verdict and didn't".

For starters, Lawgrad would have worn cooler socks.

[lawgrad91]

As a prosecutor, I have to concur with your friend's assessment. I didn't get to watch a lot of it (we are playing catch up due to Covid and a lot of other things), but it seemed to me from beginning to end, this was terribly handled.

I'm not a prosecutor, and I'd love to get an education on what you would have done differently to get a guilty verdict in this case. Unless you mean something by "terribly handled" other than "should have gotten a guilty verdict and didn't".

Not all cases deserve a guilty verdict. And sometimes the guilty verdicts are for lesser offenses, for the same reason, or because the jury doesn't like the victim or feels sorry for the defendant or for some other reason.

But since you asked....

In the 25 years I've been here, no judge has ever questioned my ethics. Ever.

I would NEVER intentionally misstate the facts, especially if said facts are ON VIDEO.

I would never comment on the defendant's silence unless the defendant opens the door for me to do so.

I would never try to get something in front of a jury that the court had already ruled inadmissible.

Despite the fact that it seems it's honored more in the breach than in the observance, prosecuting attorneys (and defense attorneys, for that matter) are officers of the court.

I don't know Wisconsin statutes or case law, so I can't really comment on the charging decisions. Except in the case of the underage possession of a firearm. That has to have been litigated ad nauseam, and the prosecution should have known if the statute exempted long barreled weapons, or if that is how the appeals courts had ruled. In that case, the prosecution should have gotten out in front of it and said, "We would like to bring this charge, but the law states..." and get the legislature to fix the loophole, for the next case.

[lawgrad91]

As a prosecutor, I have to concur with your friend's assessment. I didn't get to watch a lot of it (we are playing catch up due to Covid and a lot of other things), but it seemed to me from beginning to end, this was terribly handled.

I'm not a prosecutor, and I'd love to get an education on what you would have done differently to get a guilty verdict in this case. Unless you mean something by "terribly handled" other than "should have gotten a guilty verdict and didn't".

For starters, Lawgrad would have worn cooler socks.

For the record, today's socks are boring gray. Tomorrow's will be better....

[lawgrad91]

I would NEVER intentionally misstate the facts, especially if said facts are ON VIDEO.

Just to clarify, many times there are witnesses who say different things about an event. It isn't unethical to say, "John Smith stated ABC," and omit that Mary Jones said something different. But to say a certain thing happened, when the event is on video and shows something different, that's, well, unusual.

To quote Richard Pryor (wow, Shakespeare in the last post, Richard Pryor in this one...) Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?

[Phredd3]

As a prosecutor, I have to concur with your friend's assessment. I didn't get to watch a lot of it (we are playing catch up due to Covid and a lot of other things), but it seemed to me from beginning to end, this was terribly handled.

I'm not a prosecutor, and I'd love to get an education on what you would have done differently to get a guilty verdict in this case. Unless you mean something by "terribly handled" other than "should have gotten a guilty verdict and didn't".

Not all cases deserve a guilty verdict. And sometimes the guilty verdicts are for lesser offenses, for the same reason, or because the jury doesn't like the victim or feels sorry for the defendant or for some other reason.

I agree with everything you said beyond the point I'm quoting. I'm quoting just this piece because I'm wondering: Do you think, based on the evidence you saw, and what you've read about the facts and relevant law, that an excellent prosecutor would likely have gotten a guilty verdict? I know it is impossible to say with any kind of certainty, which is why the word "likely" is doing a lot of work in that question. Maybe too much work, but I'm still curious as to your opinion.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

As a prosecutor, I have to concur with your friend's assessment. I didn't get to watch a lot of it (we are playing catch up due to Covid and a lot of other things), but it seemed to me from beginning to end, this was terribly handled.

I'm not a prosecutor, and I'd love to get an education on what you would have done differently to get a guilty verdict in this case. Unless you mean something by "terribly handled" other than "should have gotten a guilty verdict and didn't".

Not all cases deserve a guilty verdict. And sometimes the guilty verdicts are for lesser offenses, for the same reason, or because the jury doesn't like the victim or feels sorry for the defendant or for some other reason.

But since you asked....

In the 25 years I've been here, no judge has ever questioned my ethics. Ever.

I would NEVER intentionally misstate the facts, especially if said facts are ON VIDEO.

I would never comment on the defendant's silence unless the defendant opens the door for me to do so.

I would never try to get something in front of a jury that the court had already ruled inadmissible.

Despite the fact that it seems it's honored more in the breach than in the observance, prosecuting attorneys (and defense attorneys, for that matter) are officers of the court.

I don't know Wisconsin statutes or case law, so I can't really comment on the charging decisions. Except in the case of the underage possession of a firearm. That has to have been litigated ad nauseam, and the prosecution should have known if the statute exempted long barreled weapons, or if that is how the appeals courts had ruled. In that case, the prosecution should have gotten out in front of it and said, "We would like to bring this charge, but the law states..." and get the legislature to fix the loophole, for the next case.

Thanks - this is really helpful. I appreciate the color. Much more detail than the guy I spoke with gave. The one example of incompetence that I recall him mentioning was that the prosecutor picked up the gun in the courtroom and acted like he was shooting it.

[lawgrad91]

I'm not a prosecutor, and I'd love to get an education on what you would have done differently to get a guilty verdict in this case. Unless you mean something by "terribly handled" other than "should have gotten a guilty verdict and didn't".

Not all cases deserve a guilty verdict. And sometimes the guilty verdicts are for lesser offenses, for the same reason, or because the jury doesn't like the victim or feels sorry for the defendant or for some other reason.

I agree with everything you said beyond the point I'm quoting. I'm quoting just this piece because I'm wondering: Do you think, based on the evidence you saw, and what you've read about the facts and relevant law, that an excellent prosecutor would likely have gotten a guilty verdict? I know it is impossible to say with any kind of certainty, which is why the word "likely" is doing a lot of work in that question. Maybe too much work, but I'm still curious as to your opinion.

That is a very good question. I don't think any prosecutor would have gotten a guilty verdict as this case was brought, which is why I'd like to know a lot more about the charging decision, and the prosecutor's options. And if I'd been on the jury, I wouldn't have convicted. I agree wholeheartedly with your take on the case.

[lawgrad91]

Thanks - this is really helpful. I appreciate the color. Much more detail than the guy I spoke with gave. The one example of incompetence that I recall him mentioning was that the prosecutor picked up the gun in the courtroom and acted like he was shooting it.

I forgot about that.

[Phredd3]

Not all cases deserve a guilty verdict. And sometimes the guilty verdicts are for lesser offenses, for the same reason, or because the jury doesn't like the victim or feels sorry for the defendant or for some other reason.

I agree with everything you said beyond the point I'm quoting. I'm quoting just this piece because I'm wondering: Do you think, based on the evidence you saw, and what you've read about the facts and relevant law, that an excellent prosecutor would likely have gotten a guilty verdict? I know it is impossible to say with any kind of certainty, which is why the word "likely" is doing a lot of work in that question. Maybe too much work, but I'm still curious as to your opinion.

That is a very good question. I don't think any prosecutor would have gotten a guilty verdict as this case was brought, which is why I'd like to know a lot more about the charging decision, and the prosecutor's options. And if I'd been on the jury, I wouldn't have convicted. I agree wholeheartedly with your take on the case.

[lawgrad91]

For starters, Lawgrad would have worn cooler socks.

Today's socks are maps of the Grand Canyon.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

For starters, Lawgrad would have worn cooler socks.

Today's socks are maps of the Grand Canyon.

Is that why you have so many deep thoughts? (sorry)

Thanks again for your insights on the case. Very helpful. This case shows how little understanding there is of the legal system. Based on your explanation and other things I have read, it was likely the right verdict. A good lawyer might have been able to get to guilty, but it is not clear cut.

But rather than destroying things and complaining about miscarriages of justice, people need to be more strategic about getting the laws changed. Which is not an easy thing to do. Everyone blames the NRA for everything gun related and yes, they are a big force, but their numbers aren't actually that huge. Gun safety is a big issue for Bloomberg and he could easily personally outspend them. And a lot of polling shows that a large majority of Americans support increased gun regulation. But when Beto screams out that we're going to take your guns, that sets things back a long way.

Similarly, if people would just show up and vote, they could make a difference. I know there are a lot of efforts being made in various places to make it a lot harder to vote and this frustrates the heck out of me, but there are still plenty of people who don't even bother to try then sit home and complain, or vote for candidates who have no chance.

[dudog]

But when Beto screams out that we're going to take your guns, that sets things back a long way.

Yeah, he's gonna get elected Governor of Texas. (love all the extra emojis, but couldn't find a simple eye-roll, so this will have to do)