I posted this on Josh Kovensky article “Trump Attorney Starts Off Cohen Cross With Limp Exam,” and felt it was appropriate here as well.
It’s possible Blanche is keeping his powder dry.
I’m sure he is, just look at all the free legal advice I saw the talking heads on MSNBC give him yesterday afternoon, and, I’m sure, more to come today. They were absolutely detailed in their critique of Blanche’s performance, I was stunned by the number of times I heard a comment like this; “I don’t understand why Blanche didn’t do this (insert expert legal tactic here).” Maybe they think Blanche isn’t capable of improving his cross-examination of Cohen, but why give him all the advice?
What happens in mob trials. Granted this does have very odd 1st Amendment issues, but does this cease to be free speech and become obstruction at some point?
I am not sure I have actually ever seen a presidential debate since before the Reagan era. I have seen a lot of beauty contests featuring memorized sound bites and stale, stupid gotcha lines, but of actual honest debate - almost nothing. Trump brought his own special brand of stupidity and malevolence to the form, turning it into a table tossing Real Wives of Beverly Hills experience.
God, we have a very specialized form of idiotic politics in this country. How can we be this bad?
Former President Trump on Wednesday accepted President Biden’s challenge to a debate in June, setting up a televised confrontation before the nominations are formally complete.
ETA:
Trump quickly replied on Truth Social: “I am Ready and Willing to Debate Crooked Joe at the two proposed times in June and September. I would strongly recommend more than two debates and, for excitement purposes, a very large venue,” he posted.
From the article:
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), meanwhile, poked fun at the entourage’s matching attire on Tuesday: Trump’s visitors wore dark navy suits with white shirts and red ties, an ensemble that Trump often wears himself.
“If I go to New York, I’ll make sure I wear a white shirt and a red tie,” Romney quipped on Tuesday.
Both Andrew Weismann and a former SDNY U.S. attorney compared the entourage to the underlings who appear at the trial of a high-up mobster: they dress alike, sit as a group in the courtroom, and stare icily at any witnesses testifying against their boss. A form of (legal) witness and jury intimidation.
I am wondering if the only reason they do not is because the surrogates are all politicians.
Knowing the GOP, if the prosecutors did file for contempt, the GOP would accuse the judge and prosecutors of limiting free speech. While this is nonsense, they probably do not want any grounds for appeal, particularly to the SCOTUS that now exists because Conservative SCOTUS members can love nonsense.
This is particularly true if prosecutors think the case has gone well for them. With the GOP, you have to think that far ahead.
They do tend to muck things up. I remember once that I thought UC Riverside would have been a great place to learn if it weren’t for all those students.
I was picturing 20 somethings with watermelon pins voting for RFK Jr when I said that, but I’m actually pretty optimistic we can talk sense into enough of them this year.
Which I find sad. Debates were, and should be an integral part of any public discourse. Debating is older than democracy. It’s the religionists, and now the “media stars” that don’t want to debate issues. My way or the highway is so passé .
