Can Donald Trump or Hunter Biden get fair trials?

No. 

And the circumstances are delicious – One can speak what one sees as the Truth without being seen as a Trump/Biden apologist.  (Yeah, right – This ink-stained wretch will be seen as only half right, with the halves split about evenly.  Even that is delicious.)

(Pontius Pilate: But what is truth?)

What is a fair trial?  A fair trial is where:

1 – The government prosecutor is competent and presents a fair case using legally admissible evidence.

2 – The defendant is represented by competent counsel who presents a fair case using legally admissible evidence.

3 – The Judge applies the law equally and doesn’t favor either side.

4 - The jury either doesn’t know anything about the case or will put aside any knowledge they have and judge from the evidence.

You have those four things, and you may have a fair trial.  Most importantly:  A FAIR TRIAL DOESN’T DEPEND TO WHO WINS AND WHO LOSES.

Pretty simple, right?

The devil is in the details and the details make lots of trial unfair.

For example:  Most readers will think that a fair trial for Trump or H. Biden depends on who wins.  Obviously, if Trump is convicted and H. Biden is acquitted, they each got a fair trial.  But, no, wait:  If Trump is acquitted and H. Biden is convicted, they each got a fair trial.  Maybe Jethro Bodine doesn’t have an opinion, but you do. 

Admissible evidence is information which is both relevant and material.  Relevant means the evidence tends to prove something.  Material means what it proves has something to do with the case.  I’ve heard that Booth shot Lincoln.  But I wasn’t there, so my testimony is worthless – irrelevant.  That Trump saved American/caused a million deaths in the pandemic or that H. Biden has used cocaine and hookers might be true.  But it is not material, it doesn’t have anything to do with either case. 

Let’s run down the list –

The prosecutors – The Prosecutor in each case will be competent and on their A-game.  Whether they will be a little underhanded remains to be seen.  Probably not, because everyone will be watching.

The defense counsel – Ditto.

OK, maybe the lawyers will try to get away with a little crap, but they won’t get far.

The Judge – Ok, now it gets a little sticky.  Each is charged in Federal Court, and Trump also has state charges.  Guess who appoints Federal Judges?  The president.  As in Trump, H. Biden’s dad, or somebody in their party.  Almost everyone will think the fix is in on one of the cases.  They may be right, they may be wrong, but they will believe it.  Even if the fix is kind of in, the Judges will honestly not believe it in their hearts.

The jury is the big problem.   The jury produces a “verdict.”  That word comes from the old French word, “verdicto,”  It means “True.”  So a verdict means “True.”  In every case, how does a jury determine what is true?  No juror will be picked who was either at the January 6 patriotic event/seditious insurrection or who works for Burisma.  That would make them witnesses, not jurors. 

God, who knows all and sees all, does not appear as a witness.  If you don’t believe in God, no problem – He still doesn’t come.  The jury listens to the evidence from people who were there, sees videos, photographs, documents, and so forth.  Then, they will decide not on Truth, but on what they BELIEVE the Truth is.  

The jurors form a belief.  We hope that the belief is true.  Sometimes, it isn’t.  Well, that’s just the breaks.

In Trump’s or H. Biden’s trials, if you get someone who has never heard of the cases, you have one dumb juror, a Jethro Bodine doesn’t watch the news and dreams about being a brain surgeon or a fry cook. 

We’ll see three varieties of potential jurors. 

One, some people will sincerely try to put their opinions aside and sincerely try to come to a fair verdict.  They are wrong because they’ve been dipped in constant propaganda, but they’ll try.  Moreover, the propaganda they have seen and heard was intentional.  Both sides have been constantly announcing their talking points – disguised as news – since the cases came about.

Two, some people are narcissists.  They think they are fair.  But they will bring to the jury table a whole heaping helping of confirmation bias.  They will accept evidence which confirms what they already believe and ignore the rest.  Narcissists are tricky.  They actually believe that they will be fair.  They’d pass a lie detector.   We’ll never know if we get a narcissist, even after they write their book at the end of the trial. 

Finally, we will see out-and-out liars.  Those people have zero intention of judging fairly and will lie to get on the jury.  Some liars will be stupid and be exposed.  If someone has expressed an opinion publicly, we’ll know what it was.  We’ll have a constant flow of “good citizens” who will rat out the jurors.  (Oh, the “good citizens” may be liars themselves.)    

The public will never agree that Trump or H. Biden got a fair trial.   It will all depend on who wins.  Nobody wants justice.  They want the rascal to go to prison and the innocent guy to be vindicated.  Only the names have changed to protect the guilty.

A fair trial?  Pull the other one.

 Mizpah!

Try It in a Small Town

Try That in a Small Town

This ink-stained wretch is clueless concerning any sort of celebrity culture.  Jason Aldean is – apparently – a country music singer who is well known, but not to us.  That’s not a criticism – he does his thing and we do ours.  We've only heard of him in the past week or so.

Jason Aldean has provoked a negative response to a song he recorded, “Try That in a Small Town.”  Wait – People responded to it, but he didn’t provoke anything.  He used his First Amendment rights to say – in music, in verse – what he thought.

The First Amendment is invoked and avoided at the whim of the citizen, depending on the political and social beliefs that they have already formed.  But lest we forget:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, “Congress shall make no laws . . .” applies to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Maybe it should apply to citizens, but that would inhibit THEIR First Amendment rights.  This constitutional republic has very inconvenient laws concerning what citizens do.  (Thank God.) 

So if someone says that Aldean’s music is violent, racist (based on where it was filmed which was the scene of a racist scene 75 years ago, go figure), or . . . Oh, pick something negative – That is protected speech.   In my judgment, it is stupid speech, but in some people’s opinion, this post is stupid speech.  Welcome to the First Amendment!

The much-maligned Aldean lyrics include:

    Sucker punch somebody on a sidewalk

    Carjack an old lady at a red light

    Pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store

    Ya think it's cool, well, act a fool if ya like

    Cuss out a cop, spit in his face

    Stomp on the flag and light it up

    Yeah, ya think you're tough

    Well, try that in a small town

    See how far ya make it down the road

    Around here, we take care of our own

    You cross that line, it won't take long

    For you to find out, I recommend you don't.

Let’s first talk about small towns and rural areas.  The Pew Research Center is as near to a nonpartisan, nonaligned statistical source as you are likely to encounter worldwide.  They published a survey showing where the US population iives, divided between rural and small towns and urban and large suburban people:

So, depending on the accuracy of the Pew study (which I accept), 44% of people live in small towns and rural areas.   That 44% deserves to be heard, just like any other citizen.  We are part of that – We live in Ohio County, West Virginia, in what is to most people a small town.  It’s part of the Pittsburgh, PA, statistical area, but is 60 miles from downtown Pittsburgh.  Ohio County is a progressive place, as measured by the whole of West Virginia, Pennsylvannia and Ohio, but it’s still a small town.

The lyrics: 

Sucker punch somebody on a sidewalk; Carjack an old lady at a red light; Pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store; Cuss out a cop, spit in his face; Stomp on the flag and light it up. 

You do any of that, that’s illegal -- except lighting up the flag which is First Amendment speech in action.   (If somebody does that, they are still a flaming jerk but they have a right to do it no matter what I think.)

 As to the others – sucker punch somebody, carjack an old lady, pull a gun to rob a liquor store and even spit on a police officer – that’s illegal and invites a response by a citizen who sees it.  (Mind you, spitting on a police officer has it’s own reward, and seldom will a citizen (1) need to get involved or (2) care what happens to the miscreant if it’s less than serious injury.)  But the others – carjacking, punching someone or robbery – invites a justified citizen response.  If the miscreant is armed or presents a serious threat to life, it invites a lethal citizen response.  Lethal responses are not limited to firearms.  The papers are full of citizens who have stopped – and killed – people without a firearm. 

“Try that in a small town” – That reflects the real possibility that if you are in a small town or a rural area, the citizens are more likely to respond to the stimulus.  In a small town or a rural area, people are used to delayed police response and have reason to take action on their own.  So – the “try that in a small town” is valid.  If you try to that stuff in a small town or rural area, you are more likely to encounter fierce citizen resistance.

Is that bad?  Is it bad to intervene in a crime which presents danger to another?  That is a personal decision – but we don’t want to live in such a pusillanimous place.  There is something to be said for looking in the mirror in the morning and know that you have done your best.  If you have ever stopped someone using appropriate force to interrupt them from hurting others, you know in your heart that you have done your best.

Aldean has also been criticize for invoking firearms:

     Got a gun that my granddad gave me

    They say one day they're gonna round up

    Well, that shit might fly in the city, good luck

Some people sincerely wish that everyone should give up their weapons if the government requires them to.  That is their First Amendment right.  It does not reflect the belief of many people, certainly not among the rural and small town citizens.  When bad things happen, seconds count.  The police are only minutes away.  They see firearms as the founders did – a defensive device.  Like it or not, that is how small town dwellers think and it is reflected in reality.  What will happen in the future and how will rural and small town people respond?  We don’t know.  We can’t know until it happens.  I do know that if statutes are passed relating to weapon’s possession, a whole lot of firearms are going to be reported as stolen, lost, destroyed and so forth.  Illegal?  Sure.  Just like marijuana.  How did that work out?

(I had a gun that my granddad gave me:  I had a Stevens .22 single shot rifle that I inherited from my father, my grandfather and my great-grandather.  My great-grandfather - Rufus H. Curry - used the weapon on the farm.  It has now passed on to my son.  Maybe his son or daughter.  That's the West Virginia way, it is our version of the Way of the Jedi.) 

Facing reality is a tough duty.  Are we up to it?