The Sure Things

Well, at least one of the indictments of Trump has made it this far.  We hit “closing arguments,” this week – followed by jury instructions, deliberations and…and…the verdict.

I love following the news of all this, though I’m at the point where listening to anyone guess on what’s going to happen is totally meaningless.  Even if their points are impeccable, and they turn out to be spot-on right…it’s still meaningless because it’s just a guess.  And all that matters is what the jury actually goes.

There are, however, a few things that we do know about the verdict with close to near-certainty.

1, Trump will not be found “not guilty.”  That would mean all 12 jurors voted that Trump wasn’t guilty.  And that’s just improbable.  Indeed, virtually all analysis has been that the defense’s hope is to convince just one juror out of the 12 to vote “not guilty.”

2.  If 11 of the jurors vote “guilty,” and the one remaining juror thinks Trump is probably guilty, too, maybe even almost certainly guilty, but just doesn’t think the government proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore votes “not guilty,” it will be a hung jury (which the government has the right to retry) – and we can be near certain that Trump will call this a victory and claim he was found innocent.  Which a) he won’t have been, and b) NO verdict in a criminal trial ever declares the defendant “innocent.”  They are only voting on whether the government was able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt – and therefore they vote no, “not guilty.”  NOT “innocent.”

3.  If Trump is found guilty, Trump will claim it was a witch hunt and sham trial.  And his most loyal supporters will call it a witch hunt and sham trial.  And his most wishy-washy supporters will call it a witch hunt and sham trial.  Never mind that Trump had a full defense, had his own lawyers, had a chance to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, had a chance to provide evidence, had the opportunity to testify and agreed to all the jurors.  That’s how the justice system works. 

4.  If it takes the jury a long time to reach a verdict, that is no indication of how they will decide.  There might be one or two jurors who are holdouts – but they might end up being convinced to vote with the others.  Or not.  So, we don’t know.

5. If the jury reaches a verdict fast, I think it’s safe to say that will mean a guilty verdict.  After all, you only reach a verdict with a unanimous vote.  And it won’t be unanimous “not guilty.”  And if there is even just one hold-out, then the jurors will take their time to convince that lone juror (or 2-3 jurors), so there will be a delay.  But if the jurors sit down and take a “sense of the jury” vote, and they are all in agreement, it will be guilty.

All this said, I don’t know how they will vote.  And anyone who says they do is just wildly guessing.

One last thing.  It's a little off-topic, but relates to this last part of the trial and something that its author believes is a certainty.  So, it counts.

The other day, former U.S. Attorney Glenn Kirschner wrote an article on the MSNBC website, and it was about a brilliant way he felt the government would use to refute what will most surely be the defense’s attempt to undermine Michael Cohen as a witness.  In essence, as he put it, falling into the trap.

He said the defense will try to get the jury to ignore Cohen testimony that hurts Trump, but accept the testimony that helps him.  He wrote --

"The defense attorney likely will tell the jury, 'You can’t credit Cohen’s testimony because he’s a thief, having stolen from the very person he, as an attorney, was supposed to zealously represent.'  That argument carries some superficial appeal."

But then Kirschner explained how you counter that --

"Ladies and gentlemen, who is it that proved to you that Michael Cohen stole $30,000 from the Trump organization? It was Michael Cohen himself, in his sworn testimony! And here’s the important part — Cohen’s testimony about his theft was uncorroborated. No other witness came in here and testified about it. There was no audio recording exposing it. There were no business records confirming it. So, the defense is telling you to credit Michael Cohen’s uncorroborated testimony when he tells you he stole $30,000 from Trump. Yet, when Cohen’s testimony is corroborated by other witnesses — by audio recordings, by phone records, by business ledger entries, and by Trump-signed checks falsely purporting to be reimbursement for legal services — when Cohen is corroborated eight ways to Sunday, the defense urges you to disbelieve his testimony?"

Brilliant.