Ten is a very large number
Trump’s mature and level-headed response to yesterday’s double whammy:
If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2018
I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. “Justice” took a 12 year old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to “break” – make up stories in order to get a “deal.” Such respect for a brave man!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2018
A large number of counts, ten, could not even be decided in the Paul Manafort case. Witch Hunt!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2018
Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of campaign finance violations that are not a crime. President Obama had a big campaign finance violation and it was easily settled!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2018
Not a crime? Cohen pleaded guilty to two felonies. In what dictionary are felonies not a crime?
But overall it’s really very restrained for Trump. I wonder how many staffers had their faces bitten off to make that restraint possible.
That second tweet, ‘make up stories in order to get a deal.’ I believe I called that one just after Cohen pleaded guilty.
I can haz cookie now?
AoS – Sorry, Trump ate all the cookies – and the ice cream. You’ll have to wait until we have time to go to the store.
The failure to get a conviction on 10 of the counts is not the same as an acquittal on ten of the counts. It merely means that the jurors were not able to agree. We don’t know how many jurors weren’t able to vote to convict, we only know it was “some” – which may be a very large number (as many as 10?) or it may not…
… and the DOJ can retry Manafort on those 10 counts if it wants. As well as the charges in DC. Realistically, Manafort will die in prison either way (he’s just trying to avoid dying from polonium poisoning).
Trump’s logic reminds me of Monty Burns after the Harvard-Yale game: “Honestly, Smithers, I don’t know why Harvard even bothers to show up. They barely even won!”
The more I look at the first tweet the more ridiculous it sounds. At first I thought it was just another example of Trump hitting out at somebody breaking the oath of omerta, but then I re-read ‘If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen! when it struck me that Trump seems to have no idea that the chances of retaining Cohen’s legal services are likely to be somewhat curtailed for the foreseeable future, what with possible prison time and/or having his license to practice law yanked.
“A large number of counts, ten, could not even be decided in the Paul Manafort case. Witch Hunt!”
I’m trying to figure out the logic that goes between those two sentences.
Trumpists want you to simultaneously believe the following:
1. Donald Trump’s campaign manager was convicted of eight felonies, but not of ten other felonies that he was tried on, so obviously this is a witch hunt.
2. In addition to the conviction of his campaign manager, Trump’s personal attorney, his former national security advisor, his assistant campaign manager, and his foreign policy campaign advisor all pled guilty to felonies. The attorney specifically implicated Trump during his allocution. This does not reflect on Trump whatsoever.
3. An alleged illegal immigrant is accused of murdering a woman in Iowa. The mere accusation means he is guilty, and his guilt reflects on all people who share his skin color and/or immigration status, regardless of what the actual crime statistics say.
Snap. I wrote a post about item 3 around the same time you were writing this.