Today is the day that Trump will be in court to answer the indictment…..a day that many if us are pleased to see but we have reservations that he will not answer for his digression.

One of the most damning testimonies may come from his, Trump, attorney

One thing that has crystallized over the last few days in the federal case against former President Trump: Prosecutors’ key witness is Trump’s own attorney. As the New York Times explains, attorney Evan Corcoran took copious notes as he worked with Trump—he first dictated them into his phone, then transcribed them onto paper. And those notes, along with Corcoran’s forced testimony, have provided prosecutors with what amounts to a “road map to building their case,” writes the Times‘ Maggie Haberman. Details:

• No privilege? Such communication is usually protected under attorney-client privilege, but a judge ruled in March it doesn’t apply here because prosecutors argued that “Corcoran’s advice may have been used to further or cover up a crime,” per Reuters. The significance of the ruling didn’t become clear until the Trump indictment was unsealed on Friday.
• Trump attorney I’: The indictment relies heavily on notes and testimony from “Trump Attorney I,” referring to Corcoran, explains Slate. Corcoran quotes Trump multiple times in ways that don’t appear to bode well for the former president in regard to obstruction-of-justice charges: “Well what if we, what happens if we just don’t respond at all or don’t play ball with them?” And, “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” And, “Well look isn’t it better if there are no documents?”
• Plucking: The indictment also cites Corcoran describing a moment in which Trump made a “plucking motion” after the attorney placed dozens of secret documents in a folder that was to be handed over to federal prosecutors. Corcoran said he interpreted that to mean he should take the folder back to his hotel room “and if there’s anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.”
• Crucial to the case: The Daily Beast reports that Corcoran’s testimony is so crucial to the case that it suggests a vulnerability for prosecutors. If, for example, the federal judge in Florida handling the case (a Trump appointee) overrules the earlier decision that Corcoran’s notes are fair game, it could undermine the case against the former president.
• Unflappable’: Corcoran is no longer a Trump attorney, having left the legal team last month, notes the AP. The Reuters story on all this includes a mini-profile of the 58-year-old: “Unflappable and even-keeled are the words that come to mind,” said Douglas Gansler, a former Maryland attorney general who worked with Corcoran years ago. The piece also describes him as “soft-spoken and diligent.”

How damning has yet to be seen.

Sadly I read an article about how he could possibly beat the rap….

pecial counsel Jack Smith has laid out what many observers see as a damning case against Donald Trump over classified documents. Take the view of William Barr, who served as Trump’s own attorney general: “If even half of it is true, then he’s toast,” he told Fox News on Sunday, per USA Today. The phrase “slam dunk” is being tossed around, but Paul Rosenzweig at the Atlantic floats a different basketball analogy: The “case is more aptly characterized as a difficult contested shot from beyond the 3-point arc.” Yes, Smith has presented exhaustive evidence suggesting Trump is guilty of illegally taking the documents in the first place, then obstructing the subsequent investigation, writes Rosenzweig. But “there is a more-than-reasonable possibility that Trump will never be convicted.”

Why so? Rosenzweig ticks off the reasons:

• The judge: Smith got “exceedingly unlucky” with the federal judge assigned to the case in Florida. Judge Aileen Cannon is a Trump appointee who could affect the proceedings in myriad ways, including by which evidence she deems acceptable.
• The jury: That the case is being tried in Florida rather than DC gives Trump a much better chance of having sympathetic jurors. Of course, jurors can be swayed, but Rosenzweig points out that most of the Trump World convictions so far (including Paul Manafort and Steve Bannon) “have come in jurisdictions that have leaned decidedly against Trump.” He also sees a legitimate risk of “jury nullification”—that a single juror will ignore all evidence and vote to acquit.

Read his full essay.

Today is the big day…..

The nation will be watching.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”