Something is wrong with this split-screen picture. On one side, former president Donald Trump rants about mass deportations and claims to have stopped “wars with France,” after being described by his longest-serving White House chief of staff as a literal fascist. On the other side, commentators debate whether Vice President Kamala Harris performed well enough at a CNN town hall to “close the deal.”
…
Let’s review: First, Harris was criticized for not doing enough interviews — so she did multiple interviews, including with nontraditional media. She was criticized for not doing hostile interviews — so she went toe to toe with Bret Baier of Fox News. She was criticized as being comfortable only at scripted rallies — so she did unscripted events, such as the town hall on Wednesday. Along the way, she wiped the floor with Trump during their one televised debate.
Trump, meanwhile, stands before his MAGA crowds and spews nonstop lies, ominous threats, impossible promises and utter gibberish. His rhetoric is dismissed, or looked past, without first being interrogated.
Except half the jury would be comprised of people who either support those lies, even knowing they’re lies, or don’t care enough to form an opinion.
You would need a population that is both concerned with the rule of law and break from political teams enough to fairly examine arguments for bad faith.
We do not have that population. Any jury would be split or worse.
Realistic rebuttal: juries seem to have very easy times convicting trump in court cases.
Theoretical/contextual rebuttal: I would also note that juries are how we convict criminals in this country. If you’re saying the lesser task of just making a determination that somebody is knowingly lying is beyond the purview of a jury then our entire court of law where the juries determine far more than that should be called into question.