Unanimous agreement is what makes jury verdicts so powerful
New take on Alito flag-flying controversy; Seeman challenges oppoonent
Please consider supporting The Front Page with a paid subscription: HERE
We all know the headline from yesterday.
But to give this historic moment context, to give it meaning and hope for our country, you have to acknowledge that the result is not the most important part of the story.
How we got there is.
The jury was unanimous.
Consider that for a second.
Seven men and five women were in total agreement after hearing testimony and evidence that stretched over five weeks.
Regular people deciding the fate of a former president, proving that no one was above the law and that even vast riches would not exempt you from being judged by a jury of your peers when wrong-doing was alleged.
They were unanimous.
It is a foreign concept in the political world where 52 percent of the vote is a mandate, but it is the standard in court rooms all across the country trying to provide justice and enforce our laws.
It is the highest of bars.
And it should be.
People's lives are at stake.
Their reputations.
Often their financial future.
The rule of law is the foundation on which everything else in our democracy is based.
It is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws.
It is the basis for civilized society.
Few of us have actually served on juries. Most of us never had the misfortune of being judged in a courtroom where the rules are strict, the stakes high and juries are charged with delivering a verdict as our representatives.
Never has our country been more divided, yet juries must put their feelings aside, their political beliefs (if any) aside and just consider the evidence before them.
Whether you agree with the jury verdict in the State of New York vs. Donald Trump is irrelevant.
None of us were in court to hear the evidence.
None of us had to bear witness to the gravity of the accusations before them.
So in the end, you have to respect the jury process.
You have to respect the rule of law and their decision.
Sadly, aspersions were immediately hurled at the presiding judge, the prosecutor and the jury.
These aspersions came from the defendant - which is not unusual, especially from this defendant - but also from Republican Party leaders such as the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and our own Rep. Elise Stefanik.
As far as I know, Rep. Stefanik was not in the courtroom for any of the trial, yet she accused the judge of being "corrupt" and the verdict of being "rigged."
Consider what Elise Stefanik is implying about our judicial system.
"Today's verdict shows how corrupt and rigged the American justice system has become under Joe Biden," Stefanik said in a statement.
She is saying those 12 New Yorkers were involved in corruption, that they were bribed or pressured to decide the case in a certain way without any evidence. In today's world, no evidence is needed for politicians like Stefanik to make an accusations.
Remember her story of growing up in Willsboro and coming home from Washington, D.C. to work in her family's plywood business while running for Congress?
It was all a sham, but she got away with it.
She reached a new low Thursday when it comes to her morality, yet many will listen to her words and take them seriously.
Anyone who wandered through their social media feed Thursday night knows none of this is over.
Nothing has been resolved.
Threats are being made.
Against judges, against juries, against prosecutors.
Threats to federal budgets have increased dramatically in recent years with 457 federal judges and 155 federal prosecutors threatened.
After Fox News and other conservative news outlets - why can't everyone just report the news? - reported that the judge in Trump's case told the jury they did not have to be unanimous to convict - it was not true - threats against the judge showed up on social media, one from a man in Brooklyn that read:
Remember those Jurors
Their names and occupations are public record.
Make Their lives Miserable !!!
Thankfully, the names of the jury members are being protected, but that does not make that post any less chilling.
The fact that the names of jury members need to be shielded is a black eye for our country.
This is not America.
Nearly 50 years ago while working at my job as a supermarket bag boy, I took a moment outside the Shop Rite supermarket in Derby, Connecticut to listen as President Nixon announced to the nation that he would resign the next day.
My 17-year-old self took no joy in hearing those words. It was a sad moment in our country's history, but at least the scandal was over and the country could move forward.
There is no moving forward for us.
I suspect the accusations will get even worse if President's Trump's word after the guilty verdict are any indication.
Juries are not infallible.
We all remember O.J.
Even Atticus Finch could not save Tom Robinson when dealing with a jury blinded by racism.
But there is no evidence of wrong-doing here.
There is no evidence of bias.
There is no evidence of the Biden administration interfering in the case.
Nobody is above the law as long as we all believe in the law.
When people like Elise Stefanik say they don't, we should all be worried.
Seeman challenges opponent
Joe Seeman is a long-time liberal advocate in Saratoga County who is now running for the state Assembly.
On Thursday, he used the Trump verdict to challenge his opponent, Assemblywoman Mary Beth Walsh.
“Ms. Walsh has been silent about Trump’s bragging about sexual assault, silent about his tens of thousands of lies, and silent about his attempt to overturn the election he lost," Seaman said in a press release. "|I call upon her to finally speak out, and join me in calling for a campaign of ideas and decency. The people of NY deserve better.”
While it is unlikely Seeman will get a response on his challenge, where all local politicians stand on the former president is something all voters should know.
I wish he had also asked her not to lie.
Alito flag flying
New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor's follow-up story about the Supreme Justice Samuel Alito and his wife's dispute with their Virginia neighbors offers more perspective on whether Alito should recuse himself from any Donald Trump-related cases.
The reporting reveals his wife and some younger, liberal neighbors were at odds over an anti-Trump sign posted by the young neighbors.
The dust-up sounded like many neighborly disputes, only in this case you would have hoped the wife of a Supreme Court justice would set a better example. It appears Alito himself was not involved in the argument so I don't think he should recuse himself over the upside down flag.
The Appeal to Heaven flag that flew over his vacation home in New Jersey is a different matter.
The flag is often representative of a campaign to remake the government in Christian terms. Considering Alito wrote the majority opinion in overturning Roe vs. Wade, it makes me wonder if he can decide issues basely solely on the Constitution without bringing religion into it.
Thunder season over
It was another great crowd and a great game as the Thunder lost Game 6 and the playoff series to the Florida Everblades Tuesday night.
Unfortunately, one memory does stay with me.
I was sitting to a young boy deeply engrossed in the ice cream he was devouring. AT one point during the game, there was a controversial call on the ice and is the unfortunate tradition in too many arenas across the country, the crowed changed in unison, "Bullshit, bullshit, etc.
I turned to look at the young boy, maybe eight or nine, and he was also chanting, until he saw me looking at him and stopped.
I was glad he stopped.
But I wished one of the adults he was with had done it.
Ken Tingley spent more than four decades working in small community newspapers in upstate New York. Since retirement in 2020 he has written three books and is currently adapting his second book "The Last American Newspaper" into a play. He currently lives in Queensbury, N.Y.
I will disagree with you Ken about whether or not Alito should recuse himself.
When my husband was on Active Duty I knew, as a spouse, I could not put any political signs in our yard. I was free to work for any campaign or political party but could not, under any circumstances, make my position known by having a yard sign. If I would have done that, someone could have reported our house to my husband’s commander or the base commander and my husband would have been called in to explain why he had that in his yard. If he would have said, “My wife did it. She has strong views.” He would have been told in no uncertain terms that it was his responsibility to control his dependents and to insure that policies/regulations were followed. Now imagine if I wanted to fly the inverted American Flag?
Also, according to the NYTimes article, “There are some differences: For instance, the justice told Fox News that his wife hoisted the flag in response to Ms. Baden’s vulgar insult. A text message and the police call — corroborated by Fairfax County authorities — indicate, however, that the name-calling took place on Feb. 15, weeks after the inverted flag was taken down.” So to blame it on a neighborhood dispute was in fact false.
So, according to this logic an Active Duty Military member’s family should be held to a higher standard than a Supreme Court Justice’s family? I don’t think so. We all know what the standards are as they pertain to our or our spouses work. We should abide by them and if we don’t we should all be held to the same standards.
I think it took courage to be a juror on this case. It also took/takes courage to be the judge considering the gravity and threats surrounding the trial, conviction and sentencing. We thank them for their service.