Come for the Talarico clips. Stay for my thoughts on that case. You know the one.
Laura Ingraham went after me on Twitter yesterday for bluntly telling people the truth about Ken Paxton. She called me “NeverTrump.”
I’d just remind people that in 2020, Laura Ingraham was helping seed the stolen election stuff on Fox while, in the privacy of her text messages, dismissing both Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.
You may get aggravated with me telling you the truth about Paxton and how Trump needs to drag his lazy butt across the finish line, but unlike Laura and a lot of right-wing voices, I’m not going to lie to you or hide the truth from you because I’m afraid you’ll get mad (again).
Again, the legal record shows that off air, Laura Ingraham was telling her colleagues in text messages that Sidney Powell was “a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy.”
I never keep from you what I actually think. I won’t be as rich as Laura Ingraham because you can make more money lying to people, telling them what they want to hear. But I’ll be fine just telling people the truth.
And as I also wrote yesterday, Ken Paxton can still win in Texas. He’s just got to stop calling Talarico weird, questioning his sexuality, etc. The way to beat Talarico is to just expose people to Talarico’s own words.
Start with this:
And then add in all this stuff.
Paxton is a terrible candidate. He needs to give people a reason to vote for him. He can’t make the case for himself, but he can certainly make the case that Talarico does not belong in the Senate.
And he needs about $100 million from Donald Trump because Paxton is not raising the money he needs to get the job done.
That’s not NeverTrump. It is the truth.
Paxton can win. Trump is going to have to spend a bunch of money to make it happen. Republicans are going to have to do the cost/benefit analysis on whether it is worth it to spend that much on a single race. Money is not unlimited.
But beating Talarico in Texas can be done if Paxton stops trying to sell himself and, instead, uses Talarico against Talarico.
I am kind of disgusted with a lot of the social media commentary on Lindsay Clancy and the jury of nine women and three men. Based on reports yesterday, it appears two women on the jury are unwilling to go along with the rest.
Some conservatives are attacking the women, claiming it proves women cannot serve on juries, etc. Many of these same conservatives were previously dismissive of postpartum depression.
I know a man whose wife dropped her children off at her in-laws, went home, lay on the floor, and killed herself. I know another who had to be admitted to a psychiatric facility. Those are the very rare cases. The complete dismissal of postpartum depression and the effects it can have on women is ignorance masquerading as sophisticated truth-telling.
This case is more complicated than many people want to believe, in large part because it is in Massachusetts, and, honestly, I think the prosecution overcharged the case.
Massachusetts is (I’m pretty sure) the only state in the United States where the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is sane if the defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. You can read the actual instructions to jurors on the matter here. The relevant part is this:
If the Commonwealth has proved the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the Commonwealth must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time of the alleged offense. Under the law, a person is not guilty if they lacked criminal responsibility when they committed the offense. This is sometimes referred to as not guilty by reason of insanity. There is no burden on the defendant to prove that they lacked criminal responsibility.
These are the options being presented to the jury:
not guilty
not guilty by reason of insanity
first-degree murder
second-degree murder
manslaughter
It is easy for us as spectators to watch the trial and hear the commentary, but as both a lawyer and a more than once juror, I think juries do tend to take these matters seriously. And the prosecution in Massachusetts has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy was totally in her right mind when she strangled her three children.
Had the prosecution just offered up manslaughter and limited the jury’s options, it probably would have been an easier call. Instead, you’ve probably got jurors all over the place with a lingering, obvious question — who in their right mind would do that to their babies, then cut themselves and throw themselves out a window, leading to permanent paralysis?
I won’t be surprised by a mistrial or a not guilty by reason of insanity.
The social media witch hunt is not the same as a jury, and I trust the jury far more than the mob on social media.
