To the editor:
He has defined any charge or claim against him as “The Big Lie.” Every indictment or investigation is a witch-hunt predicated on fabrications by the deep state, democrats, communists, or anyone else he can blame. His followers believe him, unwilling to have their blind loyalty challenged by a review of any evidence, including his own words and actions.
Why? Human beings’ major biological attribute is their advanced intelligence and the ability to think and make sentient decisions. Why do we so often accept ideas that are disproved by empirical evidence. Why are many of us unwilling to ever accept that maybe we should rely on our own analysis of facts and issues predicated on what we learn from our reading, hearing, and the critical review of other’s testimony and evidence?
The concept of “The Big Lie” first came to prominence in the writings of Adolph Hitler in “Mein Kamph” (1925). The Oxford Dictionary defines it as a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth primarily used as a political propaganda technique. According to Hitler, people can be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone “could have the the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
Turning Trump’s claim against himself, it is obvious that he utilizes this stratagem for his own benefit, most egregiously in denying that he lost the presidential election because of the actions of others, and he is now being prosecuted to deny him his present bid for the presidency. He never addresses the factual issues, except to fabricate claims that have been disproved in over 60 courts around the country, and in hearings in state courts and legislatures (mostly in states controlled by Republicans). What are the odds that over 200 trial and appellate judges and the conservative Supreme Court (both Democratic and Republican appointees and elected judges in state and federal courts around the country) are all corrupt and part of the “deep state”?
Maybe the most recent indictment will be read by some of his rabid supporters. If they do, this “speaking indictment” will show what the government’s proof is, and what Trump’s own actions and statements will show at trial. As a trial lawyer, I remind juries and others that everyone charged with a felony is not only presumed innocent, but that everyone acquitted at trial was also charged with an indictment.
Will this document change anyone’s mind, or at least open minds up to the possibility that our ex-president fully intended and acted to overthrow our Constitutional system and illegally reinstall himself as president? You would hope that blind faith in unsupported allegations by someone shown to be a serial liar would at least be shaken as the facts emerge in the criminal trial.
Juries work better than any other fact finders. The simple reason is not that 12 criminal jurors are smarter than anyone else, but that their collective deliberation and their opinions (especially their clash of ideas) results in a conclusion.
Judges generally don’t like being fact finders in criminal cases. They do it if a defendant waives a jury and elects to try a case with the judge as a fact finder, but no one enjoys being the sole arbiter of facts which will change a defendant’s life forever. Juries are the black box which gives results, with anonymity for the deciders and no individual guilt attached for a “wrong” decision. Appellate courts are designed to review lower court’s decisions, especially for jury convictions which are flawed because of violations of a defendant’s rights.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it the best we have to determine questions of fact. His only argument against his various indictments are that they are witch-hunts designed only to injure him politically. Juries will tell us if this is true or not, or whether he committed the various crimes alleged in his various indictments, including the one fast approaching in the state court in Georgia.
Stephen Cohen
South Egremont
