These are just my accumulated impressions, not from any particular source of news or commentary.
1. The Supreme Court begins a new term, and probably will gut voting rights and environmental protections, courting further public backlash. This would be unwise, because while I’m unsure at what point the public won’t take it anymore, I think such a point could be reached by too many outrageous decisions. Like any public institution, the court keeps its prerogatives by having public support behind it, and if it has no public support then it’s relatively easy for Congress to whittle down those prerogatives and will be under growing pressure to do so.
2. Trump’s defamation lawsuit against CNN will be dismissed, but even if it went to trial he would lose, because truth is a defense. The fantasies enjoying free rein in his mind will hit a brick wall in court. Also, I never saw CNN call him “Hitler,” and the lawsuit doesn’t even make that claim, but instead asserts that labeling his election lies a “Big Lie” is the same thing as saying “Hitler.” It’s not. Also, even if Trump’s legal team could prove CNN sometimes exaggerated or didn’t always get the facts exactly right, Trump is easily the bigger liar, so his complaints are of the tiny-violin variety. But all this is irrelevant anyway because, as always, this is for fundraising purposes, and doesn’t have to succeed in court to achieve its purpose.
3. The Oath Keepers sedition trial is underway, with opening statements presented to the jury yesterday, and today CNN reports that “Federal prosecutors played audio recording in court on Tuesday of an alleged November 2020 Oath Keepers planning meeting that discussed plans to bring weapons to Washington, DC, and prepare to ‘fight’ on behalf of former President Donald Trump.” That blows away blows the defense team’s claims they just went to D.C. to provide security for Trump’s rally, but I don’t know if the jury will fry them. The Malheur occupiers got off, but that wasn’t a D.C. jury, nor did they lead a violent mob into the U.S. Capitol intent upon overthrowing the government and killing some of its leaders.
4. Convicted Theranos fraudster Elizabeth Holmes wants a new trial because a witness recently went to her house and said he had qualms about his testimony. This isn’t new; he was a slippery witness before and during the trial, too. Prosecutors convict people all the time using less than squeaky-clean witnesses. And c’mon, the guy’s an M.D., so is the judge going to believe he was manipulated by prosecutors as he now claims? Judges don’t throw away all the time and effort expended on long, expensive trials for such flimsy reasons.
5. Legal pundits keep speculating that Trump committed crimes and will pay for it. I feel sure of the first, less confident of the second. Two things seem clear, though: His henchmen have legal exposure, and he’ll do nothing to protect them. They’ve been gravitating into two camps: Those hiring lawyers and taking the Fifth, and those cooperating with investigators. Still, no one went to jail for the 2007 financial debacle, and it’s very possible no one will go to jail for scheming to overthrow our democracy either, except the hapless dupes who thought they were “saving America” by rioting at the Capitol.