Y’all know me well enough to know that I seldom make blind predictions. When I do, I label them as such, and then provide the reasoning that led me to make the prediction. The title is inexact because I’m writing this on Wednesday night, so no matter when you see this, I’m talking about Thursday possibly being Decision Day.

I am not going all in and predicting that the verdict will be tomorrow, I’m not that stupid. I am simply going to explain why certain things I’ve observed and heard today lead me to believe that depending on how things go tomorrow, by tomorrow night it might all be over.

First of all, I don’t believe that there is a rogue holdout on this jury. If there was, the jury wouldn’t already be asking the judge to have specific portions of testimony to be read back, and asking for a reread of the jury instructions. They’d be busy trying to find out exactly why the juror is recalcitrant, and trying to quote evidence and testimony to try to at least bring him back to a moderate position so he or she could be reasoned with.

The questions/requests that the jury sent to the judge tells me something else. It tells me that the jury has given defense attorney Todd Blanche’s rambling, often almost incoherent three hour closing argument with the total disdain it deserves. In three rambling hours, Blanche mentioned Cohen by name more than 200 times.

But not in order to poke at inconsistencies in Cohen’s testimony. Instead he spent his time reciting every time Cohen lied, but never managing to tie those lies to why the jury shouldn’t  believe the underlying corroborating evidence he testified to. He closed his final argument by telling the jury, You can’t send President Trump to prison based solely on the testimony of GLOAT, the Greatest Liar Of All Time, ignoring the fact that the jury doesn’t decide sentences, the judge does.

So, what did the jury ask for, and why is it so important? They asked for four things;

  • They asked for specific portions of David Pecker’s testimony be reread, dealing with the July, 2015 Trump Tower meeting with Cohen and Trump, where the catch-and-kill scheme was hatched
  • They asked to have Pecker testimony reread involving Trump’s 2016 phone call to Pecker to discuss the Karen McDougal story. This is critical because it confirms Trump as a principal, capable of speaking for himself
  • They also asked that specific portions of Michael Cohen’s testimony to be reread to them, dealing specifically with Cohen’s memory of the July, 2015 Trump Tower meeting
  • They asked Judge Merchan to reread his instructions to the jury. Since that took well over an hour, Merchan asked them to think about it overnight, and let him know if they want the whole enchilada, or just specific parts reread

So, what does this tell us? Well, a couple of things. First, it tells us that the jury has decided that Todd Blanche is full of sh*t. Blanche argued that you can’t believe a word out of Cohen’s mouth. If the jury believes that, then why would they want any of Cohen’s testimony reread? And why would they want any of Pecker’s testimony reread when it’s Cohen’s testimony that corroborates Pecker’s testimony, and they don’t believe Cohen.

If I’m the prosecution, I’m breathing a sigh of relief. because right now the jury is exactly where the prosecution wants them. As the White Rabbit told Alice in Alice in Wonderland, Start at the beginning. go on to the end. then stop. That’s what the prosecution asked the jury to do.

Just look at the testimony they’ve asked to be reread. Clearly they believe that at least there could have been a conspiracy, and they’re starting at the beginning. Once the testimony is reread, they’ll go back to the jury room, and see if they can connect the dots to show compelling, beyond a reasonable doubt evidence that such a conspiracy existed. And if they do, then all that’s left is to determine that criminal actions took place in furtherance of the conspiracy, and Trump was aware and participated in them

Personally, I believe we’ll find that what the jury wants from Judge Merchan is clarification on the jury instruction on underlying criminal actions. The prosecution offered the jury three separate underlying criminal actions for the jury to choose from. State tax fraud violations, election interference, and campaign finance violations.

The judge instructed them that they don’t all have to agree that a single criminal law was broken. As long as each juror decides that at least one criminal act was committed for each count, they’re golden. In fact, there is no space on the jury form for the jurors to list the exact crime that was committed. Just a box to check indicating that they all agreed that crimes were committed. I think that the jury just wants to be sure that they understood the concept correctly, so they can apply it accordingly.

So, why Thursday? Partly a hunch, bot mostly personal experience. I have found in my jury deliberations that once everybody agrees on the principal issue of the case, the rest can follow quickly. If the jury goes back to deliberate after the testimony has been reread, and quickly decided that all of the basic mechanics of a criminal conspiracy have been proven, it’s all downhill after that.

The foreman will read off each count, likely starting at the top, then hold a secret ballot to see if everybody agrees that at least one of the criminal statutes were violated. If the vote is unanimous, it’s a conviction. If not, then they’ll dither to try to come to a unanimous agreement. Since the 34 counts in the indictment are basically identical, only the piece of paper being different, once a consensus is reached on the first count, the others could follow quickly.

Former prosecutor Catherine Christian on MSNBC tonight said that she wouldn’t be surprised if the verdict was a mixed-bag-of-nuts. That means several convictions, several acquittals, and several hung jury results.

I disagree, for one simple reason. If there’s one rogue juror on this panel, then they’ll almost certainly vote to avquit on all counts, hanging the jury on the whole damn thing. After all, that’s the principle they’re there for. Once the first conviction is obtained, there’s no reason to hang the jury on other counts. There’s no participation trophy if he’s convicted. They’ll horse trade the rest to come to a unanimous conclusion on all of them to finish the job. My gut tells me it will end up being 30 convictions and 4 acquittals so that the jury can show that they were fair and even handed.

By the time I get up in the morning, the jury will most likely already be back in the deliberation room, a bunch of busy little beavers. We’ll know soom enough if my hunch was right. But even if it’s not, I’m betting that Trump will almost certainly go down on at least some counts. The evidence is too compelling, and I just don’t get the vibe that there’s a rogue juror on this panel. They just seem too deliberate and sober for that bullsh*t. We’ll all know soon enough.

I thank you for the privilege of your time.

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.


  1. Thanks murf. Succinct and just so logical. As for 💩-45, el x gran bien pendejo y sin gracia presidente (mal nacido, mal creado, mal pasodo, mal cojido, okay just mal all round): 😂 🤣. If he doesn’t get locked up for a month… some piggies are flying somewhere. Convicted sentenced and jailed for gag violations and then hammered for probation! Lock his azz up…

  2. Guilty on all counts! Say hallelujah! Say amen!

    Murf may have hedged a bit in his analysis, but that’s understandable given the teflon-like nature of Herr Von Schitzenpantz.

    The “interesting times” we’re living in just got WAY more interesting…..


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here