Witch-hunt. ;)

point!

by the by, did you ever see my posts to you a week or three back? i found a logical fallacy that isn't on the panda list.

Thanks to all for the commentary and 'correction'.

You're certainly welcome.

In fact, I know 1807 is in the 19th century.

I thought maybe you just typed it wrong, but thank you in return for explaining it wasn't an error but "poetic license" that you intentionally used.

But I was thinking about previous *treason* trials (no troops firing on civilians, no witches, etc.) in the earlier centuries of American history. Lacking one for the actual 18th century I used poetic license to nominate Burr's trial, on the grounds that it was litigated by what I'd call men of the 18th century - the so-called Founding Fathers or Framers - only a few short years after 1800 had rung its New Year's bell.

Thank you for explaining your use of "poetic license" to decide how the founding fathers tried Burr for treason in the "18th century." Next time you find yourself at a loss for a trial for treason in the "actual 18th Century," you might consider the Whiskey Rebellion and the subsequent treason trials in Philadelphia, the nation's capitol at that time, wherein Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton passed through the First United States Congress legislation imposing an excise tax on domestic whiskey in order to pay off states' debts that were assumed by Congress in 1790 and to generate revenue for debts incurred during the Revolutionary War. Fast forward to 1794 wherein George Washington ordered a militia upwards of between 12,000 to 13,000 troops and rounded up about 20 or so rebels and tried them for treason against the United States in the "actual 18th century." :)

You gotta love how quick everyone is around here to correct mistakes that, if there had been an edit function, would have been quickly corrected by the commenter himself. ;)

I'm not quite clear how his trial (not for shooting anyone, mind you) could belong to the 18th century if it happened seven years into the nineteenth.

Exactly.

In any case, trial of the 17th has to go to the Salem witches.

Witch-hunt. ;)

* PT (President Trump) because of his resemblance to hoax artist, businessman, and politician Phineas Taylor Barnum, and

* Benedict Donald because of his lust for money and title and obvious similarity to the Turncoat Arnold.

So, to recap: Greatest Show on Earth.

The Trial of the 18th Century was the trial of Aaron Burr for treason in 1807, which actually took place but resulted in his acquittal on a technicality involving the constitution's very specific definition of treason.

Speaking of "technicality," 1807 is in the 19th Century, but definitely a major trial in the 1800s. The "Trial of the Century" for the 18th is the Boston Massacre circa 1770, starring (future president) John Adams; however, some might reasonably argue that century's "honor" belongs to the turncoat Benedict Arnold.

John M from Ct. I think you’re a little harsh but that’s just a matter of having different preferences and taste. And I appreciate the Trial of the Century 101.

...at least, not that we know of!

But, how many voters today do you think know about all of that?

Why not the 'Trial of the Century'? Everyone knows what it means.

And is this trial unique in US constitutional history? I suggest the Trial of the 19th Century was the trial of Jefferson Davis for treason in 1869, even if the trial itself was cancelled because of ... difficulties, aka Reconstruction and Andrew Johnson.

The Trial of the 18th Century was the trial of Aaron Burr for treason in 1807, which actually took place but resulted in his acquittal on a technicality involving the constitution's very specific definition of treason. He tried to get the western U.S. territories to break away from the country and join him, under British sponsorship, in setting up a breakaway country that would be hostile to the eastern U.S. Treason indeed. At least Trump hasn't yet tried to sell part of the U.S., say the Red States, to Russia.

A couple of pertinent points made and agreed by all, regardless of position, title or party affiliation:

(1) Cameras need to be in this courtroom. Period! Should not be up for debate, even if it takes the chief justice of the US Supreme Court to make it happen.

(2) Team Trump must be given every possible opportunity to bring everything they wish to discovery, including a rehashing of all of the state lawsuits that Trump undertook to uncover election/vote fraud.

I agree, too, wholeheartedly.