Some friends who are Democrats have been obsessively and gleefully following the New York trial of Donald Trump. When I asked them what they’ve learned, however, they’re unable to offer anything beyond what was already fairly alleged prior to the trial, i.e., an American got paid for having sex and then the same person got paid some additional money as a result of that sex act. A “dog bites man” story, in other words, since (a) the U.S. has for many years been the world leader in the percentage of GDP devoted to compensating people for prior sex acts, and (b) a ruling party putting a political opponent on trial has been conventional in many nations for more than 100 years.
Readers: Have you learned anything new or interesting from press coverage of this trial?
My dream: A South Park episode in which the entire trial happens in South Park so as to ensure an unbiased jury pool.
Readers: Have you learned anything new or interesting from press coverage of this trial? No.
From “The Babylon Bee” (fake news you can trust): “Judge Instructs Jurors They Need Not Believe Trump Is Guilty To Convict Him”
https://babylonbee.com/news/judge-instructs-jurors-they-need-not-believe-trump-is-guilty-to-convict-him
Something that’s not clear to me is if this hush money payment actually changed the outcomes of the 2016 election. Are there any Trump voters out there who would have changed their minds if the news about Ms. Daniels had come out sooner? My sense is no because Trump’s personality was already well known. Therefore, this case is a waste of money and sets a bad precedent of prosecuting political opponents in the US. Note that I am a registered Dem and did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020.
Totally idiotic situation. The supposed disclosure itself would have to happen in 2017, after the election. It does not make sense to hide the payment even if it were specifically campaign related, which can not be proven since such payments are common outside electioneering.
This trial is intended to be political show trial.
The prosecution’s closing argument was that Trump’s crime was that he defrauded the voters in 2016 by covering up these allegations. There was no testimony that it had any effect on the election.
Let’s consider a hypothetical. A politician is a member of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community, but due to the rampant prejudice against members of this community keeps the fact secret. The politician goes to a bathhouse 10 years prior to an election and has sex with 10 same-sex partners. The 10 bathhouse encounter partners are paid to keep quiet. Would/should the politician be prosecuted for concealing something from the voters that would have activated their prejudice?
I learned that the Media, and Liberals to cover dramas over real hard-core issues.
We are asked to remember George Floyd but not daily killing that goes on in inner cities.
We are asked to celeberate and accept LGBTQ but call out Harrison Butker graduation speech as controversial.
We are told the economy and Americans are doing well but inflation and depth are moving in one direction: up.
I have not been obsessively or gleefully following the coverage, but I’ll bite.
The trial has given us all a peek behind the curtain of the rich & famous, and DJT specifically.
First, it’s pretty clear that he fucked a porn star. This is strange to me, because out of the universe of possible sexual partners, or even the smaller universe of sex workers that could be partners, porn star would be very low on my list. I am curious why this was his preference. I am guessing either (i) porn was a more glamourous industry in DJT’s younger years (based on what I’ve seen in Boogie Nights, at least) and old habits die hard, or (ii) he’s into some freaky stuff that he can’t get an ordinary woman to consent to. c.f. the story about pissing prostitutes in Russia. I guess a porn star may be less of a stigma than a more niche sex worker?
Second, I don’t get why he made the effort to launder the hush money payment. As you suggest, paying hush money to a former sexual partner is not a big deal. Bill Clinton did it, and I’m sure many other politicians have as well. Why bother? It cost him more out of pocket. Then, supposing you’ve decided to go this route, why pay Michael Cohen in installments? It just seems so complicated when he could have written a $130,000 check and been done with it.
I agree the prosecution is politically motivated. But I’m not convinced it’s unjust. We might all be better off if politicians and executives were consistently prosecuted for 6 figure accounting frauds.
At the time, the kinkiest part as reported by Stormy Daniels herself seemed to be that ‘[Trump] made [her] sit and watch an entire documentary about shark attacks’.
The Russian prostitute tall tale by Christopher Steele, former MI6, was that they peed on a bed wherein Obama had once slept while Trump looked on approvingly. Did it happen? I’m guessing no.
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden is free to walk the streets and Seth Rich is still dead.
And whole Epstein/JPM thing. During Trump real estate political trial, NY governor explicitly told real estate investors that “new” judicial criteria applies only to Trump.
Trump’s accountant, Mr Cohen, could be working for the other team when he arranged payments to Ms Daniel’s. That’s based on what became known during this trial. Impossible to convict Trump of anything beyond reasonable doubt.
Sadly, none of our presidents, on my memory, after Bush I, can be used as a good example for child upbringing, based on available information. I am not going to vote based on this criteria.
It is clear that most spineless boardroom honchos are more secure then ever to continue with shady backroom deals without any impediment, if they tow letft’s party line.
I came across this today: “Trump jury members listen to closing arguments: Who are they?” [1]
The article provides some background about the juries. One of the highlights is where the juries get their news from, and looks like 7 of the juries get it from “New York Times”. I’m not sure what to make of it, but found the fact the article mentioned this to be interesting.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68848665