THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2024
Complexification is us: As the end of the week approaches, we return to a basic question:
Did anyone ever explain the legal theory under which Donald J. Trump was charged with 34 felonies? More precisely:
Did anyone ever explain that legal theory—in effect, did anyone ever explain the nature of the charges—in a way the average person could sensibly be expected to understand?
For ourselves, we would have preferred that this matter hadn't been pursued at all. We think the criminal prosecution in this matter sought to discourage the wrong kind of societal conduct.
That said, the legal charges were brought, and a criminal trial ensued. And make no mistake:
From the front page of the New York Times on down, everyone seemed to agree that the legal theory behind those charges was complex and convoluted.
That doesn't necessarily mean that something was "wrong" with the legal theory, or with the criminal charges. But dear God!
A society is really asking for trouble in a circumstance like this!
In this circumstance, the Manhattan D.A. brought criminal charges against a former president—against a former president who is also leading in the polls in the campaign to be the next president.
In such a circumstance, a society is really asking for trouble if the charges in question are so convoluted and so complex that the nation's high-end mainstream journalists can't even seem to explain them.
To help us pose our question again, we turn to something Adam Serwer recently wrote for The Atlantic. Serwer's essay is a fairly standard Blue American defense on the prosecution's case. Deal headline included:
Trump Wishes His Trial Were Rigged
But instead he got a fair one, and was convicted by a jury of his peers.
[...]
Many political writers originally reacted with disdain to Bragg’s charges, treating them as a sideshow to the much more serious state and federal charges regarding Trump’s alleged theft of classified records and unlawful attempt to seize power after losing the 2020 election. It is true that compared with potentially exposing nuclear secrets to foreign spies and attempting to end American democracy, trying to cover up his encounter with Daniels seems like a much less serious crime. But that cover-up, prosecutors said, was also an attempt to influence an election, and the jury convicted Trump on all 34 counts relatively quickly, after two days of deliberation—a sign of the strength of Bragg’s case and a smoothly run trial. Not every jury gets it right, and not every trial is fair. But few of the Republican objections even contest that Trump did the things he was convicted of doing; they simply amount to demands that Trump be able to commit crimes with impunity, because anything less would be political persecution.
So wrote Serwer. This presentation is accurate in several major particulars:
The jury did convict Trump relatively quickly, and they did convict him on all 34 counts. As far as we know, there was nothing obviously "wrong" with the judgment they drew, based on the evidence which had been presented and based on the judge's legal instructions.
That said, we'll admit it. We found ourselves chuckling at the statement we highlighted. It's a statement about the claims being made by Trump's GOP defenders, many of whom, for the record, are shameless certified crackpots:
Few of the Republican objections even contest that Trump did the things he was convicted of doing.
Few objections have contested the claim that Trump did the things he was convicted of doing?
In fact, many objections, from saner observers, say that no one is clear, to this very day, on what Trump was convicted of doing! Fairly plainly, he was charged with disguising a series of reimbursements as a series of legal fees, but the fog rolls in after that.
What exactly was this disordered man accused and convicted of doing? Has anyone ever explained this complex, convoluted case in a way the average citizen can hope to understand?
In the last few weeks, we've spent a lot of time in the journalistic vineyards trying to puzzle that matter out. At this time, we'd be inclined to say that the answer is no.
That doesn't (necessarily) mean that the legal case was "wrong" in some way. But very few people can really explain the nature of the crimes in this case, and a society is in for a long, bumpy ride when a prosecution of such giant importance operates in such a complexified way.
He didn't shoot a man on Fifth Avenue. He didn't carjack a Buick.
Has anyone ever explained the offense in a way we rubes can understand?
At this time, we'd be inclined to say that the answer is basically no. That said, most discourse is really an imitation of same. That's true from the very top of the pile pretty much all the way down!
If you really want to understand, you can read the indictment. I don't intend to read it, so I'll never understand this case.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteCalm down Bob. These things happen every day, all over the world.
Some politicians even get assassinated, see the incident in Slovakia, for example, less than a month ago: PM Robert Fico, shot 5 times, almost died, poor bastard. This banana-republic trial is nothing, considering.
What is this Fico character? A Terminator?
DeleteHe. Just. Won't. Die.
Yeah, 4 shots into the stomach and one into a shoulder. Point-blank. But I've read that the assassin (a liberal, by the way) now says he didn't really want to kill the guy.
DeleteThe shooter has a long history of right wing activity, so no, the shooter was not "a liberal".
DeleteThe shooter is definitely a liberal. And I've learned here today that all the liberals, including even Glenn Greenwald, are in fact right-wingers. So there is no contradiction whatsoever.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:05pm, for a bit over a year people on Twitter have been predicting that something was going to happen to Robert Fico because he was not allowing large numbers of Muslim immigrants into the country.
Delete>yawn<
Deletehttps://english.elpais.com/international/2024-05-17/robert-ficos-attacker-a-poet-with-past-ties-to-an-ultranationalist-and-pro-russian-group.htm
Yawn indeed. The assassin, Juraj Cintula, is a garden variety Soros' trained monkey.
DeleteOf course the other Soros' trained monkeys will never admit it. No surprise there.
I am not a monkey.
DeleteBut I am a Soros trained assassin.
DeleteSomerby claims a guy says there are few objections about one thing, and then Somerby says there are many objections about another thing, although Somerby provides no evidence for this.
ReplyDeleteSomerby then says he is confused and that few people can clarify his confusion.
Then immediately after that Somerby declares no one has been able to clear up his confusion. Few becomes zero.
Then Somerby offers that most discourse - without any other qualifiers, so just broadly - is an "imitation of same"; whatever that means is unclear - again no evidence or substantiation of any kind is offered, but it suggests that discourse is bad, or seems to be (even if those engaged are good and decent).
What seems clear is that Somerby is bent on muddying the waters in the hopes of manufacturing ignorance about fairly straightforward circumstances.
Such is Somerby's life, pushing phony confusion to provide for him some emotional comfort, all while seething bitterness.
I don’t understand. Does Bob seethe bitterness?
DeleteApparently.
DeleteIt is possible.
DeleteBob does not seethe with bitterness. He does have an air of fatalism.
DeleteYeah, but 3:15PM didn’t say “seething with,” it just said “seething.”
DeleteHow average is average. Does Bob mean a know nothing who believes Trump when he says he was entitled to take any classified documents with him.
ReplyDeleteNo surprise Bob isn’t taken his horror of anyone going to jail over to the Hunter Biden case, as few in the Press are pointing out that without the politics this case would have been pled out years ago.
Adam Serwer carefully made a limited statement, "few of the Republican objections even contest that Trump did the things he was convicted of doing." Serwer left out the inappropriateness of the prosecution, the bias of prosecutor, judge, and jury, and the glaring judicial errors.
ReplyDeleteBut, even Serwer's limited statement isn't accurate. Most conservatives would indeed contest the finding that Trump was the person who decided to book those payments as "legal expense." Without that finding, there is no crime at all, not even a misdemeanor.
Most conservatives would indeed contest the finding that Trump was the person who decided to book those payments as "legal expense."
DeleteDavid would know this for certain. He consulted with Professor Otto Yerass.
Anonymouse 7:22pm, actually, I think anonymices are stupider than they are pretending to be.
Delete@6:36 Serwer was talking about what conservatives believe. Based on conservative opinion pieces and commenters, I gather that most conservatives think Cohen was not believable. I gather that the person who actually booked that payments said Trump did not tell him to book them as legal expense.
DeleteDavid, you understand that Trump's lawyers defense was that they actually were legal fees?
DeleteThe jury disagreed.
What do you think these conservatives who didn't sit listening to the testimony for 5 weeks think the payments should have been booked as?
Indirect reimbursement of hush money to the porn star I fucked?
Who the fuck do you think you're gaslighting here?
As an anonymouse I can say for sure that I’m stupider than I pretend to be.
DeleteBTW Adam Serwer's mother Jackie Days illustrates how my High School, New Rochelle HS did integration right. They had homogeneous classes. That meant that higher level classes were skewed white (and a few Asians), but bright blacks like Jackie and her brother Drew (Clinton's Solicitor General) could be in top classes and get top education. Fortunately, the school wasn't burdened with bean counters complaining that there weren't enough blacks in the calculus class. Adam's father, Danny Serwer, was Science Advisor to the Italian Embassy. My sister stayed with them once when she was in Italy. They had a beautiful apartment.
DeleteHow come Somerby can't be bothered with complexity. The prosecution was attacked for their 5 hour summary, until it won all 34 counts. This marks Trump as a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, fined serial fraudster, 7 times bankrupter of companies, and self admitted sexual assualter. What a great man. If he wasn't a fascist I would vote for him.
Delete"Has anyone ever explained the offense in a way we rubes can understand?"
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Our Host. I think Trump's offenses have been explained suitably by many people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhen time collapses into itself and exists as a singularity... Newsflash: it has already happened.
ReplyDeleteYwes, Bob, you must have missed it. The charges against Trump were explained over and over again.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Bob pretending he can't follow this straight forward case, again?
ReplyDeleteSomerby knows the prosecutor's case was air-tight. His complaints are about the media.
DeletePersonally, I think criticizing corporations is like shooting fish in a barrel. Bob's mileage, obviously, varies.
He clearly stated numerous times that he wished the prosecution had not been brought. That is not media criticism, 9:44. He thinks Trump should have been able to use whatever means necessary to shut up stormy Daniels. In fact, st one point, he said that Cohen and Trump should have received a Medal of Honor for what they did. (Look it up.)
DeleteI'm surprised you wrote this, Bob. It's a very easy to understand indictment. You could read the indictment. You could listen to people who explained it in plain English, including Andrew Wiseman, and various other lawyers.
ReplyDelete