MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2024
Norm Eisen says he feels strongly: Now that he's been convicted of 34 (Class E) felonies, should former president Donald J. Trump be frog-marched off to jail?
Norman Eisen says he feels strongly about the question. This morning, his guest essay in the New York Times starts exactly like this, headlines included:
Should Trump Be Sentenced to Prison? Two Opposing Views.
The Case for Prison Time for Trump
Having witnessed every day of Donald Trump’s criminal trial for falsifying business records to conceal a sex scandal that threatened his presidential campaign, I strongly believe the former president should be sentenced to incarceration.
I am a lawyer, not a judge, but I have practiced criminal law for over three decades. Under New York law, sentencing should be based on the gravity of the crime—and the 34 offenses on which Mr. Trump has now been convicted are profoundly serious. To find him guilty of felony business record falsification, the jury had to determine that he intended to commit, aid or conceal a second crime by making or causing false entries.
Jurors were given only one option for that second offense. That was the payment of hush money to hide damaging information, “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” under New York’s criminal code. Joshua Steinglass, one of the prosecutors, underscored the significance of that in his closing argument, telling jurors, “Democracy gives people the right to elect their leaders, but that rests on the premise that the voters have access to accurate information about the candidates.” Mr. Trump sought “to deny that access, to manipulate and defraud the voters, to pull the wool over their eyes in a coordinated fashion,” Mr. Steinglass said.
Eisen is a good, decent person. His essay continues from there.
According to Eisen, Trump has been convicted of a "profoundly serious" criminal offense. What's the offense in question?
According to Eisen, Trump failed to give voters "access to accurate information about [one of] the candidates”—namely, he failed to give voters access to information about himself.
What was the information Trump withheld from us the voters in the fall of 2016? The information in question was this:
On one occasion, ten years before, the future president engaged in sexual congress with a woman who wasn't his wife.
Rather, a woman claims that this occurred. Donald J. Trump says it didn't.
Eisen says he feels strongly about Trump's "profoundly serious" crime. At this point, we're forced to make an admission:
We feel strongly about Norm Eisen's temporary insanity.
Did voters really need to know that a woman claims that, on one occasion, she engaged in congress with Trump in 2006, ten years before the election in question? In a situation where, to be completely honest, there's no obvious way to know what actually happened?
Let's assume that the claim in question is accurate:
To Eisen, Trump's refusal to let voters know that he engaged in congress on one occasion constitutes a profoundly serious crime. Trump was "defrauding" us the people by conspiring to keep us from knowing!
To us, it seems a bit different. To us, this sounds like precisely the sort of thing you don't want us, the lunkhead public, getting all lathered about.
According to Eisen, we the people needed to know! Perhaps it's time for Congress to act by passing a law:
Candidates must file their tax returns for the previous five years, along with their list of sexual partners for the previous ten. Even just once, for five minutes!
We get the impression that Brother Norm has (temporarily) lost his ever-lovin' mind. On the other hand, this is who and what we the humans secretly are:
We want to talk about who's zoomin' who! You can get our movers and shakers to focus on little else.
Lack of Balance. Eisen’s column is supposedly balanced with a column arguing the other side. But that article also gives a reason to put Trump in prison.
ReplyDeleteMust-see TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmxzQJt80XI
DeleteI suspect that the Times recruited Eisen to make one side of a two-sided presentation. Isn't this just the sort of back-and-forth Our Host recently complained was missing from our discourse?
ReplyDeleteYou are correct QiB
DeleteThe next time Somerby argues in good faith will be like it was 1999.
DeleteTrump should not be frog marched to jail, he should be treated the same as every other criminal in how he gets put in jail.
ReplyDeleteDuh.
Anyone else who behaved the way Trump behaved throughout the entire trial would be given jail time. He more than deserves it. Trump supporters belly ache about how unfairly poor Trump was treated. Please. He is constantly given preferential treatment. Anyone else who had done all that he's done would be in jail already.
DeleteSomerby continues to try to misinform people that this case was about an affair; it was not.
ReplyDeleteWhen you have to misinform to substantiate your view, your view is misguided.
In reality, Somerby is the one that seems insane, and is the one "zoomin'" his fanboys.
Irrelevancy can be a tough and bitter pill to swallow. Poor Somerby, maybe he will grow from this defeat, and better learn to cope; the future will likely involve many more defeats for poor old Somerby.
“Irrelevancy can be a tough and bitter pill to swallow. Poor Somerby, maybe he will grow from this defeat, and better learn to cope; the future will likely involve many more defeats for poor old Somerby.”
DeleteI don’t what you’re seeing as irrelevance or defeat since anonymices are here battling Bob all day and every day, but the empathy is simply oozing off you almost as much as it does when anonymices are talking about a conservative female or person of color.
Bob had now stated on this case, like the Colorado case, that people who disagree with him are mad.
ReplyDeleteHe will sometimes use the inverse of this to defend Trump ( if Trump really thought he had the right to keep whatever documents he wanted that’s OK because he really believed it, and there is a liberal press conspiracy to never mention that Trump is “disordered”) and the mental health of those who defend Trump (like agreeing that the Jan 6th rioters are innocent victims of Biden and his DOJ) is never in question.
Bob Somerby is quite sane. He is a person whose odd bitterness has plunged his judgements into hateful idiocy. He is a bad, indecent person.
Continuing every day to read the judgments of this odd, bitter, bad, indecent and hateful idiot sounds somewhat mad to me.
DeleteOh, and be sure to scold me for calling you "mad." We wouldn't want any name-calling here, right?
DeleteWhen Bob is accurately assessed as I do here, you give me the “aha! But you listen to him! Are YOU mad?” I would be if I listened to only mean, crazy people like Bob. But I don’t. Unlike many people who understandably try to avoid the depressing truth of our times, I think it’s important not to sidestep the truth. If someone had, for instance, noticed years ago that Bill Barr was not an “institutionalist” but a fanatic with a crooked streak a mile wide, the Country would be in a lot better shape today.
DeleteWhen Bob steps far over the line into pure stupidity, you just look the other way. That’s your problem, Pied, not mine.
Trump's refusal to let voters know that he engaged in congress on one occasion constitutes a profoundly serious crime.
ReplyDeleteActually, to this day, big brave blustering bullshit artist, Donald J Chickenshit, denies this ever happened. He says he didn't fuck the porn star, when he's not under oath.
This is one of the big problems with trying to deal with Trump. He is never asked to admit anything, or apologize. We're all just supposed to avert our eyes for Trump as he goes on his merry way criming with impunity right out in broad daylight. He get's caught red-handed, he just goes on his bullshit tour promising he can't wait to get in the witness chair, but oh somehow there's always a reason he can't do that. He holds an announced "press conference", and then takes no questions.
DeleteHow much of his bullshit are you people willing to swallow, just to own the libs?
Anonymouse 3:50pm, but not an irrelevant person. There’s no indication that you find him that at all.
DeleteApparently resident idiot-moonbat believes that if Donald Trump was to claim it under oath, he would be immediately struck down by lightning.
DeleteI understand, maggot mao, it has got to be humiliating to have to support such a yellow-bellied coward.
DeleteIf Trump said anything under oath he would commit perjury because he always lies.
Delete
ReplyDeleteWow, a good decent person with insanity? Albeit temporary. This is a radically new development in this blog. An earthquake.
I am astonished. Bewildered. Shocked, rattled.
Sorry, I need a few minutes, to calm down.
Bob has never called Trump good or decent. Bob settled for mentally deranged,
DeleteBob used to ask us to listen to the people who love a mentally deranged person to be their President. He stopped asking once we told them what they said.
DeleteSomerby conjectures that voters would not care that Trump had a sexual encounter with a porn star while his wife was nursing a baby, because she reported this 10 years out. That's great news! What is the statute of limitations for such information, after which it doesn't matter? I need to know for a friend.
ReplyDeleteHa!
DeleteAs long as people like you generate demand for this kind of stories, there will be plenty of supply.
DeleteDepending on the state-run media politics, some of them will be advertised widely, while others suppressed and declared beyond the pale. And so it does.
The country is insane. People get caught up debating details and miss the big story. In a sane world, it could not be a crime for a candidate or anyone else to hide negative information about himself.
DeleteIn a sane world, candidates would obey the law. No one forced candidate Trump to pretend his payments to Michael Cohen were a "retainer." A great businessman would have known that was trouble.
DeleteQiB, the feds passed on making the charge against Trump because of what happened with John Edwards.
DeleteNever underestimate having the right jury.
Yes, David, but if you are really really good and persistent at going after a politician's personal life
Deleteit could land you with a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, allowing you to fuck around with everyone else's personal life as well.
Anonymouse 6:27pm, actually, as far as abortion goes, it’s the voting public in your state that can mess around with you as to abortion.
DeleteIt's not about babies, that's for sure.
DeleteAnonymouse 7:06pm, or birth control.
Delete"....in a sane world it would not be a crime for a candidate or anyone else to hide negative information about himself..." Oh really? You may want to consult with Dershowitz about the meaning of the term "obstruction of justice". It will be coming up- not soon enough- as an issue, when ordering a lackey to move some boxes at Mar a Lago needs some explaining. I'm waiting with baited breath for the Dersh's take on that prosecution.
Delete" never underestimate having the right jury" This trial (and the laws that were argued to have been broken) is not a Doppelganger of the Edwards case. I wouldn't be so quick to ascribe the different outcomes to the juries involved. But if they are similar enough for some comparison, I'll make this observation: I don't recall Democrats setting their hair on fire over the fact that John Edwards was charged with criminal activity.
7:49,
DeleteThe anti-abortion stance has always been about keeping women in their place. On this, we all agree.
Unamused, Edwards wasn’t indicted until two years after he had run for president. He certainly wasn't in the process of running again for anything.
DeleteEdwards received over a million dollars from donors to help keep his mistress quiet and to tend to her and the baby’s expenses.
If it’s a crime for a candidate to finagle the concealment of politically harmful info (one of the stupidest tropes to have come down the pike in years) you had that and the relationship between the couple going on in real time. They were saying that Hunter was hanging around the campaign because she was pregnant by a campaign aide.
Elizabeth Edwards was a veritable co-candidate. A campaign feminist icon different from all others as the smart, wise, pragmatic, maternal figure who was deeply reverenced by her husband in the way that Hillary was obviously not. They were the anti-Clintons.
Yes, a jury makes a difference and so does media narrative.
Anonymouse 4:13am, by your logic, it’s nature that keeps women down via our ability to conceive. There are worse circumstances in the world, one of them being not having any babies.
DeleteSomeone had to do it and in fact our entire biology is built around birthing and tending to children.
We don’t HAVE to do that in modern times. Avail yourself of that perk. No, it’s not ALWAYS possible to that, but most of the time, it certainly is.
Yeah. Surely the anti-abortion struggle has always been (in part) about keeping YOUNG MEN in their place?
DeleteYou knocked her up -- you're marrying her, and that's it.
Anonymouse 8:41pm, several years ago, a friend surprised everyone by leaving her husband for another man.
DeleteHer ex was devastated, he seemed to have been devoted to her. Of course he had to pay child support and also ended up paying her alimony.
Life is damned unfair.
Cecelia, suggesting that another jury might have ruled differently is axiomatic.
Delete4:48: "...state run media..." Good news! the MSM just listed a job opening for someone to filter the news according to your tastes. And you're just the man for the job.
ReplyDeleteI consider the whole catch and kill operation with its fake anti-Hillary stories to be illegal election manipulation. Somerby is fixated on Stormy as if the case were about concealing sex when it is actually election cheating.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget about Trump comparing avoiding getting a venereal disease to his avoiding military service.
ReplyDeletehttps://people.com/politics/trump-boasted-of-avoiding-stds-while-dating-vaginas-are-landmines-it-was-my-personal-vietnam/
The judge will consider all of the factors and decide whether Trump should be put in jail or not. He is trained to make such judgments.
ReplyDelete"Stormy Daniels Tells Melania to Dump Trump
ReplyDeleteJune 3, 2024 at 5:17 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 155 Comments
“Stormy Daniels has some relationship advice for Melania Trump, and—spoiler alert—it’s not to go to couples counseling in an effort to repair her 19-year marriage to Donald Trump,” Vanity Fair reports.
“Instead, the adult-film star and director, whose 2016 hush money payment led to the ex-president’s conviction in criminal court last week, has urged the former first lady to ditch her husband.”
Said Daniels: “I don’t know what their agreement may or may not be, but Melania needs to leave him. Not because of what he did with me or other women, but because he is a convicted felon. It’s been proven he is abusive; he was found liable for sexual assault and tax fraud and is now a criminal.”
Trump Raked in $141 Million in May
June 3, 2024 at 5:13 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 134 Comments
“Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee raised $141 million in May, according to his campaign, a fundraising total boosted by a surge in contributions after a New York jury found him guilty in a criminal trial involving hush-money charges,” Bloomberg reports.
“Trump’s tally nearly doubles the $76 million he raised in all of April in another strong showing for the presumptive Republican nominee. Trump outraised President Joe Biden’s monthly total for the first time in April as he ramped up his appeals to big-dollar GOP donors in a bid to narrow the president’s sizable fundraising edge.”
Jury Seated In Hunter Biden Trial
June 3, 2024 at 5:03 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 46 Comments
“The jury that will hear the gun case against Hunter Biden in Delaware has been selected,” CNN reports.
“The panel includes twelve jurors along with four alternates. Opening statements are expected Tuesday.”
Trumpworld’s Post-Conviction Spin Cycle
June 3, 2024 at 5:02 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 61 Comments
Molly Jong-Fast: “If being a convicted felon is so great for Donald Trump, why are Republicans freaking out?”
Appeal of Fani Willis Removal Decision Set for October
June 3, 2024 at 5:00 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 44 Comments
“The Georgia Court of Appeals has set a tentative date of October 4 to hear oral arguments in the effort to have Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis removed from prosecuting the election interference case against former President Donald Trump and others,” CNN reports.
“The possibility that the disqualification fight could stretch to October, as well as an ongoing question about how the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on presidential immunity could impact the prosecution, makes it extremely unlikely Trump will go on trial for election subversion in Georgia before Election Day.”
Trump’s Many Dog Whistles About Unrest
June 3, 2024 at 3:35 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard [Political Wire]
Aaron Blake: “This is vintage Trump. He’s not explicitly advocating unrest. He’s not even explicitly mentioning unrest in this case. But he is suggestively pointing to something very bad around the corner if he doesn’t get what he wants.”
“And as with his recent “bloodbath” comment, the point is not that this comment is a particularly egregious example of a dog whistle to his supporters; it’s that it’s merely the latest in a long line of suggestive comments. The context is key, and the track record is unmistakable.”
“Trump wants his foes to worry about things getting ugly — and to perhaps adjust their behavior accordingly.”
And this is the same vague hints about whirlwinds and societal breakdown that Somerby has been making. This is a prime example of the way Somerby amplifies the right wing talking point of the day.
Sorry to have included several unintended reposts of other Political Wire posts. Only the last one, about Trump's Dog Whistles, was supposed to have been cut and pasted. I will try to be more careful.
Delete“Eisen” means “iron”.
ReplyDeleteJudd Legum -
ReplyDeleteThe New York statute on "Conspiracy to promote or prevent election" requires the violator to conspire to promote a candidate by "illegal means." Prosecutors argued that the conspiracy to promote Trump involved three illegal acts: "(1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws."
Judge Merchan instructed the jury that New York law does not require the jury to be unanimous as to "what those illegal means were." This is an accurate description of New York law. If Merchan were to have instructed the jury that they all needed to agree on one of the three potential illegal acts in order to convict, he would be making up a new law just for Trump.
it's reported that Obama people offered his embarrassing pastor Jeremiah Wright $150,000 to temporarily stop public speaking until after the election. And, Obama personally endorsed the offer.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't want President Obama to go to jail, and I don't think he will. But, it's sad that such a thing is now conceivable
https://nypost.com/2012/05/13/the-bribe-to-silence-wright/
Do you not see any difference between this (if it were true) and suborning perjury in a court of law?
DeleteI wonder if the ProPublica story released yesterday has anything to do with the tabloid story David links to.
DeleteMultiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign
Nine witnesses in the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have received significant financial benefits, including large raises from his campaign, severance packages, new jobs, and a grant of shares and cash from Trump’s media company.
The benefits have flowed from Trump’s businesses and campaign committees, according to a ProPublica analysis of public disclosures, court records and securities filings. One campaign aide had his average monthly pay double, from $26,000 to $53,500. Another employee got a $2 million severance package barring him from voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. And one of the campaign’s top officials had her daughter hired onto the campaign staff, where she is now the fourth-highest-paid employee.
These pay increases and other benefits often came at delicate moments in the legal proceedings against Trump. One aide who was given a plum position on the board of Trump’s social media company, for example, got the seat after he was subpoenaed but before he testified.
https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits
************
I guess you missed that little story, huh David?
Nowhere in the short article linked to is there any mention of Obama approving cash payments to the pastor. This is in keeping with DIC's habit of linking to an article that discredits his statement about it. He is a routinely dishonest troll who has been corrected on multiple occasions for mis- stating articles he has linked to.
ReplyDeleteUnamused -- You're technically correct, but you're quibbling. IMO
DeleteAccording to the article Obama personally asked Wright to stop speaking after Wright had been offered money to stop speaking by one of Obama's closest friends. The implication is that Obama approved the offer and encouraged Wright to accept it.
Thanks so much for clarifying that you fabricated a story in which Obama is claimed to have authorized a cash payment to Wright. Even the claim that Wright was offered payment by one of Obama's closest friends is false. He was told of this offer, he states, by one of his congregation. Obama met with him directly, made no such offer, and complimented him when Wright declined the request to avoid sermoning until November, an activity that Wright admits negatively impacted Obama's campaign. That you think anything in this story is sanctionable with jail time for Obama is bizarre. You discredit yourself here, once again, by linking to a story in, by the way, a Murdoch owned rag, that does not corroborate your claims. Not anywhere near the first time you have soiled yourself in this manner.
Delete@Unamused - Check out the reporter's archive. He trafficks in some sensational stuff.
Delete@DiC:
Delete"The implication is that Obama approved the offer and encouraged Wright to accept it."
You're correct. That is the implication. However, stories that are told by implication rather than by verifiable facts should be viewed with some skepticism. The reporter's archives are full of earlier stories that seem...let's say unlikely.
QIB, yes, the guy is also the author of two books, hit pieces, that have been discredited by eyewitnesses to scenes he apparently fabricated, one about H. Clinton, the other, called "The Amateur" about Obama
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/edward-klein-defends-his-obama-biography-the-amateur/2012/06/19/gJQAA1fToV_story.html
The Clinton book asserts that Chelsea was conceived when Bill Clinton raped his wife, for example. The Obama book includes commentary about how Obama's policies ruined the economy. I would say that you can't make this stuff up, but apparently you can.
ReplyDeleteThe Washington Post article quotes well known conservative pundits who found the Clinton book to be trash.
ReplyDeleteTrump doesn't deserve jail time.
ReplyDeleteHe deserves prison time.
Yeah, the thing with Hillary does sound improbable. But could it be an act of desperation? Missed a Lolita Express flight?
ReplyDelete6:21,
ReplyDeleteRepublican voters acting like they believe Trump is a smart businessman (highly improbable), a desperate act to hide their love of his bigotry.
If you say so, Mr. Soros.
ReplyDeleteYes
ReplyDeleteRight back at ya, Q.
ReplyDelete