TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2024
Concerning the size of the bond: For us, the story started yesterday with a post by Kevin Drum.
The size of Donald Trump's bond had been reduced! Headline included, the Drumcat offered this:
Trump fine cut in half—for now
Donald Trump has been let off the hook for the full amount of the $454 million bond he was ordered to pay in his business fraud case. An appeals court cut it to $175 million.
This is disappointing for those who enjoy watching Trump squirm, but it's probably reasonable. The court gave no reason for its decision, but more than likely it's because they thought the original penalty was excessive and was likely to be reduced. And since they're the ones who would reduce it, who would know better?
The math in the headline was slightly off. So was the headline's language.
In fact, the size of the bond had been reduced—by substantially more than half.
For ourselves, we were mainly struck by Drum's suggestion that the appeals court likely thought that the original size of the required bond had been excessive. Also, by his personal assessment—by his assessment that the reduction was "probably reasonable."
For ourselves, we still don't know why someone appealing a legal judgment has to post a giant bond before he can pursue an appeal. At times like these, the great god Explanation tends to defer to more powerful gods, including the powerful god whose name is Partisan Narrative.
That said, Drum's surmise about the appeals court's assessment didn't align with standard blue tribe narrative! It more closely aligned with prevailing red tribe narrative, as did this excerpt from this morning's report in the New York Times:
Trump’s Bond in Civil Fraud Case Is Reduced to $175 Million
[...]
In a statement, Mr. Trump said he would “abide by the decision” and either post a bond or put up the money himself. He added that the appellate court’s decision to reduce the bond “shows how ridiculous and outrageous” the $454 million judgment against him is.
While the court, the Appellate Division in Manhattan, did not rule directly on the merits of Mr. Trump’s appeal, its ruling suggests that some of the judges could be sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s case, legal experts said.
Say what? Some of the judges in the Manhattan-based appellate court "could be sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s case?" Again, that would seem to align with red tribe Storyline, according to which the original proceedings in this case were conducted by people who were biased against Donald J. Trump.
As Peter Baker explained two months ago in this New York Times analysis piece, this November's election will involve "two presidents of profoundly different countries, the president of Blue America versus the president of Red America."
Especially on "cable news" channels, the narrative preferences of those dueling countries were on full display last night.
Each side prayed to the same God, President Lincoln once mournfully said. Last night, each side agreed on one basic point:
A dual system of justice has been put on display in these unfolding events.
Cable news hosts agreed. A dual system of justice has been on full display.
Red and Blue hosts wholly agreed on that basic point. They only disagreed about this:
For pundits speaking to Red America, that dual system of justice has been biased against Donald J. Trump. For viewers living in Blue America, the justice system was bending over backwards again to defer to the former president.
Pundits agreed—a dual system of justice exists. They disagreed on the question of who that system favors!
We were struck by Drum's post, and then by the Times report, because of the way the assessments in question cut against basic blue tribe narrative. Laura Ingraham put it most mockingly, and possibly best, on her Fox News program last night.
As Ingraham started her hour-long show, she played videotape of figures on MSNBC pushing Blue America's standard assessments. In this excerpt, you can see her playing tape of NeverTrumper Michael Steele, then voicing Red America's assessment:
INGRAHAM (3/25/24): Yet another in the simpleton pundit category is Michael Steele, the failed former RNC chair. He too is stunned that the appellate court made a sane ruling, posting [this]:
"Again, Donald Trump gets special treatment with his own private system of justice. This makes absolutely no sense."
What makes no sense is that comment. So now, the NeverTrumpers are so deluded they think the New York appellate court is MAGA?
Unpleasant name-calling to the side, Ingraham may seem to have a bit of a point. Is it really likely that a group of five appellate court judges in Manhattan is biased in favor of Trump?
On its face, Ingraham's insinuation may seem to make sense. That said, you can be sure of this one point:
Under current cable news arrangements, any such insinuation will go wholly untested. Such assessments, suggestions or insinuations will never be subject to disputation from those on the Blue America side.
Fox News Channel programs presented legal analysts last night. So did MSNBC programs. That said, these two different sets of legal analysts presented two vastly different sets of assessments of the matters under review.
How red did it get on Ingraham's program? Shortly after she introduced legal analyst David Schoen, he offered this assessment of Trump's impending appeal in the New York civil case:
SCHOEN: I think the court did—took a big step in the right direction. I don't think there should have been any bond for the appeal in this case, and the court certainly had that discretion.
He has the assets. You know where he is. But I think the underlying conviction is going to be reversed, certainly by the time it reaches the New York Court of Appeals, assuming it has to go that far.
As you have said, no loss, no victim—the banks were more than happy to do what they—to make the loans. They wanted more business, he is an international brand, and so on.
This is very different from the definition of frauds that we have ever seen before.
Say what? "I think the underlying conviction is going to be reversed, certainly by the time it reaches the New York Court of Appeals?" Are analysts allowed to say that?
More broadly, does any of Schoen's presentation make any sense? Because that's what Red America was being told last night—though under current corporate arrangements, no one watching cable news in Blue America heard anything like that last night.
Red America hears one set of assessments. Blue America hears something completely different. So it goes under current arrangements, in which "segregation by viewpoint" is the prevailing organizational arrangement all through the cable news world.
For the record, some of the comments by Barrister Schoen would have been extremely familiar to viewers in Red America. The notion that there were "no victims" in this civil case—the claim that the banks were perfectly happy with Trump's conduct—is a common talking point on Fox News Channel programs.
Viewers in Red America hear such claims all the time. For all intents and purposes, viewers of cable in Blue America will never hear such claims reported, discussed or assessed.
As we puzzle over last night's Babel, we again refer you to this. On last Friday's PBS NewsHour, David Brooks cited an Associated Press analysis which tended to support certain claims which routinely get made on the Red America side.
We posted the text of Brooks' statement in yesterday's report. You can read the AP analysis piece simply by clicking here.
Is there any chance that anything Schoen said last night contains a bit of merit? We're especially curious because of the way the Appellate Court knocked down the size of the bond, with unnamed "legal experts" suggesting that its members may have thought that the original size of the bond was excessive.
Red America has been told all along that the court in this case had been biased against Donald Trump. Last night, Blue America was being told that Trump was getting "special treatment with his own private system of justice" from that New York appellate court.
Here's what no one saw last night—no one in either country:
No one saw legal analysts from the two countries brought together on one cable program, where their varying assessments could be debated, discussed. No one was able to benefit from any such discussion or debate.
Instead, people living in Red America heard one set of familiar assessments. People living in Blue America heard an alternate set of familiar representations.
What ever happened to disputation? In the abandoned Crossfire era, legal analysts with opposing views would have been brought together on TV and asked to battle it out. Those days, of course, long gone.
Today, people living in either of the two Americas hear their own tribe's assessments, full and complete total stop. Citizens of these two countries lock in on the Storylines of their respective nations. Can a large modern nation really function this way?
Friend, take a good look around!
We close with one sardonic observation about Ingraham's performance last night. Along the way, she directed the latest jibe at Rep. Ocasio-Cortez concerning the "RICO" bullroar. You can watch that foolishness here.
Friend, is RICO a crime? Plainly, no, it isn't—unless you're getting your propaganda from stars in Red America. In the wild tribal lands of that new tribal country, an entirely new and different bit of semantics now obtains!
Final point:
The appellate court vastly reduced the original size of the bond. Does that mean that Trump was the victim of a dual system of justice in the initial establishment of the bond?
Or does it mean that Trump was gifted by a dual system of justice, as practiced by that New York appellate court?
Last night, Blue America heard one of those claims. Red America heard the other!
