FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2024
This is the way she proceeded: On one occasion, in 2006, did future candidate Donald J. Trump engage in sexual intercourse with director Stormy Daniels?
Daniels says the gentleman did. The gentleman says he didn't.
That said:
As has been explained a million times, the truth of the matter plays no role in the adjudication of the 34 felonies with which the defendant stands charged. The truth of this matter should play no role in the adjudication of those alleged crimes, whatever those alleged crimes may actually turn out to be.
In the morning's Washington Post, those crimes are described in the manner shown below. As far as we know, this description doesn't explain the legal theory under which Trump stands charged:
BARRETT ET AL (5/17/24): Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The indictment accuses Trump of creating a false paper trail to hide the fact that adult-film star Stormy Daniels was paid $130,000 in October 2016 to stay silent about her claim to have had sex with Trump years earlier. Trump denies the two had sex.
That's the description of the charges in the Post's main news report about yesterday's court session. But uh-oh:
As has been explained a million times, the falsification of business records is a mere misdemeanor. Trump stands charged with falsifying business records to conceal a second crime.
As has been explained a million times, paying Daniels "to stay silent about her claim to have had sex with Trump" is not, in itself, a crime. For that reason, it seems to us that the Post's capsule account fails to explain the nature of the felonies with which the hopeful stands charged.
So too in the New York Times! Here's that newspaper's explanation in today's news report:
PROTESS ET AL (5/17/24): Now on his third day of testimony in the first criminal trial of an American president, Mr. Cohen showed signs of fragility as the defense chipped at his credibility without appearing to deliver a fatal blow to the prosecution’s case...
Mr. Cohen’s conduct—and truthfulness—is at the case’s heart. He made the $130,000 payment to the porn star, Stormy Daniels, to suppress her account of a sexual liaison with Mr. Trump, who later reimbursed Mr. Cohen from the White House. Prosecutors accused Mr. Trump, who denies the sex and any wrongdoing, of falsifying related records so he could cover up the scandal for good.
As far as we know, that account is accurate—but only as far as it goes. Prosecutors do accuse Trump of "falsifying related records." But in what sense would "cover[ing] up the scandal for good" constitute a second crime?
So it frequently goes when we the humans try to construct explanations.
As a species, we're surprisingly good at erecting extremely tall buildings—tall buildings which almost never fall down. But as a species, we're much less skilled when we start tangling with words.
When we start to tangle with words, all sorts of implosions may follow. In particular, we may start to turn unknowns into knowns, seeking to square the circle on a state of affairs concerning which we have limited knowledge.
So it seems to have gone last Friday morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe. Daniels had completed her testimony the day before. In the course of that testimony, she had made all sorts of claims for which there seems to be no external verification.
Stating the obvious, that doesn't mean that her claims are false. It simply means that her various claims haven't been shown to be true.
At such times, we humans are strongly inclined to square the circle—to create a definitive account of what occurred by asserting "facts not in evidence." So it seemed to go last Friday morning as Mika Brzezinski tried to explain how we can know, or feel fairly sure, that the lovebirds did engage in the sexual congress which Donald J. Trump still denies.
According to Brzezinski, the Old Spice proved they had sex.
In this passage, Brzezinski is speaking to Danny Cevallos, an admirably non-partisan legal analyst. To appearances, Brzezinski wanted to prove that the lovebirds had sex.
In the process of seeking that end, she seems to enlist one unknown in service to another:
BRZEZINSKI (6/10/24): Danny, just OK, so I'm going to try and push back on this, because I'm curious what you think of the fact that it would be obvious that the defense would try and undermine her credibility, really try and, you know, put a frame around the incredulousness of her story.
And who else would have the information like what was in his toiletry kit, or other things that would prove that there was a transaction for sex?
Say what? An obvious question arises.
(In what follows, we're assuming that Brzezinski meant that the contents of the toiletry kit was only one of many things that could "prove" that the pair engaged in that sort of transaction.)
An obvious question arises:
Did Daniels actually know what was in Trump's toiletry knit? During her testimony, she said that she went into the bathroom of his hotel suite and looked into his kit.
She said she wasn't proud of that fact, but she said she actually did that. She then reported some of the embarrassingly low-end products she said she'd seen in the kit.
Those claims may all be perfectly accurate. We know of no obvious reason to doubt them.
That said, we also know of no external evidence which has established the accuracy of any of these statements. That's why the analysts came right out of their chairs in reaction to Brzezinski's QED:
In that presentation, Brzezinski seemed to be saying that one unverified claim—one "unknown"—could be enlisted to prove the accuracy of another.
She wanted us viewers to believe that Daniel's claim about the congress was true. To support that unverified claim, she enlisted Daniels' unverified claim about the contents of Donald Trump's toiletry kit!
Did Daniels snoop in the toiletry kit? We have no idea. Every one of her statements could be true—but her statements could also be false.
If Daniels did engage in that harmless bit of snooping, did she spot some Old Spice in the kit? We can't swear to that either! She says that's what she saw in the kit, and that's pretty much where it ends.
As such, did Daniels' claim about the contents of the toiletry kit prove the accuracy of her claim about the subsequent congress? It's hard to see how it could, but the heart wants what it wants, as a famous director once said.
Alas! Dating all the way back to Plato's The Apology of Socrates, it's been clear that we humans don't enjoy being told that we know or understand less than we think we do.
Once we get a certain idea in our heads, we humans are strongly inclined to look for ways to "prove" the truth of such preferred ideas. In Plato's telling, Socrates found that people with reputations for wisdom reacted extremely poorly when he tried to show them that they weren't actually wise after all.
In a somewhat similar way, once we humans have some unverified claim we want to believe, we're inclined to cast about in the waters, looking for ways to "prove" the truth of such preferred beliefs.
In such circumstances, almost anything may serve as proof of our preferred beliefs! In this instance, Brzezinski took one unverified claim and then seemed to use it as proof of another such claim.
In fairness to Brzezinski, conduct like this was general over the pundit corps with respect to Daniels' assertions last week. Tomorrow, we'll show you a clip in which a legal analyst—not a journalist—made the same sort of claim about the Old Spice which Brzezinski seemed to make in this instance.
Elsewhere, all sorts of major, high-end pundits acted as if Daniels' various claims had been shown to be true. There are many ways to convey that impression, and pundits left few behind.
Again, we aren't saying that Daniels' claims are false. Every one of her various claims may be perfectly accurate!
That said. her various claims seem to be unsupported by external evidence. We humans tend to blow past such impediments when we have stories we like.
Tomorrow: "What happened to Stormy Daniels"
