TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2023
...Ruth Marcus says she's nervous: It's widely alleged that indictment is nearing for one Donald J. Trump.
Blue cable cares about little else, especially between the hours of 4 and 6 P.M. Eastern. Just like that, along comes Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post, tossing a soggy wet blanket atop all the excitement and fun.
Marcus Aurelius was more fun than this! Headline included, Marcus's buzz-kill, kill-joy combo platter starts exactly like this:
New York’s Stormy Daniels case against Trump is much thornier than it looks
If you hope that Donald Trump will face criminal charges for at least some of his misdeeds, there is a prospect worse than the possibility that the former president won’t be indicted. It is that he will be charged and escape punishment anyway.
When you strike at a king, you must kill him, the saying goes, and it applies with force in the case of Trump, who would inevitably use the mere fact of indictment as evidence of a supposed liberal plot against him, and then deploy an acquittal (or dismissal of any charges) as convincing proof of the conspiracy.
Which is why, as much as I’d like to see Trump held to account, I am nervous about reports that New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) is poised to seek an indictment of Trump relating to the payoffs he orchestrated to silence a onetime lover, porn star Stormy Daniels...
Marcus says she's "nervous about reports" that Trump will soon get indicted in the Stormy Daniels case. In fairness to Marcus, here's why:
As others have done, Marcus describes the legalistic jumping-through-hoops required to bump the possible charge in this case up to the level of a felony. Along the way, Marcus omits a further embarrassing fact:
District Attorney Bragg—and yes, he's a Democrat (D)—seemed to decide last year that he wouldn't be bringing a charge in this case. In the face of predictable clatter in Gotham, the gentleman then changed his mind.
This guarantees that any prosecution in this case will be seen as a political prosecution. It makes it harder for any honest anti-Trump Democrat to say that any such charge will be false.
By standard accounts, Bragg will have to jump through hoops to generate a felony charge in this matter. Marcus says she wants "to see Trump held to account," apparently for what he did in this specific matter, but she's afraid he'll escape conviction if he's actually charged.
Good God! Marcus even goes so far as to say that Trump "might have a point" in an objection he recently posted on his crackpot site, Truth Social.
When's the last time Trump "had a point?" That's how bad this whole thing gets!
We disagree with Marcus in one major way. We don't want "to see Trump held to account" for what he did in this matter. We're embarrassed for our own blue tribe, and for the human race in general, as we watch Nicolle Wallace go on and on for two hours each day about the need for a prosecution.
What's at issue in this particular case? This is what's at issue:
Daniels says that she and Trump had consensual sex, on one (1) occasion, back in 2006. Trump says the correct number is actually zero (0).
We would be inclined to assume that Daniels' claim is accurate. The problem starts ten years later, in the middle of the 2016 White House campaign, when Daniels' rep got in touch with lover boy seeking a big pile of cash.
To this day, we have no idea why Daniels isn't being charged with a crime in this matter. Here's why we say that:
If you watch red tribe cable, you're told that Daniels' conduct was a form of extortion or blackmail. If you watch blue tribe cable, you'll never see that claim analyzed or refuted.
On blue tribe cable, the stars protect you from ever confronting any such buzzkill notion. This is the way our pseudo-discourse works now that we Americans live in two different tribal worlds.
We can't speak to the legality of Daniels' conduct, other than to say that it certainly seems like a type of extortion to us. We can tell you this:
We don't want to see presidential elections polluted by last minute claims about who had consensual sex with whom ten years in the past.
Within our transparently phony blue tribe, we love to speak, all day long, about "our democracy," which we pretend to hold sacred. We then turn around and announce that we want our White House elections to turn on such low-IQ garbage as this.
Ten years later, Stormy decided that she wanted a big sack of cash. Our tribe is so pathetic and sad that we wish wish wish wish wish wish wish that she had just gone ahead and squealed back in 2016.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep. In truth, our vastly self-impressed blue tribe is secretly empty and sad.
Could Trump be helped by this indictment? Plainly yes, he could be (or possibly not).
As Marcus suggests, Trump could end up being helped by a failed prosecution. But within the context of our broken modern culture, something else is more important:
An indictment in this stupid matter would be thrilling, exciting and fun. No one would talk about anything else. We could enjoy this for years!