TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2024
On page one, Protess and Bromwich: With what specific criminal offense does the famous defendant stand charged?
For example, is he charged with shooting someone, right out on the street? You're asking a very good question!
Before we're done today, we'll note a recent citation of Kafka. But let's start with Bret and Gail.
We refer to Bret Stephens and Gail Collins, who have published their weekly "Conversation" in this morning's New York Times. Stephens has been staunchly anti-Trump from the start—but at one point in today's confab, this exchange takes place, silly headline included:
We’re Suddenly Living in a ‘My Wife Did It’ Moment
[...]
Bret: Of course, by the time the [first Biden-Trump] debate happens the [former] president could be a felon. Do you think the prosecution will get a conviction?
Gail: I think there’s a very good possibility in the Stormy Daniels case they’re now trying in New York. But of course, Trump will try to appeal his way to the White House.
Bret: Appeals can take a while. My problem is that as much as I despise Trump, I hope he’s acquitted, because this entire case, as our colleague David French has explained, is dubious.
Gail: There’s a very good chance this whole ungodly election saga will wind up in the hands of the Supreme Court.
We record their names as "Bret" and "Gail," the same way their newspaper does.
Later in this conversation, Stephens suggests the unacceptable. He suggests that Justice Alito may even have been telling the truth when he said it was his wife who ran the flag up the flagpole upside-down.
Has Justice Alito been caught telling the truth? In yesterday's print editions, the increasingly tabloid New York Times ran a remarkably childish "analysis piece" under this remarkably childish front-page headline:
A Time-Honored Political Tactic: Throw Your Spouse Under the Bus
In print editions, that's what the front-page headline saif. Online, the front-page report now appears under a headline whicb is even more entertaining:
Take My Wife, Please: For Political Damage Control, Just Blame Your Spouse
Online, Henny Youngman is back! We'd offer one word about that front-page report:
Sad!
Back to Bret and Gail concerning the Gotham trial. Stephens says he despises Trump. That's been his stance all along.
Still, he says he hopes that Trump is acquitted! He says the entire case against Trump is dubious—and he cites yesterday's column by French as a point of reference.
To Stephens, the legal case is dubious. As we noted yesterday, French is an unvarnished Trump-denouncer—but yesterday's column appears online beneath this headline:
The Trump Trial Is Disturbing on So Many Levels
I can’t remember when I’ve been more disturbed by a criminal trial than I have been by the Manhattan trial of Donald Trump. The prosecutors are painting a vivid picture of Trump as a vile and dishonest person, and the daily pilgrimages of Republican politicians to the Manhattan courthouse, in spite of horrific testimony against Trump, demonstrate that the party has a broken soul.
At the same time, the underlying legal theory supporting the prosecution’s case remains dubious. The facts may be clear, but the law is anything but—and that could very well mean that the jury convicts Trump before the election, an appeals court reverses the conviction after the election, and millions of Americans, many of them non-MAGA, face yet another crisis of confidence in American institutions.
For the record, French is a Harvard Law School grad. He pictures a guilty verdict being overturned on appeal—but only after the verdict has cost Candidate Trump his current shot at the White House.
French thinks the backwash to that (highly possible) turn of events would be very bad.
Then too, there was the lengthy column in Sunday's editions by columnist Ross Douthat. Douthat is unambiguously anti-Trump—but he too thinks the legal case against the candidate is strikingly shaky:
Why the Manhattan Trial Is Probably Helping Trump
[...]
Suppose you follow the trial more closely and really dig in to the legal arguments. In that case you understand that Trump is not being tried for trying to conceal the [alleged] affair [with Stormy Daniels], because no matter how much emphasis the prosecution lays on his personal shadiness, hush money payments are not in fact illegal. Instead, he’s being tried for a cover-up of the cover-up, a deception allegedly carried out inside his own accounting system.
You also understand that this alleged cover-up is itself only a misdemeanor that would not normally yield a felony prosecution. It’s been boosted to a felony charge only because the prosecution, using a specific provision of New York law, argues that it’s linked to the “intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.”
Then you further know that the prosecution has multiple candidates for its “another crime” that Trump allegedly intended to commit, forcing legal analysts to create flow charts to explain how the misdemeanor charge could be linked to other possible offenses. Maybe to a federal campaign-finance violation. Maybe to a form of tax fraud (a curious kind that somehow ended with an overpayment to the federal government). Or maybe to a conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
Finally, you know that according to the best legal analysis, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of these related crimes were actually committed.
I defer to those analysts on what New York state legal precedent suggests. But I would defy anyone to summarize the underlying situation, in which a presidential candidate could be sent to prison for a misdemeanor offense elevated by a second crime for which he isn’t even being charged, without the description coming across as somewhat Kafkaesque.
[Douthat's italics]
"Somewhat Kafkaesque," Douthat says. And after Douthat's column, the deluge—the subsequent column by French, with the subsequent endorsement of same by Stephens.
Douthat and French and Stephens oh my! These anti-Trumpists all seem to believe that something is badly wrong with the legal case against Trump.
That said, readers of the Times front page are allowed to drift along in a spotless state of mind, residing in a fantasyland where no such concerns prevail.
Yesterday morning, the Times' front page offered that utterly childish "Take My Wife, Please" tabloid entertainment. But at the top of that same front page, it was Protess and Bromwich all over again, with Haberman added this time.
Once again, they cited exactly one (1) legal authority in support of the tribally pleasing story they told. Here is that one citation:
"Marc F. Scholl, who served in the district attorney’s office for nearly four decades and worked on dozens of cases that included the false records charge, said prosecutors have checked all the legal boxes."
The boys cited no other legal observers. They cited Scholl and no one else. At the tippitty-top of the Times' front page, their happy headline said this:
As Trump Trial Nears Its End, the Law May Give Prosecutors an Edge
The law may give the prosecution an edge? Does that also mean it may not?
So such discouraging words invaded the spotless mind behind this front-page report. Front-page news consumers were told about the assessments of Scholl, and they were told about the assessments of exactly no one else.
In our view, the New York Times has become a tabloid-adjacent clown-car production as it has reported on the ongoing trial. We refer to the newspaper's front-page reporting—a body of work which seems to come to us from a realm where a wide array of legal concerns simply don't exist.
Meanwhile, in the opinion section, it's been Douthat and French and Stephens oh my! The legal case is dubious, disturbing—even a bit Kafkaesque.
Out on the front page, above the fold, it was Scholl all by himself.
This strikes us as a major clown show. Tomorrow, we'll continue with our basic questions:
With what felonies does Trump stand charged? Under what legal theory? Do the charges seem to make sense? Can anyone really explain them?
As far as we know, Trump has been a con man his whole life. That said, journalistic offenses at the Times stretch back more than three decades.
Then too, there's basic human capability. Our species is skilled at building tall building. As we'll start to see tomorrow, basic human capability drops sharply after that.
Tomorrow: Protess and Bromwich "explain"
I'd be surprised if there are any TDH readers who could afford to buy Clarence Thomas. Maybe if they pool their resources, they could buy him.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this issue the NYT's approach to covering the Trump trial may have consequences on the public's trust in media?
DeleteProbably true. The right doesn't read the NYT because it is not right wing enough. The left reads it (and is its main demographic) but is routinely infuriated by its attempts to lure right wing readers by featuring "Biden is too old" articles and heaps of nonsense by right wing editorial writers.
DeleteA never-Trumper is not a liberal.
Also, a liberal is not liberal.
DeleteWhen Thomas became a SC Justice he declared that his main motivating principle was to make the lives of liberals "miserable".
DeleteThomas was always un insufferable piece of shit. The fact that he's intellectually lazy is the icing on the cake.
DeleteThe NY Times has been a Right-wing rag for 50 years.
ReplyDeleteRemember, they spent 2016 pretending to care that Republicans were pretending to care about Hillary Clinton's email protocols.
Imagine reporting the news in the news section, and printing opinions on the opinion page. Diabolical.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"As far as we know, Trump has been a con man his whole life."
Perhaps, in a sense. Like every other businessman. But not nearly as much as any career politician. He hasn't spent his life sucking the government tit, cheating and lying, while enriching himself and his family.
What kind of businessman thinks their business expenses shouldn't be socialized?
DeleteAfter years of fighting through bankruptcy court, the Jenkins ended up with just 30 cents on the dollar. Their company was owed $231,000, according to the bankruptcy claim filed in the case. The Jenkins family received $70,000.
DeleteThe Jenkins family realized they weren’t alone. Dozens of contractors who had worked on the construction were also getting stiffed.
“It’s 27 years later. I grit my teeth every time I see him on television blustering about what a wonderful businessman he is,” Rosser says. “He stepped on a lot of people.”
CNN reached out to the Trump campaign about each of the business deals mentioned in this story. Those calls went unanswered.
___________
Just like every businessman that abuses the legal system to fuck his contractors, right maggot boy?
I imagine most of the contractors he stiffed are Republicans.
DeleteTDS is a serious mental illness, idiot-moonbat. Get better meds.
Delete10:33,
DeleteAgain, the best thing about Trump is his outright disdain for Republican voters. The media could learn a thing or two from him.
Note that in the testimony, Cohen explained his job for Trump as dealing with the contractors Trump wanted to stiff or negotiating down the amounts previously agreed to pay contractors. Cohen said he did that by threats of lawsuits and strongarm tactics (in so many words). Trump has bragged about this in his books. Excerpts were read at trial.
DeleteIs Cohen a bigger Democrat God now than Mueller used to be, back when he was Democrat God? Or about the same?
DeleteSomerby was the one who kept calling Mueller a God, and before that Comey (have you mixed that up?). Trump's defense tried really hard to discredit Cohen and only managed to make their case worse.
DeleteWhy does Somerby always throw cold water on Democratic hopes that Trump will be brought to justice? What kind of liberal does that?
The one who has become an Enemy of The People. Like Trotsky.
DeleteOr Bowles and Weiss. Or Maher or Greenwald or Taibbi. Shouldn't these people call themselves something else when they leave the tribe? Maybe the pink tribe, since they are lukewarm Trump supporters now.
DeleteA liberal who is focused on media accountability and the integrity of legal processes, rather than simply aligning with party expectations. (This type of liberal values critical analysis and fairness in reporting, regardless of the political implications.)
DeleteThey are not Trump supporters. It's just that hate you. Just like everyone else in the world.
DeleteSomerby is not a liberal. His focus on so-called media accountability is mainly to disparage the press in order to undermine trust in it, which supports the efforts of Trump to become a dictator. Somerby's so-called critiques are largely gotchas and trivial nit-picks that have nothing to do with actual critical thinking, much less fairness. His attacks on journalists are often mean-spirited and unfair.
DeleteWhat is fair about whining, as Somerby does today, that there has been no explanation of the charges when others here have proven that claim wrong by citing links to the previous articles where the NY Times has provided such explanations. That leaves Somerby calling for an explanation every day, or in every article, when even the biggest fanboy can see that would be an unreasonable demand.
That's why some of us believe that Somerby's actual purpose is to discredit the trial itself by suggesting that it is based on a faulty law and political prosecution. That would tend to undermine public faith in our legal system, implying that Biden is out to get Trump by meddling in NYC DA cases, a very partisan attack on Democrats. That behavior by Somerby has no resemblance to "media accountability" or critical thinking, and Somerby is way under-qualified to be assessing integrity of legal processes, except as knee-jerk defense of Trump.
I see your point about Somerby's approach. It's important to critically examine all viewpoints, including those that scrutinize the media. While you see his critiques as undermining trust in the press and supporting Trump, it's also possible to view his focus as an effort to ensure balanced and fair reporting, which is crucial for an informed public.
Deleteanon 12:52, no one here has "proven" "that claim" "wrong" - simply declaring it wrong doesn't prove that it is wrong. The claim that the current prosecution is built on a shaky foundation, and gives the appearance of being politically motivated. Lot's of lawyers, republican or ex-republican anti-trumpers, and democrats, have acknowledged. have pointed out the weakness of the legal case. TDH's main critique is that the NYT reporters quote only one lawyer who takes one side and ignores that there are many other legal analysts who take a different view. Readers of the reporters columns aren't exposed to the other view point. You are totally partisan, and don't have credibility.
DeleteSomerby's "skeptics" are a small sample size, and they all are Republicans; they claim to not like Trump but taking their word at face value is pure folly.
DeleteThe NY case is not complex and will likely result in a conviction, perhaps a hung jury if there is a Trumper on the jury, and then all these Somerby defenders/armchair lawyers/right wingers will have to cope.
It is interesting that these supposed Republicans that don't like Trump, never coherently explain why they find this case so distasteful; it seems like it is just an emotional response on their part. In reality this type of case is the "bread and butter" of the NY DA's office, routinely prosecuted.
There are literally thousands of legal scholars who feel the prosecution's case is strong.
DeleteBob is complaining not enough of them are being given space on the Opinion pages*, like a good media critic should.
*And is instead given to a bunch of Right-wing hacks.
The Biden Administration should force the Supreme Court's hand on Presidential immunity, and sentence the Republican Presidential nominee to death by firing squad.
ReplyDeleteYou are jumping the gun. That comes after Trump's trial on charges of showing classified documents to Russia and other US enemies, and his trial on organizing an insurrection to remain in power, and his trial on subverting the 2020 election with a slate of fake electors. As more info comes out, we make get charges against Trump for his collusion with Russia on other matters while president. Treason does comes with a death sentence as possible penalty.
DeleteIvan Boesky, John Koerner, Katherine Porter, and Bruce Nordstrom have died.
ReplyDeleteSuch a bummer that Boesky didn't die in prison.
DeleteHe paid a big fine.
DeleteHe was a fine specimen of criminality.
DeleteAt Boesky's own request, his name was removed from the Jewish Theological Seminary Library.
DeleteYou know it's a tough time for Jews, when even career criminals like Boesky don't want to be associated with them.
DeleteThanks Bibi.
Peace to them all.
Deletewho cares?
DeleteTruism:
ReplyDeleteIf Right-wingers weren't such losers, they wouldn't have to support fascism.
How do you pronounce Bromwich? I pronounce it Brummidge.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of 2008, when bankers crashed the world's economy through an epidemic of fraud, and then tried to blame it on black people for getting mortgages.
ReplyDeleteA news item from Kevin:
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/israel-defense-minister-ignore-biden-there-will-never-be-a-palestinian-state/
Please don't hijack this discussion by talking about Israel. There are other places to do that.
DeleteSuch as at Kevin Drum's blog comments.
DeleteBut Mr Soros assigned me to this blog, so I comment here.
DeleteYou better do what you're told, mister.
DeleteAnother anti-semitic reference to the Q-Anon conspiracy theories about a global world order run by Jews, with Soros as shorthand. Soros has nothing to do with anyone writing here, but your bigotry is noted, @11:35.
DeleteSorry Mr Soros, I didn't mean to post it. It'll never happen again, I swear. Please, please forgive me.
DeleteI think you may be misspelling Somerby's name. It goes S-O-M-E-R-B-Y, not S-O-R-O-S.
DeleteYes Sir, Mr Soros. Whatever you say.
DeleteYou forgot the heel click.
DeleteTrump could have cleared it all up, but he decided not to testify.
ReplyDeleteI would have loved to have seen him under oath answering the question, "Are Republican voters suckers?'"
DeleteThe only way he could have cleared it all up, was by confessing. That's why he has offered no defense.
Delete"With what felonies does Trump stand charged? Under what legal theory? Do the charges seem to make sense? Can anyone really explain them?"
ReplyDeleteSomerby asks these questions about the trial, not about journalism or the NY Times. The charges have been repeatedly explained by the press and there have been a variety of opinions expressed about their legal viability. Today is not the only day on which this explanation has occurred, although Somerby limits himself to discussing only today's paper.
When Somerby harps on the charges, he is supporting Trump and questioning the validity of charging him with any crimes. He is not musing on the media. He is trying to minimize the seriousness of what Trump did, as revealed by testimony reported each day in the NY Times.
Speculating about what may happen if Trump is convicted is irrelevant to the question of whether he did what he is accused of doing. Whether these charges stand after appeal is a question of law. Trump's actions shouldn't be tolerated in a presidential candidate under any circumstances. Does any reasonable person seriously think that a man who creates a catch-and-kill operation and plants false stories about opponents deserves to be elected president? I sure don't.
If Trump loses the election, how can anyone know whether it was because he was tried (even without being convicted), whether he behaved badly in some other respect, or simply doesn't appeal to enough people to be elected. Attributing it automatically to a conviction (should one occur) is wrong, since we cannot know what would have caused his defeat. It could be as simple as outrage over abortion rights and have nothing to do with his trial.
If Trump did the things presented in evidence, then he does not deserve to be president, no matter what happens on appeal. It is the duty of the NY Times to report on his trial because voters need to hear that news in order to make an informed decision at the polls. The opinions of pundits pro and con are irrelevant. What matters are the opinions of the voters, who will also talk to family and friends and mull over the evidence themselves.
Somerby's belief that if charges are controversial, they shouldn't have been made, is wrong. Hardly anything Trump does is non-controversial. The charges are necessary because of Trump's crimes and because the D.A. has a duty to the people who elected him. We will decide what should be done at the polls, as the result of Trump's behavior, thoroughly examined in court. The fact that Trump has offered no defense against the charges will affect my decision. Innocent people don't make a mockery of the proceedings as Trump has done. But Trump makes a mockery of whatever he touches, which is why he cannot be president again.
A good analysis by Erik Loomis, with a link to Harold Meyerson's "Is Reversing Biden's Working-Class Slump Even Possible?" --
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/05/the-decline-of-working-class-institutions
It is as if Somerby is saying that because a presidential candidate has not been tried on such crimes before, it shouldn't happen now, because there is no precedent for it. It is true that we've never had such a blatantly dishonest president before (not even Nixon), but why should that fact be used to give this crook a free pass?
ReplyDeleteAnother entry in the “Somerby seems to say” genre.
DeleteSomerby could clear up all of the confusion by writing more directly and plainly. He avoids committing himself, so readers must infer and speculate. Your speculations are different from mine, but that doesn't make yours right or mine wrong.
DeleteIf you disagree with @11:11's summary/paraphrase of what Somerby is hinting at, why not discuss the topic at hand.
Somerby did not say his stance is based on a lack of precedent. There's no reason to assume that is the case. And doing so may lead to a misinterpretation of his actual critique, which focuses on the quality of reporting and the strength of the legal case.
DeleteThere's no need to speculate. Somerby is criticizing the Times for creating a misleading narrative that glosses over significant legal doubts and concerns, suggesting that the newspaper's coverage resembles tabloid journalism.
DeleteSomerby tends to attribute individual articles to the paper as a whole and then suggest that it characterizes their entire coverage. There have been several discussions of the doubts as well as opinions saying the verdict should be a slam dunk. Just not all appearing on the same day.
DeleteSomerby also has a tendency to confuse editorials with reporting. Today he discusses opinions expressed in editorials but he critiques them as if they were news reports, which they are not.
We all learned by watching the trial that tabloid journalism consists of made-up stories about Hillary's alien baby, while omitting true celebrity gossip that the celebrities have paid to suppress. None of that is remotely similar to what the NY Times does. Part of the confusion arises because Somerby considers articles about food, relationships, books and fashion to be tabloid fodder, even though such topics have ALWAYS been part of newspaper content. So I don't take Somerby's complaints very seriously. Where was he during the Johnny Depp v April Heard trial? Not a peep. His selectivity about what he chooses to complain about is suspiciously skewed in favor of Trump and against Democrats like Biden (or previously, Hillary).
Somerby should stick to trying to smear the NY Times, since he has no idea how our criminal justice system works.
DeleteIt doesn't seem that Somerby confused editorials with news coverage. He used the opinions in the editorials to support his argument that there are significant doubts about the legal case against Trump, and he critiqued the news coverage for failing to adequately address these doubts.
DeleteBut he is demanding that coverage of all things appear in every day's issue.
DeleteA reporter would not address such doubts unless they were reporting factually on what some expert of prominent figure had said on that topic. Reporters don't express their own opinions and they are not legal experts.
Somerby used the "opinions" of Douthat, Stephens, and French to support his argument that there are significant doubts about the legal case against Trump.
DeleteI assume QAnon and Newt Gingrich have some doubts about the legal case against Trump, too, that Somerby will earnestly pretend to believe before this is over.
It's a fair point about opinion selection. But Douthat, Stephens, and French are respected commentators who have consistently critiqued Trump which adds weight to their concerns. Comparing them to QAnon or Newt Gingrich is a little unfair. Somerby uses these commentators to show that even some Trump critics see flaws in the case, which he believes should be addressed more thoroughly by the NYT.
DeleteDouthat, Stephens, and French are not respected commentators, outside of Republicans; they are toeing the line, their performative criticisms of Trump are weak and only meant to give coverage for their defense of the massive inequality in our society.
DeleteSomerby blames Dems for phantom performative behavior, never provides any coherent evidence for his claims, and then pointedly ignores obvious performative behavior on the right.
1;05,
DeletePoint me to Douthat, Stephens and French calling for Trump to be charged with insurrection for January 6th.
That's the one of their consistent critiques, yes?
A real media critic would call out the media for writing that Trump posted a meme on his social media site which they wrote "appeared to mirror Nazi Germany", when the meme actually "mirrored Nazi Germany."
DeleteMedia critic my ass.
I can't provide specific instances of Douthat, Stephens, and French calling for Trump to be charged with insurrection for January 6th.
DeleteThe point Somerby seems to be making is that even these consistent critics of Trump see flaws in the legal case being presented against him. And that this underscores his argument that the New York Times should address these doubts more thoroughly in their coverage. He sees the tabloid nature of the current coverage having potential long-term consequences on public trust in journalism.
The fact that these three people have page space to write their drivel has already provided questions of public trust in journalism.
DeleteAlso, printing Tom Cotton's editorial calling for the military to arrest people who exercise their First Amendment Rights didn't help either.
All of the things Trump has been charged with are illegal. The question is whether they are felonies or misdemeanors. The things Trump has been accused of doing in his campaign are also illegal, even though they are not included in the charges for these state-level crimes. Cohen has already been convicted of some of the same crimes as Trump committed (among possible other crimes). Why then does Somerby find all of this so controversial that Trump should not be held to account for them?
ReplyDeleteIf you were to find out that Trump has 34 outstanding parking tickets in NYC that he is refusing to pay, would you vote for Trump as president? I would consider that evidence of being a scofflaw and consider it a bad sign, and there would be nothing innovative or controversial about those charges against him. I think routinely falsifying business records (as he was found liable for doing in his business fraud trial too) is sufficient to make him someone I would not vote for to be president. He has shown he has no respect for the laws of our country in hundreds of ways, so this trial is merely one instance, regardless of what happens on appeal.
"If you were to find out that Trump has 34 outstanding parking tickets in NYC that he is refusing to pay, would you vote for Trump as president?"
DeleteIt would depend why he was refusing to pay for them, but my general answer would be yes. Unpaid parking tickets are trivial enough that I wouldn't let it affect my vote.
"It would depend why he was refusing to pay for them..."
DeleteLaws are for little people.
Are you still a "yes".
I mourn the death of the old NY Times that I grew up with. It has the same name, but it’s a different institution. Ditto the Democratic Party.
ReplyDeleteIt might be interesting for you to look up some issues of the NY Times from the 1950s and see what it was like then. Or read what it was writing during Watergate. Memory has a way of tinting the past in rose colors that didn't exist back in the day.
DeleteMy father was a member of the California Democratic Council and a delegate at the time when Adlai Stevenson was being challenged by JFK. California delegates to the nominating convention were pledged to Stevenson but took it upon themselves to switch to JFK in the groundswell for him. My father was bitterly disappointed by this, feeling that the delegates should have honored their pledge to Stevenson.
DeleteWatching this, I realized while very young that politics is complex and that there are perfidies and alliances beyond the will of the voters, manipulation and shenanigans. I saw the way Nixon attacked his opponent Helen Gahagan Brown by calling her a communist. So it wasn't just Democrats engaging in shady operations. I saw anti-Catholic propaganda aimed at JFK and some very funny but also ugly pamphlets anti-Nixon. But you had to be involved in the rough-and-tumble to see what was going on at the party levels and behind the scenes. So I believe it is very hard to go back and say that the parties in the past were better or more pure than now. But the Democrats have never been anything like the current Republicans, and none of us would ever have expected The John Birch Society to become the Republican party. So complaining about the changes among Democrats seems a bit ridiculous to me.
DIC is mourning the diminishment of White supremacy, the loss of his and his cohort's ability to oppress others for personal gain. Boo hoo
DeleteTrump's contemptuous behavior during this trial is a sample of who he is under pressure. He has shown himself to be someone with no respect for the law and that makes him unsuitable to be president. His daily stunts with Republican Congress members, his sleeping during testimony, his violations of the gag order to demean others, his urging of his defense lawyers to engage in aggressive behavior aimed at the judge and witnesses, and his inappropriate rolling his eyes and expletives in the hearing of the judge and jury, all demonstrate his inability to participate in serious proceedings in an appropriate manner. Imagine him doing this with other world leaders or at the upcoming debates! He is not fit to hold a job that requires respect for others and for our institutions. We all saw that during this trial, for which I am grateful regardless of the outcome. The more people see what he is really like, the less likely he will be foisted upon us again by a Republican party that cares only about enriching itself and the billionaires who fund right wing campaigns.
ReplyDeleteI hope you’re right, but I wonder. There’s no way we’d hire Trump to be even the principal of a grammar school, what with his proven fraud and sexual harassment. But president? He seems to be leading right now. Many, perhaps a majority, do not see things the same way we do.
DeletePerhaps if we call them morons they’ll see the light.
Isn't it kind of moronic to elect such a person president? Are you suggesting we not tell the truth but pretend it is perfectly normal to elect someone with proven fraud and sexual abuse (not harrassment) as president?
DeleteThere are worse things to call such people than moron. Some Trump supporters are neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Many are bigots of one type or another. Some, including Somerby, are nativists who are anti-immigrant. Many are self-absorbed opportunists who hope to get rich off his promises of prosperity. Others are also criminals. I find it odd that you do not recognize the considerable restraint being exercised when folks here merely call these MAGA assholes "morons".
That sounds unfortunate. However, there's one thing redeeming them of all transgressions: none of them are liberals. How bad could they be?
DeleteWhy would we call bigots "morons"?
DeleteTrump's character is abominable and an important issue. However, Somerby's critique is focused on the New York Times' coverage and the validity of the legal case.
DeleteThe only way Trump's character looks less than abominable, is if you focus on Somerby's lack of character. What kind of ass pretends to be confused about a court case that has been explained to him everyday for a month?
DeleteIt seems like there might be a misunderstanding here. Somer's critique isn't necessarily about confusion over the court case itself, but rather about how the New York Times has been presenting the information. His focus is on the quality and bias of the reporting, as well as the strength and validity of the legal arguments being made.
DeleteIf this is really what Somerby is trying to do, he needs to be less lazy about presenting examples to support his complaints. He has not convincingly shown the lack of quality or presence of bias he keeps complaining about.
DeleteLet's not misunderstand things. Bob is feigning confusion about the validity of the charges against Trump. They've already been explained to him in detail for the past month.
DeleteLet's not pretend that has anything to do with the NY Times opinion pages vs. their news reporting.
This is a good point. Detailed evidence would help substantiate his claims and foster a more informed discussion about the media and its coverage of the Trump trial.
Delete"according to the best legal analysis, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of these related crimes were actually committed."
DeleteQ1: is this statement true?
Q2: if true, does this trial make any sense?
A1: No.
DeleteA2: The question is moot.
I appreciate your brevity. However, an article in Lawfare asserts, somewhat confusingly:
Delete"As New York courts have interpreted the statute, prosecutors don’t need to prove a FECA (Federal Election Campaign Act) violation beyond a reasonable doubt—only the intent to commit or cover up a violation—"
This formulation raises the question of how a person can be convicted of intending to cover up a 'violation' without it being established that there was a violation to cover up.
So all those people arrested in sting operations because they went to meet a 10-year old can't be charged, because there was no 10-year old?
DeleteThat IS confusing.
It is true based on established interpretations of New York Penal Law § 175.10.
DeleteIt's very complicated but if a company falsifies its financial statements to conceal fraud, the act of falsification can be prosecuted even if the full extent of the fraud is not established just like if someone is caught trying to break into a house with burglary tools, they can be charged with attempted burglary even if they did not actually enter the house or steal anything.
But proving intent will be very difficult for many reasons (relying on a witness with credibility issues, presenting complex and novel legal theories, connecting state and federal laws, etc.)
(These difficulties are the very factors that suggest the prosecution may be driven by political considerations rather than solely legal merits. But it is the job of Bragg and his team to overcome them.)
Delete4:09.
DeleteThere may not have been a 10-year old, but there were hush money payments and business records. The question is were they legal.
It's a political show trial, and everyone knows it. There's no point discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Delete4:35,
DeleteExcellent point, and I'll try my own analogy as a thought exercise: Joe Biden, 8 years after the fact, is indicted by a Dallas D.A. for covering up his failure to pay parking tickets, a misdemeanor which bumps up to a felony because he hid it from the voters.
Joe Biden, eight years after serving as Vice President and potential future presidential candidate, is indicted by the Dallas DA. The charges are that, as Vice President, he falsified federal travel expense records to conceal unpaid traffic fines incurred during official trips.
DeleteThese falsifications were allegedly made to prevent these fines from becoming public knowledge, thus protecting his political image and electoral prospects. It is prosecuted as a felony because the intent to deceive the public about the fines is seen as an attempt to influence electoral outcomes.
Your improvements on my analogy are masterful. Up until the last sentence.
DeleteSurely not every political deception that can be 'seen as an attempt to influence electoral outcomes' can also be seen as illegal.
Let's enrich the analogy: another motive Biden had for preventing the fines from becoming public was that his wife goes berserk whenever he fails to pay a parking fine (but she cares nothing about falsified travel expenses).
Under FEC rules, if Biden would have done the falsification in the absence of a campaign, then it would be a personal, not a campaign expense, and hence not a campaign violation.
Hiding embarrassing information in order to try to win an election is a felony? Huh?
DeleteHiding information isn’t a felony. Falsifying business records to hide the information might be a felony.
DeleteDavid: The felony charge arises not from the act of hiding information, but from the deceptive practices used to influence the election and the criminal intent behind those actions. Under the logic used in Bragg's case, hiding embarrassing information to try to win an election can be a felony if it involves falsifying records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime, such as campaign finance regulations.
DeleteHector: Another motive, such as you mention, complicates the prosecution’s case. To make it a felony, they must convince the jurors the intent to influence the election was a significant factor.
Clearly, Bragg is using a novel and untested legal theory that hinges on his ability to demonstrate criminal intent. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.
Delete"To make it a felony, they must convince the jurors the intent to influence the election was a significant factor."
DeleteOur David already defended Trump for doing exactly this at 7:29.
From yesterday
ReplyDeleteUnamused criticized my comment for what s/he said it "exemplified." Think about the logic. I said A. Unamused replied that saying A also means B. Unamused went on to refute B. My liberal wife sometimes does the same thing. I say A. She says that must mean that I agree with B, and B is wrong.
If we ignore the specific issue, it's obvious that believing one statement doesn't' necessarily imply believing some other statement. There are any number of directions one's beliefs might take. However, when one is emotional about a particular issue, it's easy to slip into black-white reasoning. "You're with us or you're against us." "You disagree on some aspect of our belief, so you're an infidel."
Just because someone criticizes the Left, doesn't mean that they approve of the Right's bigotry and white supremacy fetish.
DeleteThe classic straw man argument:
DeleteYou said A.
The critic (Unamused) interpreted your statement A to also mean B.
The critic then refuted B instead of addressing your original statement A.
Misrepresenting another person's argument to make it easier to attack or refute.
Logic is a tool of white supremacy.
DeleteLogic is racist. I forgot.
DeleteAnd a fascist pseudoscience.
DeleteAwesome.
DeleteJust because someone criticizes the Left, doesn't mean that they approve of the Right's bigotry and white supremacy fetish.
DeleteDiC does.
Don't let one rotten piece of logic spoil the bunch.
Delete1:08,
DeleteObviously, all Republican voters approve of the Right's bigotry and white supremacy fetish, but there are critics of the Left that aren't Republican voters.
If we ignore the specific issue,...
DeleteFuck you, DiC, why would we want to do that? You are a fucking liar and have no credibility here. Just the other day you came here and boldly declared "democrats" were using to law to attack republican lawmakers, and you used Senator Ted Stevens as your example. You confidently claimed Stevens was innocent of the charges.
When someone posted the facts of the matter you disappeared. You're a fucking lying asshole.
From Robert Reich:
ReplyDelete"Speaking to the National Rifle Association last Saturday, Trump questioned whether he might be a three-term president if victorious this November. “You know, FDR 16 years, almost 16 years, he was four-term,” he stated, adding, “Are we three-term or two-term if we win?”
Someone could be heard shouting “three” as he continued to speak.
Was Trump joking, or was he seriously contemplating two more terms if elected, in violation of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution? Or was he doing something else — giving his middle finger to the liberal establishment (who became appropriately alarmed by his suggestion of a third term)?
We all know about virtue signaling — performative sanctimony designed to tell the world how humane, thoughtful, fair, inclusive, and, well, liberal one is. Anyone recall Tom Wolfe’s hilarious sendup of Leonard Bernstein’s party for the Black Panthers at his duplex apartment on Park Avenue?
Now, in the age of Trump, the right is vice signaling — intending to outrage Democrats, progressives, and the liberal establishment. It’s a giant “fu*k you” directed at all of us."
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/giving-liberals-the-finger
By reducing Democrats and Republicans to blue and red tribes, to Us and The Other (do you recognize Somerby's terminology here?) the entire campaign is turned into a cage match and not a decision-making process for choosing whose policies and ideas would most benefit the country.
Somerby has been using language and pointing out the us/them nature of our politics for years now, going back to 2015. He says he is analyzing the partisan gap, but more often he has widened it by endlessly criticizing the left because the right dislikes us. I think that sharpens our divide, because we feel unjustly accused and misunderstood by his complaints, while the right's idiocies pile up, building an insurmountable wall. That clearly exemplifies the tactics Reich describes, because that is what Somerby does here. His fanboys see his essays as liberal owning, while those of us on the left feel he has gone over to the other side.
Perhaps Somerby's racist and sexist and anti-immigrant stances are his own vice-signalling (the fanboys pick up on that signal) instead of his own opinions. He does seem to be thumbing his nose at the issues liberals care about. Today he is attacking the rule of law and the idea that no one is above the law. It is hard to see his attacks on liberal values as anything else.
22nd Amendment is a fascist tool of white supremacy.
Delete"Somerby's racist and sexist and anti-immigrant stances"
DeleteYes, let's drop more R and S bombs, we haven't done that enough in the past. If we drop even more, we just might win, because they are so persuasive!
Trump is a master persuader. He's sometimes criticized by people who don't appreciate what he's doing.
DeleteOf course, Trump was joking about serving three terms. But, his joke had a purpose. It was useful to help spread his message.
First of all, it got more publicity. E.g., Reich only mentioned Trump's speech because of the three terms joke.
Second, it drove home Trump's argument that the country would be better off with his policies than with Biden's.
Trump has convinced most of America that he wants to fuck his own daughter.
DeleteI don't often agree with David in Cal, but he nails it here.
DeleteYou'd have to be a fucking moron to believe a word Trump says.
"Of course, Trump was joking about serving three terms."
DeleteWhy do you say "Of course"? Trump has made a career of breaking norms and laws. Some of us are concerned, and I think legitimately so, that he wasn't kidding all that much, and that our next election may be our last. After all, he incited a mob to take over the Capitol and tried to get Pence to shut down the electoral count. He is capable of anything.
What was Trump trying to convince anyone of when, at that speech, he froze for over 30 seconds, worse than McConnell's?
DeleteWas he giving time for everyone to fact check that he lied about the attendance size of his NJ rally by a factor of ten, but was unquestioningly put to print by the AP - an egregiously bad case of poor journalism that Somerby completely ignored?
David in Cal hasn't the capability to understand humor. Like most of the Right, he thinks Rush Limbaugh punching down on the most vulnerable citizens in society is hilarious.
Delete@1:33 - Hyperbole is a form of humor. Perhaps it's more popular in NYC, where Trump and I are from. E.g., when he said, "I could shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters."
DeleteOr, when he said, "And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything....Grab them by the pussy.".
Trump's opponents sometimes make his hyperbole even more effective. When Trump exaggerates like this, opponents may pretend that he's being literal. They harshly criticize the "false" statement. Or, maybe they.re so consumed with TDS that they really think he's being literal. Either way, they spread his boast in order to paint him as a liar.
However, most people aren't put off by Trump's exaggeration. They understand the humor. Thus, e.g., when critics complain that Trump exaggerated the number of people at some event, what most people remember is that he got a lot of people at that event.
Trump’s third term will be hilarious.
DeleteNice swing and miss, David.
DeleteNo one on the Left believed Trump was being literal when he exaggerated that he won the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.
The suckers were Republican Congresspeople who thought Trump was being literal.
I do, however, agree that most likely those Republican Congresspeople are suffering from a terrible derangement.
Trump's 2nd term, if it happens, will be good for some Trump enemies. Liberal non-profit organizations will get bigger donations to fight Trump's evil. Liberal media will get more viewers to learn about Trump's latest misbehavior. Will these organizations selfishly help Trump get elected?
DeleteWhen Trump said he won the Presidency in 2020, he was exaggerating. Most people get his sense of humor, and when his critics complain, what most people remember is he and his kids voted for him.
DeleteHow bad must Samuel Alito's case of TDH be, if he bought Trump's humorous exaggeration that Presidents have criminal immunity?
DeleteI assume most Americans are hoping Alito's TDS is fatal.
The three-term joke isn’t a threat to violate the twenty-second amendment. It’s a claim that the current term, Joe Biden’s term, should be Trump’s second term.
Delete8:47,
DeletePlease don't take Trump's exaggerations literally., unless you are suffering from TDS.
"Yes, let's drop more R and S bombs, we haven't done that enough in the past. If we drop even more, we just might win, because they are so persuasive!"
DeleteNice sarcasm . Everyone knows facts don't work on people making arguments in bad faith.
I took Bob's advice and listened to "the Others". Once I reported back what they said, he stopped pushing that idea.
They are who we thought they were.
Where’s Cecelia? I miss her.
ReplyDeleteMany of the comments here appear to focus on peripheral or tangential issues rather than engaging directly with the core of Somerby's critique. For example, discussions about whether certain commentators have called for specific charges like insurrection for January 6th or the character of Trump divert attention from the critique about the quality of the New York Times' coverage. Several comments misinterpret Somerby's argument by assuming he is conflating editorials with news reporting or demanding unrealistic levels of daily coverage. Some comments resort to ad hominem attacks or straw man arguments, questioning Somerby's political alignment or suggesting that his critiques are trivial nit-picks. The essence of Somerby's critique is about holding the media accountable for balanced and thorough reporting. Many comments overlook this aspect, focusing instead on defending the NYT or diverting the conversation to unrelated issues. The broader implications of Somerby's critique on public trust in media are often ignored in these comments. This potential erosion of trust in journalism is a significant concern that deserves attention. Engaging directly with Somerby's critiques would lead to a more meaningful dialogue.
ReplyDeleteZzzzzzzz….
Delete2:17,
DeleteIf that's what Somerby is trying to, let's get to it.
We've waited long enough for Somerby to finally make his case.