OFFENSES: We go in search of "the other crime!"

FRIDAY, MAY 24, 2024

Kevin Drum sees The Third Man: In all honesty, we aren't envious—but we probably should be!

Last Saturday, on his now-concluded trip to Vienna, Kevin Drum "caught a screening" of The Third Man "at the Burg Kino," where it shows several times a week. He reports the event in this post.

The Third Man is widely considered to be one of the truly great films. In line with our recent flight in search of cultural and intellectual sanity, we'll include part of the overview offered by the world's leading authority:

The Third Man 

The Third Man is a 1949 film noir directed by Carol Reed, written by Graham Greene, and starring Joseph Cotten, Alida Valli, Orson Welles and Trevor Howard, set in post-war Vienna. The film centers on American Holly Martins (Cotten) who arrives in the city to accept a job with his friend Harry Lime (Welles), only to learn that Lime has died. Martins decides to stay in Vienna and investigate his death.

[...]

The Third Man is considered one of the greatest films of all time, celebrated for its acting, musical score, and atmospheric cinematography.

In 1999, the British Film Institute voted The Third Man the greatest British film of all time. In 2011, a poll for Time Out ranked it the second-best British film ever.

With respect to Martins, we pity the fool! We pity the fool who decides to "stay and investigate" any event, or any discussion, involving the work of us humans!

We haven't watched The Third Man in at least the past several years. The last time we did, we focused on the fascinating, war-weary character played by Valli, who was, with apologies, once widely described as "the most beautiful woman in the world," apparently including by Mussolini himself.

There's actually no such person, of course. But given the way we humans are, from Helen right up to the present day, it seems that we never stop looking. 

That brings us back to the current question concerning Donald J. Trump. We refer to the claim that he engaged in consensual intercourse, on one occasion in 2006, with a major "porn star."

In the film, the Martins character becomes entangled in a search for the truth about the death of his friend. The authority thumbnails what happens:

Plot

Holly Martins, an American author of western fiction, arrives in post-World War II Vienna seeking his childhood friend, Harry Lime, who has offered him a job. However, Martins is told that Lime has been killed by a car while crossing the street. 

At Lime's funeral, Martins meets two British Royal Military Police: Sergeant Paine, a fan of Martins' books, and Major Calloway. Afterward, Martins is asked by Mr. Crabbin to lecture at a book club a few days later. He then meets a friend of Lime's, "Baron" Kurtz, who tells Martins that he and another friend, Popescu, carried Lime to the side of the street after the accident, and that, before he died, Lime asked them to take care of Martins and Lime's girlfriend, actress Anna Schmidt.

As Martins and Anna query Lime's death, they realize that accounts differ as to whether Lime was able to speak before his death, and whether two men carried away the body, or three...

Did two men carry Lime away, or was a third man involved? As Martins and Anna begin their search for the third man, "They realize that accounts differ!"  

The complications and confusions continue on from there. So it goes if a person attempts to answer this amazingly basic present-day question:

With what specific (felonious) offense does Donald J. Trump stand charged? 

With what offense does Trump stand charged? Given the way our bifurcated culture now works, citizens of Red America hear one set of assertions and claims about the ongoing criminal trial. 

Citizens of Blue America hear a completely different set of representations. Under current arrangements, tribunes of the two Americas virtually never meet. 

Citizens of Red Americas never see their tribunes' claims challenged, critiqued or questioned. Over here in Blue America, we're living in a separate but equal bubble. 

Can a large modern nation really function this way? We'd suggest that the answer is no.

Yesterday, shortly before heading for home, Kevin offered a brief post concerning our current search. One part of his post is a bit misleading, but nothing he says is "wrong."

We completely agree with some of what he says. Headline included, this is the body of his post:

What is Donald Trump’s “other crime”?

Bob Somerby summarizes the hush money case against Donald Trump this way:

To convict Donald Trump of a felony, the jury must find that he falsified business records (or directed that they be falsified) with “the intent to commit another crime.”

But what is that "other crime"? Bob is unhappy that our press corps remains fuzzy on this topic, but it's not really their fault. The fault lies with the prosecution team, which has itself been fuzzy on the topic. 

Presumably, they'll have to finally sharpen up their case when they make their closing arguments to the jury next week. But until they do, the rest of us can only make educated guesses.

Full disclosure! The (italicized) blockquote isn't our summary of the hush money case. As we noted in the report to which Kevin links, that was Jonathan Alter's summary of the matter, offered in a brief report for the New York Times.

As we noted, there were some shortcomings in that account. But that was Jonathan's (essentially reasonable) account, not ours.

As he continues, Kevin seems to agree with our general view in one key respect. He says the press corps has been fuzzy with regard to Trump's (alleged) "other crime." But he says it isn't really the press corps' fault. 

He says the principal fault lies with the prosecution team, which has itself been fuzzy about the identity of the "other crime."

We agree with that, up to a point. Here's where we would differ:

First, our journalists don't have to be "fuzzy" just because the prosecution has been. If the prosecution has been fuzzy with respect to the charges lodged against Trump, the press corps should clearly report and clearly describe that peculiar state of affairs.

The press corps should directly say that the prosecution has been fuzzy about this amazingly basic matter. In our view, the press corps should also examine the possibility that this constitutes a major problem with the prosecution's performance.

Strange! The jury is about to receive the case, and the prosecution is still "fuzzy" concerning the crucial "other crime" with which the defendant stands charged?  

On its face, that strikes us as a very strange state of affairs. There may be something we don't understand, but we've seen no one attempt to puzzle it out.

Kevin says the prosecution will have to "finally sharpen up their case when they make their closing arguments to the jury." We'll assume that he's right about that.

But doesn't it seem a little bit strange to think that someone can be charged with a serious crime—with a serious crime whose identity remains unclear until the prosecution makes its closing argument? 

On its face, doesn't that sound a little bit strange—a little bit Alice in Wonderland?

Full disclosure! This failure to define "the other crime" lies at the heart of a complaint which is constantly made by legal analysts for Red America's news orgs. Under current arrangements, legal analysts in Blue America remain free to ignore these complaints.

Red America's voters are constantly told that this is a very strange state of affairs. Blue America's voters rarely hear anything about it. 

Kevin describes a situation which seems quite strange to us. In a footnote, he offers this idea about what the prosecution will end up saying:

My guess is that they'll say the records were falsified in order to cover up the fact that the hush money was effectively an unreported campaign contribution. But that didn't convince a jury in the John Edwards case, so maybe they'll end up emphasizing something else.

That certainly could be right. (Our own impression is that the prosecution will allege a different "other crime.") 

That said, it seems to us that our mainstream news orgs have done a very poor job illuminating the "fuzziness" in this peculiar state of affairs, as well as in several others. Our best assessment would be this:

Human limitations being what they are, this matter is simply too complex—too complicated; too convoluted—for our journalists to untangle. Our biggest orgs haven't been able to do it. We pity the fool who tries to fight his way through their various attempts.

Back to Holly Martins! At this site, we've been trying to find "the other crime." Back in post-war Vienna, Holly Martins was trying to find "the third man."

Martins ends up on a Ferris wheel, discussing the situation with his old friend—with the man who was supposed to have died. 

Later, they end up chasing each other through Vienna's sewers. Given the confusions of post-war Europe, the situation was simply too convoluted, too complicated, for us limited humans to be able to straighten out.

So too with the ongoing trial in Gotham? As you can see in some of the comments to Kevin's post, some people in Blue America are rooting hard for a guilty verdict, confusion and fuzz be damned.

This is the way human warfare tends to end up. Meanwhile, as we Blues root for Trump to get locked up, it seems that he may be edging further ahead in various swing state polls.

President Biden may end up winning again in November. If Trump is found guilty next week, he will of course appeal. 

Red America's analysts say this trial is full of reversible error. On Deadline: White House, such claims go unaddressed as "some of our favorite reporters and friends" take turns fluffing each other. 

They do so day after day after day, week after week after week. To us, it seems like a cosmic waste of their knowledge and their time.

We live in a highly tribalized time. It seems to us that such situations rarely turn out well. 

That said, calls to lock the other guy up can feel extremely good. Until such time as we all end up on that Ferris wheel.