OFFENSES: We pity the fool who tries to get clear...

THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2024

...on the offense with which Trump stands charged: We've found ourselves thinking about Mr. T as we've continued to read about Donald J. Trump's Gotham trial.

"I pity the fool," Mr. T once said. In fact, he has said it quite a few times:

Mr. T

Mr. T (born Laurence Tureaud; May 21, 1952) is an American actor. He is known for his roles as B. A. Baracus in the 1980s television series The A-Team and as boxer Clubber Lang in the 1982 film Rocky III. 

He is also known for his distinctive hairstyle inspired by Mandinka warriors in West Africa, his copious gold jewelry, his tough-guy persona and his catchphrase "I pity the fool!", first uttered as Clubber Lang in Rocky III, then turned into a trademark used in slogans or titles...

He said it first in Rocky III! 

We ourselves have never seen Rocky III, but we've been thinking about Mr. T's trademark catchphrase as we've continued to read about Trump's alleged offenses, whatever they may turn to (allegedly) be.

With what criminal offense or offenses does Donald J. Trump stand charged? We pity the fool who turns to the mainstream press corps in an attempt to find out! 

More specifically, we pity the fool who tries to find a coherent description of the felonies with which the defendant stands charged. On cable TV, they discuss the topic all day and all night. But has anyone made that point clear?

With what criminal offenses does Trump stand charged? In this recent brief post at the New York Times, Jonathan Alter—like many others—got us partway there:

On Monday, we finally got closer to a key factor in this case: campaign finance law. 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.” Trump need not be found guilty of any of those other crimes—in this case, it could be tax fraud, intervening in an election or violating campaign finance laws—in order to convict him. But he needs to have crime in mind in at least one of those areas.

Alter is a good, decent person. He's also a highly experienced, thoroughly competent journalist. 

That said, many journalists have explained the part of the criminal charge against Donald J. Trump which we've placed in bold type. In Alter's shorthand rendering, it goes exactly like this:

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.” 

In his brief post, Alter doesn't say who he's quoting when he offers that brief quotation. That said, journalists have largely agreed on this general formulation, which we assume is basically accurate:

In charging Trump with 34 felonies, prosecutors are alleging [1] that he falsified business records [2] with the intent to commit [or perhaps to conceal] some additional crime.

So far, so pretty much clear! But what is the "additional crime" the defendant is charged with attempting to commit or conceal? Just what is the additional crime on the basis of which the defendant stands charged with almost three dozen felonies?

It's at this point that we start to pity the fool! We pity the fool who believes that question can be answered within our broken and highly incompetent American public discourse.

For today, let's follow the sage advice of the late Langston Hughe. For today, with a holiday weekend approaching, let's agree to keep it simple. 

At this point, a brief aside:

Long ago and far away, Hughes created a long-forgotten character, Jesse B. Semple. To this very day, Macmillan Publishers offers this overview of the highly meritorious labor Hughes performed in this field:

The Best of Simple

Stories
Author: Langston Hughes

Langston Hughes's stories about Jesse B. Semple—first composed for a weekly column in the Chicago Defender and then collected in Simple Speaks His Mind, Simple Takes a Wife, and Simple Stakes a Claim—have been read and loved by hundreds of thousands of readers. In The Best of Simple, the author picked his favorites from these earlier volumes, stories that not only have proved popular but are now part of a great and growing literary tradition.

In an earlier, profoundly challenging time, Hughes was trying to keep it simple. ("Simplify, simplify," Thoreau once implored, though he was speaking about something different in a quite different context.)

For the record, we offer these brief asides because the poverty of our national discourse (Plato: "The wickedness of the times") makes it essential to take flight, if only on the brief occasion, in search of a richer realm.

Keeping it simple for today, let's think about what Alter has said—accurately, we feel fairly sure—in the passage we've posted:

According to Alter, Trump stands charged with falsifying business records, or with causing such records to be falsified. That said, he also stands charged with this:

The defendant also stands charged with trying to commit or conceal some additional crime. It's at this point that we start to pity the fool.

Please note what Alter has said. We think he's said those things accurately: 

For starters, he says that Trump doesn't have to be convicted of committing some additional / other crime. He says it merely has to be shown that Trump "had [some additional crime] in mind."

(That may not be as strange as it may seem at first blush. In a partial analogy, if a person attempts to rob a bank, he can of course be charged with a crime even if he doesn't succeed in his attempt.)

According to Alter, it doesn't have to be shown that the Trump committed some additional crime. That said, also this:

Alter lists three (3) possible crimes which could qualify as the additional crime. "In this case, it could be tax fraud, intervening in an election or violating campaign finance laws," we're told.

(Question: In what way would "intervening in an election" qualify as a crime? Like many others, Alter fails to explain that highly significant point in his brief account.)

At any rate, Alter lists three possible crimes which could qualify as the additional crime. Has Trump been charged with seeking to commit all three—rather, with having all three "in mind?" 

We'd have to say that that's a second place where Alter's (brief) account may seem a bit unclear.

By now, you'd think that everyone in the world would know exactly what Trump has been charged with. By now, you'd think that basic point would be transplendently clear.

Alter's (brief) formulation may leave an area of confusion or doubt. Once again, here's what he wrote:

Trump need not be found guilty of any of those other crimes—in this case, it could be tax fraud, intervening in an election or violating campaign finance laws—in order to convict him. But he needs to have crime in mind in at least one of those areas.

Is Trump charged with having all three crimes in mind? If the jury finds that he had just one of those crimes in mind, does that mean, under the law, that he has committed a felony?

At this point, we pity the fool who thinks he can find such questions answered within our journalistic discourse. On cable, they chatter about this topic all day and all night, but some things remain wholly unclear.

Alas! Our journalism has been a comical mess for more than three decades now. That said, what happens in the mainstream press corps very much stays in the mainstream press corps, so it's very hard to find anyone actively noting such facts.

The defendant's trial is nearing its end. The jury will be at the beach this weekend. but they will likely reach a verdict next week.

By now, you'd think that everyone would be able to describe the 34 felonious offenses with which Trump stands charged. That said, we pity the fool who turns to the mainstream press in hopes of some such explanation. 

There are criminal offenses within our culture, but there are the occasional journalistic offenses too. On cable, they talk about this topic all day—but have you ever seen the most obvious questions answered concerning the nature of the offense with which the defendant stands charged?

For today, we're going to try to keep it simple:

Most simply put, we humans are good at building tall buildings (and the like), less skilled at everything else.

Tomorrow: In Blue America, the Post and the Times attempt to explain. 

In Red America, what millions of voters are persistently told, possibly somewhat correctly.