Yesterday, Stephanie Clifford (who works as ‘Stormy Daniels’) took the stand in the Manhattan election fraud trial against Trump. She’ll continue testifying again tomorrow. A lot of legal media analysts seemed to say that it was risky testimony for being so lurid, and if the jury doesn’t like her (or believe her) that could impact the trial.
I’m not a lawyer, as the expression goes. Nor was I in court. And I trust what lawyers say here, being very experienced at this sort of thing. But I also have additional thoughts – which may be valid or not, whether or not what these lawyers say is valid. For starters, “impact the trial” doesn’t mean result in a hung jury. After all, many lawyers were saying that it wasn’t absolutely necessary she even testify. That the trial isn’t a sex case, but one about election fraud. And so, whether jurors like or believe her, the charge is that Trump still paid to silence her in order to illegally affect the election. Keep in mind that when a woman claimed that President Biden sexually assaulted her, he and his team took her on directly and publicly, showed the inconsistencies and ultimately falseness in her story, and it disappeared. As for her testimony, it would seem that the problem for Trump is that she’s the only one testifying about what occurred. His lawyers can cross-examine her, of course, and try to break down her story. But if Trump doesn’t testify (and it’s likely that he won’t), then her testimony is the only one the jury can hear under oath. And if he does insist on testifying, the prosecution is most certainly prepared and likely anxious for that. The other problem for Trump is that, even if jurors don’t like Ms. Clifford, at issue is Trump relentlessly insisting he never had sex with her. And her detailed testimony (even if jurors don’t like her) shows that Trump did have an involvement with her, and made efforts to illegally hide it to impact the election, as AMI publisher David Pecker testified -- which is the very point of the trial. Further, even if (for whatever reason) they don’t even believe her, Trump still made that $130,000 payment to silence her claims…which again is the whole point of the trial. The checks exist. The documentation about it exists. Whatever the surface reason those checks exist, the foundational reason was to silence her so as to illegally not hurt his election chances. And I suspect that jurors are likely to think, especially given earlier testimony, that Trump is not someone to pay $130,000 to silence something that didn’t happen. Especially given he has been relentlessly been shouting out loud for years that he did not rape “that woman” and didn’t even know E. Jean Carroll – a cry for which he has been twice found guilty of defamation. So, if he has no problem defaming a woman by insisting he didn’t do something two juries found he did – why on earth would he pay $130,000 to hide something he claims he didn’t do??! Again, I have no idea how the jury will see it all. And those lawyers who note the risk, make good, valid points. I just think, whether or not these lawyers are right, there are these additional points. And also, as the experts note, as well, the trial is about far more than this, and much of that is on paper and has been corroborated.
0 Comments
I think TV legal experts have been doing a very good covering details of the Trump trial and analyzing their importance, often even giving virtual play-by-play reporting at times about what’s going on in court. Yesterday’s testimony from David Pecker seems to be generally thought to have been very strong for the prosecution – all the more so because Pecker is a close Trump ally. He’s laid out a strong vision of the long pattern over time of Trump’s efforts to commit election. Additionally, as former Watergate lawyer Nik Ackerman pointed out, his being able to identify and comment on an audio recording between Trump and Michael Cohen means that when Cohen (with his conviction of perjury allowing the defense an opening to try and undercut his testimony) takes the stand, many critical things he says will have already been verified – which only serves to shore up his credibility. From my end, not being a legal expert, there are often things separate from the legal minutiae that catches my eye. And the last couple of days, that’s been Trump’s ranting about how the massive legion of Trump supporters have supposedly been showing up on his behalf. In contrast, by most reporters’ accounts, there were only three such Trump people in the entire area that morning, although to be fair that number did change later, dropping down to one. Trump, however, has been melting down in his comments to waiting reporters on a wide range of subjects, none of which have any bearing in court (all the more so since he likely won't even be testifying -- though God-willing that will change...). But the most recent and repeated one raised an imponderable question for me, which I’ll get to in a bit. Indeed, he posted in a long FULL CAPS rant about it on his social media platform, outraged by how supposedly the police are putting up road blocks to stop traffic and keep his horde of supporters away. "THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WERE TURNED AWAY FROM THE COURTHOUSE IN LOWER MANHATTAN BY STEEL STANCHIONS AND POLICE, LITERALLY BLOCKS FROM THE TINY SIDE DOOR FROM WHERE I ENTER AND LEAVE," Trump wrote, in part. "IT IS AN ARMED CAMP TO KEEP PEOPLE AWAY." For the math challenged, the one person who stuck around is a smaller number than “THOUSANDS.” One of the most outspoken reporters about Trump’s claims has been MSNBC’s Vaughn Hillyard, who has not only shown footage of traffic comfortably driving by the courthouse and all the public walking around, including the many people there who are protesting Trump, but also has bluntly called Trump’s claims to be “lies.” The most-telling story about how disturbing the teensy pro-Trump crowds are to Trump is also the funniest for revealing his mindset, proving the point by him denying it. It began when New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote an article that referenced how Trump was bothered by the small crowds were on his behalf. Fair enough, who wouldn't be bothered by three people showing up to support you, let alone just one, especially if you're a malignant narcissist? But that brought about a Trumpian reply -- “Maggot Hagerman of The Failing New York Times, falsely reported that I was disappointed with the crowds," Trump insisted in his gracious, social media post. "No, I’m disappointed with Maggot, and her lack of writing skill…" It should be noted that for the first time in recorded history "Elegance in Writing" is high on Trump’s list of qualities he most admires. This is most-especially surprising since “reading” is low on his list. There were other things he of course said also disappointed him (he’s Trump, after all) but, weirdly and amusingly -- and unintentionally -- in saying that Ms. Haberman's story was false, he did not say that her facts were wrong about the tiny one-person size of the crowds, only that he claimed he wasn’t disappointed by the size. Further, this insistence totally contradicted his previous ALL CAPS post fuming in anger over “THOUSANDS” supposedly having been turned away. THOUSANDS!!! (Question: can one person be considered a “crowd”?) All of which led to my imponderable. There is a side of me that thinks Trumps says his crowd of supporters is so massive in order to mostly convince his supporters who are watching him on TV -- while on the other hand, a side of me thinks he's doing this to mostly convince himself. I have no idea which is true. I’m sure both are true in part. What I don’t know is which is predominant. If I had to make a guess, it’s the latter, trying to convince himself. After all, everything with Trump begins and ends with Trump. So, convincing himself that there are THOUSANDS of supporters for him there – rather than three…or, ultimately, just one would seem necessary to salve his malignant narcissistic ego and allow him to function. All those other acolytes following his every word, waiting to be lovingly lied to, are the natural progression from that. The ultimate point to all this is that, whatever the legal realities of the court case are, it seems that this whole process for Trump -- not being in control, needing to follow the direction of the judge, having to listen to witnesses under sworn oath saying terrible things about him, needing to sit the entire time, not being allowed to say anything, having to get to court early rather than start his day as usual at 11:30 AM, none of his family there in support, only one supporter outside and on and on -- all that and more is clearly taking a huge toll on him. It's there in his hunched-over shuffling through the hallways, in his grimaces in court, in him seemingly so tired and bored that he's dozing off during testimony, in his needy claims of non-existent huge crowds, in his continually being unable to restrain himself and lashing out at witnesses and jurors breaking judicial gag orders, Sending a long, ranting post against Jimmy Kimmel having hosted the Oscars five weeks ago and confusing him repeatedly with Al Pacino. Rambling at rallies with inexplicable statements and gibberish made-up words, such as most recently "illegal adlinthin," "magastine" and "weak nicks" that psychiatrists say is often the first stages of dementia. Even Fox, seemingly to offset and explain away what it appears must be clear to them, in case things gets even worse, had host Jesse Watters note how “they are draining Trump’s brain by having him sit all day.” Yes, he really said that. That’s how bad Trump seems. People who work for a living, many in jobs of physical labor, many raising children, are asked to feel great sympathy for Trump for his burden of having to "sit all day" -- lest his brain drain. The presumptive GOP nominee to be president! (Actually what Watters said is even worse, as he added, “You’re going to take a man who’s usually golfing and you’re going to sit him in a chair in freezing temperatures.” Putting aside that no one is the courtroom is bundled and most are in shirtsleeves, how hilarious to hear the credentials of the presumptive Republican nominee for president described, not for his active efforts and exhaustive achievements on the world stage on behalf of America, but -- as "a man who's usually golfing"!!!!) And this was only Day Two of the trial. Which by all accounts is the most unimportant of his four indictments. And only having the first witness so far – and not even a hostile witness at that, but actually one of Trump’s longtime friends. Imagine how much more disturbed and drain Trump will get as this least-important trial drags on and more come pounding on him, as he deals at age 77 with the world he knows and needs, emotionally and physically, is peeled away. Insisting that there are huge crowds of support for him outside the enclosing walls of the courthouse that don't exist is only an indication of it all. The journey of a thousand supporters begins with a single misstep… The hors d’oeuvres tray has been ordered, the popcorn has been popped, and the mint juleps have been prepared, complete with little umbrellas. It’s going to be a fascinating week in the ongoing soap opera, "The Trials of Trump." The festivities start on Monday with a double-header. First, with the jury now selected, the Manhattan criminal trial of Trump for election fraud begins. If Trump is melting down this much already, after merely jury selection when all he has to do is literally just sit and do nothing -- and his ALL CAPS social media rantings are pretty manically concerning, as is his dragging, disheveled physical appearance -- imagine how worse it will be for Trump once the trial actually starts! And he hears people testifying under oath against him about committing crimes -- including from some witnesses who he considers loyal to him, but are sworn to tell the truth at risk of perjury. And recordings are played of him discussing his alleged crimes, and documents are presented with his signature. And this malignantly narcissistic, total control freak can’t say a word and has to sit there in polite silence. But that’s only Game One for the opening on Monday. Because also that same day is the court hearing to determine if Trump’s $175 million bond will be accepted, a problem since the bond company (with its own questionable history) is not being licensed in New York which is required by law. Given that the whole reason that the bond is needed in the first place is because Trump was found guilty of business fraud for overstating the values of his assets, it certainly removes the “benefit of the doubt” option of "This was just a bookkeeping oversight, Your Honor" from Trump’s defense. Further, Trump knows that if the bond isn’t allowed, New York Attorney General Letitia James will be able to start seizing Trump properties and selling them off. And it’s not just that he knows this in relation to the hearing…but he also will know it while sitting in court for his criminal trial, trying to be polite and silent, aware that his possessions might be taken. And all that is just Monday. We have the whole rest of the week ahead of us. On Tuesday, that is the critical gag order hearing, when Trump finds out if there will be sanctions against him for claims that he violated the gag order – violated them not just once, but 10 times. And if so, what will the sanctions be? There have long been debates about how a former president running for office again could be sanctioned and done in a way that is meaningful. Greater speech prohibitions might be problematic as infringements on his rights as a political candidate. Prison causes issues with his ability to campaign and with Secret Service protection. Money penalties are likely to have little impact on him, not just for his wealth but because Trump tends to send out email fundraising pleas and let his acolytes (or the RNC, now led by his daughter-in-law) pay his legal bills. But I have a suggestion – not that it will necessarily be listened to. While one other possibility is home confinement, my suggestion would be much more meaningful, I believe. It’s to put Trump in a court holding cell overnight. Just one night, for starters. He could be ordered to show up late, perhaps 10 PM and then let out early at 7 AM -- well-before the work day begins and he has time to wash up, get ready and meet with his lawyers before having to be in court. Doing this would not be putting him in prison, nor would it interfere with campaigning. After all, no campaigning events or meetings would take place during those hours. That's when people are asleep. But being put in a locked holding cell alone for 9 hours with the lights out would be hell for Trump – and have a meaningful impact on him. No one to talk to, not in control of his life, locked in a room, alone in the dark. Just one night might be enough to terrify and panic him into not breaking a gag order again. (All the worse for him, perhaps, for being a germophobe.) Further, since it’s not being sent to prison and only overnight when there’s no campaigning, it would take away a lot of any “substantive” outrage by Trump and his cult. (Though of course, they’ll all cry outrage even if he was locked in a Chucky Cheese for an hour with free pizza and games token.) But that’s my wish. But wait, there's more. Because that brings up Thursday. And Thursday’s Child, which as the rhyme says, “Has far to go.” On Thursday, that’s the day the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about whether or not Trump has “total immunity.” This is something that Trump has long been putting full faith and insistence in, to make most of his troubles go away. And while I have no confidence in guessing what this Supreme Court will do, it is extremely difficult to believe that the Court will grant not just Trump, but any president “total immunity.” By Trump’s own lawyer’s argument in the Appeals Court, that would mean any president could order the Navy Seals to kill his political opponents. Even to this overly-political Supreme Court, that seems about 100 bridges too far. They might possibly grant a wider view of immunity than exists now (expanding the idea of what official acts by a president are), which could conceivably help Trump somewhat, but that’s only a might and possibly and conceivably, and so Trump’s fondest wish of “total immunity” would appear to be improbable. Not only because Trump is now not president, and such “total immunity” powers if granted would fall immediately to President Biden, but mostly because it seems anathema to democracy and the rule of law. Trump does get a breather on Wednesday -- not only are there no other court hearings, but there's no Manhattan trial that day either. On the other hand, he will have all this time to ponder the walls on all sides of him. And as the rhyme goes, "Wednesday's Child is a child of woe." It fits. And nothing on Friday. But then, it's always good to leave a day open at the end of the week, just in case you need it. That is some hectic week in court. Sorry, I mean courts. And now, let Monday begin!! For my taste, the PBS Masterpiece mini-series, "Mr. Bates vs. the Post Office" (based on a true national scandal) is every bit as great as its reputation and huge success that it had in England. An ensemble cast, but starring Toby Jones. Usually he plays offbeat, quirky characters, sometimes villains, but here he's quiet, low-key, down-to-earth. That's much the way the series is -- but very personal, involving and often-deeply moving. Crushing at times as you witness deeply-decent and innocent people being rolled, many with lives ruined, some wrongly imprisoned, all for reasons they don't understand by a government behemoth. Yet, appalling and tragic as much of the story is -- it's also about the fight back and is very much uplifting, as well. The story is about small-town sub-postmasters (sort of like a step-up from people who run Mailbox Etc. stores) who are prosecuted for major theft, each told they were the only one with the problem they were claiming, when it turns out it was a systemwide computer error. That simple description only because to do justice to the building emotion of everything. Though the series does a great job in focusing the story in a manageable tightness, it actually is still somewhat going on after 20 years, and 160 million pounds in restitution have (so far...) been paid. Two episodes down, two to go. If you subscribe to PBS, you can catch up on the series on PBS Passport. In fact, all four episodes are available there, including a short follow-up featurette on the true story. Here's the short trailer from when it aired in England. It only touches the surface. As it says, "The largest miscarriage of justice in British history." Yesterday, O.J. Simpson died, and it was covered widely across the news. As I've mentioned here, I worked on the Naked Gun movies, in which he appeared, so I figured I should write something . Though I wasn't terribly anxious to. That's because they were among the most joyous work experiences I've ever had, and some of my fondest memories. (As I've noted previously, they even stuck me in couple of the films as butts of jokes.) And the trial and whole situation just sucked the joy out of that. It became so difficult to watch those movies for me, and even think about the work. Enough time has passed, so that the situation isn't as bad as all that any more -- but it's still achingly sad. And I'm not even remotely involved in what actually is sad about it, just tangentially from afar.
However, I did write about the subject a least somewhat here a decade ago when the mini-series The People vs. O.J. Simpson was on TV. I didn't have any interest in watching it, though did decide to add some thoughts. And I figured I could just repost much of what I wrote back then, with a few tweaks and minor additions, rather than go through it all again. As I wrote -- when the real court trial was on, and so many people in the country were mesmerized by it all, the public glued in front of the TV, and it was the Conversation Topic of the Day for months, I just didn't watch any of it either. Maybe a couple minutes total, but that's all. I didn't watch the "Dancing Ito" sketches on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. There was absolutely nothing "fun" about it for me. It was just so profoundly sad on every conceivable level. In no way is my reaction meant as "O woe is me." Not even remotely. I'm a far-distant bystander. My point is merely how deep the tragedy went. And how much it impacted, beyond the attention-grabbing value, beyond what is so obvious and so gut-wrenching to those who it actually, literally pummeled . During the whole period, people would ask me, "You worked with O.J., do you think he did it?" I could only stare at them and say that I had no earthly idea. I got along fine with him, he wasn't someone I'd want to become friends with because he was involved in so many projects, always busy flying around, and somewhat distant, but, no, he didn't strike me as a mass mass murder. Did he do it? How on earth would I know? Beyond that, I really didn't talk about things connected to the trial. I, of course, crossed paths with O.J. a bit. It was part of the job, notably have to get information for the press kit I was writing. But I'm not sure he even knew my name. I think it was something like, "Hey, man." Not because it was me, I don't think he bothered to learn pretty much anyone's name, other than those at the top. We only had two extended conversations: one in his trailer, dealing with the press kit, and one sitting on the set, which oddly dealt with his family. At one point, he brought up how his wife seemed to want to get together, but that wasn't anything he was interested in. Whether his story was true, I have no idea. But that was the conversation. It hasn't aged well with time. The only thing I ever really commented about the trial was my observation whenever I'd hear people debating O.J. Simpson's innocence or guilt, and there would be people almost gleefully proclaiming his innocence, based purely on the reputation of the Los Angeles police department and its poor history with racial matters. To be clear, my reaction wasn't about these people's opinion -- I completely understood it, and the gross unfairness of the judicial system and well-publicized transgressions of the L.A. police -- but it was their near-mirth and utter certainty defending him and hope that O.J. got off. My thought at such moments was always a simple question: "Would you feel the same if the person killed was your sister?" One day, I mentioned this to a friend of mine. A few weeks later, he called to tell me he had been with a crowd of people, all of who were "rooting" for O.J., certain he had been railroaded and hoped he was acquitted. He said that he brought up my question -- and it stopped the conversation cold. Absolute, total silence. The mirthful certainty, the aggressive desire for acquittal completely disappeared. Again, to reiterate, I have no idea if he was innocent or guilty, though I have my opinion. It's just that one's thought on the subject should be based on the facts, whether believing him innocent or guilty. Having said all this, there was one personal thing that did ever so lightly touch me and was such a shame. It's that I'd become friendly over the two movies with O.J.'s assistant, an absolutely lovely, wonderful lady. She'd been with him for many years, and was totally devoted to him and her job. I only heard her name mentioned a few times in the news, but I'm sure if I paid closer attention I'd have heard it more. Though she of course wasn't directly involved in the tragedy, I knew that her life was devastated, and what she'd seen as a lifetime career was over, and it was heart-breaking to me. I did try to reach out to her at one point, letting a little time pass into the case. But I never reached her -- I left a phone message of support, but I'm sure she stopped answering her phone, and I wouldn't be surprised if she even stopped listening to her messages. I miss being in touch with her. Really nice lady. There was also one big laugh that did come from it all. I was working on another movie with much of the same team that make the Naked Gun films when the verdict came down. As you might imagine, the production stopped as the announcement neared. And when "innocent" was announced...well, I'll just say that when you're sitting around comedy writers who know the people involved really well, the phrase "gallows humor" was never more apt. Also, I have kept the one "keepsake" I have of the time. During those days, O.J. was involved in many businesses, one of which is that he was on the board of directors for the company that made Swiss Army watches. He had one, and I commented how great I thought it was. He reached into his gym bag (and no, I doubt it's that one, I'm certain he had many), and he grabbed a box with a new watch, which he gave me. For all the connections the case holds in my mind, I've held on to the Swiss Army watch. I like it too much. And still use it on occasion. And as that watch ticks away, time passes. (Thus endeth the poetic portion of this article...) And I watch the movies, and enjoy them. And I enjoy thinking about the work and talking about it. But the films, while wonderfully funny, still aren't as innocently funny to me as once, and the memories still can't help have a shading. But happily, so many of those memories are great. So, while I did go on length here about the experience, I leave more detailed analysis of the crime and trial to others. Me, I'll stick with the movies. If you missed Last Week Tonight with John Oliver this past Sunday, the Main Story was about executions. This was the third time show covered the subject, but Oliver noted that the reason they did so was because there have been some interesting developments since the last time, most notably concerning issues with new drugs being used. It's a fascinating report, very gritty at times, extremely watchable -- and it's impressive how the show is also able to bring a lot of humor to the table. Which is a testament, in part, to why they keep winning Emmy Awards. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|