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…
0 Comments
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. If there’s any further evidence needed for how terrified Republicans are by the Arizona Supreme Court ruling Tuesday on a draconian 1864 total abortion ban that jails doctors and anyone assisting the woman involved, it’s Trump’s own statement attempting to save himself.
When asked about the court ruling, Trump said that he felt it “went too far,” but added “It’ll get straightened out by the governor, and anybody else who will bring it back into reason.” This is officially known as desperate flailing. First of all, Trump’s position on abortion starts with repeatedly taking credit for appointing the U.S. Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade – an action that specifically made the Arizona ruling possible. You can pretty much stop there, because it’s so damning, but there’s much more. Second, Trump also appointed judges who around the country are ruling on behalf of abortion bans. Not to mention banning the abortion pill mifepristone which has made its way to the Supreme Court. Further, only days ago, Trump released his supposed “abortion policy” which was that states should decide. And just days later, we saw the result of that: a total abortion ban than jails doctors and anyone who assists the woman getting an abortion. Those are foundational problems for Republicans and Trump on abortion, and damning ones, whatever Trump tries to say. And what he says just shines a light on them all. For instance, in saying the court “Went too far” ignores the reality that that’s the risk you take when leaving abortion law up to individual states and not have a national abortion ruling, as Roe v. Wade was. In addition, by saying the court “Went too far,” Trump may think he’s appealing to Independents (never mind that he didn’t say how “too far” they went…), but what he’s really doing is spitting in the face of his most loyal extreme-right base of “evangelical Christians” (sic) for whom a total abortion ban is the only option. Moreover, when he says the Arizona law will get “straightened out by the governor” who will “bring it back into reason”– he’s not only living desperately on hope and a prayer, but far more importantly, if that actually comes to pass, he’s putting the fix into the hands of the Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs… whose idea of reason when it comes to abortion is most surely completely different from Trump, his extreme-right base and “evangelical Christians” (sic). (And by the way, making this ace Trump policy of "No problem, dude, it'll be straightened out by the governor" all the more troubling for him and the entire Republican Party is that, just this morning, the MAGOP House in Arizona blocked an effort to repeal the 1864 bill!! Yes, really. So much for, y'know, Republicans being part of "bringing it back into reason.") But if the Democratic governor straightening it out hopefully does come to pass, it won’t be soon enough to keep the law from going into effect in just 12 days. And importantly, too, even if it does get fixed, the damage is done – the headline of total abortion may is out there and written in stone. It shows everyone that “This is the Risk,” this is what you get from Republicans and Trump’s “I’m responsible for ending Roe, and now leave it to the states” even if it gets fixed (by the Democratic governor in Arizona – your state might not be as lucky). There’s another thing Trump said, as well. That if he is president and a national total abortion ban came across his desk, he wouldn’t sign it. I believe that the correct response is – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Putting aside that the make-up of Congress will near-certainly not allow for such a bill to be based, if it ever was, and a total abortion ban was passed by a Republican House and a Republican Senate – a bill that is the fevered dream wish of Trump’s extreme-right base and the “evangelical Christians” (sic) -- I can see no way on earth that Trump not only wouldn’t giddily sign the bill, but would try to turn it into a TV special with marching bands and fireworks. To not sign it would mean immediately losing his base that would rise up against him, and that would be so out of character for Trump that it is unimaginable. The point being that Trump merely saying this, that he wouldn’t sign a bill, is yet additional evidence of how petrified he is of the horrifying message Arizona’s 1864 total abortion ban sends to American voters. Of course, in the end, next to nothing Trump says – no matter how shuffling towards the center or lying or terrified – matters. Because only three things matter here. 1. Trump happily takes credit for ending Roe v. Wade, which made the 1864 Arizona law possible. And makes all the state abortion bans possible. 2. Trump says abortion laws should be left up to the states. Which is what made the 1864 Arizona total abortion ban possible. Anything else he says is just ephemera. And worse, anything he says, no matter how flimsy and false, only serves to remind people what his two foundational positions are. And there’s one other bit of evidence from Tuesday to show how terrified Republican officials and spokesmen are about the 1864 Arizona total abortion ban – On April 9, the day the Arizona Supreme Court ruling was announced, Media Matter looked into how much time the three major cable networks gave to the story. MSNBC gave it 2 hours and 20 minutes. CNN gave it two hours. And Fox? They discussed the story for 12 minutes! Yes, Fox tried to bury it. It’s the ol’ ostrich gambit. If we can’t see it, it doesn’t exist. Unfortunately for Fox, I am certain the court ruling got full coverage on all the local Fox affiliates in Arizona – where it actually matters, and most because Arizona is a Swing State and has a major U.S. Senate race in helping determine control of the Senate. And national Fox trying to hide the story from its viewers can only serve to make them surprised on election night when the results come in from Arizona. But then, Fox viewers being surprised by election results is pretty much standard these days. Trump and Republican officials are terrified by the Arizona 1864 total abortion ban law. We can tell by their words and their actions, many which I noted yesterday. The thing is – they should be terrified. And the thing is, this is what they’ve wished for, for decades. A total abortion ban. In fact, taking this "wish" further, I've always sensed (rightly or wrongly) that at least some or perhaps many Republican politicians weren't as strongly anti-abortion as they cried out in righteousness for their wish, but rather it was a great issue for them to appeal to the evangelical base and get votes and donations, and ride along on that wave of support, always sure in their mind that total abortion wouldn't ever become real. Or for many of them, even thinking that ending Roe wouldn't likely ever happen. But it was a great campaign issue, bumper stick slogan and battle cry. A wish. Maybe not probable, but oh, what a wish. A total abortion ban. It's the proverbial dog chasing the car, one day amazingly catching it, and then not knowing what to do with it next. As I said yesterday, be careful what you wish for. You might get it. |
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
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|