Trump’s hush-money trial in New York raises serious concerns about the social contract, as it brings back an incident with the cops and a frivolous white woman with a secret.
Question: do you believe it is possible to simultaneously these two thoughts -- 1) Trump has engaged in multiple acts of wrongdoing, many of which could be found to be illegal by a court of law; and 2) the justice system at both the Federal and (some) states level is being abused right now in a concerted attempt to prevent Trump from campaigning for President.
Personally, I do believe that. These are not mutually exclusive positions. I've never voted for Trump, and never intend to. However, he is the person that one of our major political parties has nominated for president (why? I do not know), and to engage multiple courts with multiple indictments right at this moment just feels anti-democracy to me.
I so desperately want to believe that we still live in a country where the voters get to decide at the ballot box who our leaders will be. (That said, I am still completely mystified at the GOP nominee, given that there were a number of candidates on their primary ballots who certainly seemed better-qualified than Mr. Trump in every possible way... and yet the GOP voters actually did end up choosing Trump... so I confess that there is a part of me that can completely understand why some powers-that-be would struggle to trust the democratic process and hope for a better outcome in November.)
Before I answer, may I ask if you're the author of The Pink House? Because if that's you, I'm honored to be in dialogue with you and grateful that you take the time to read, encourage, and support my work. You have had quite a journey. (Of course, if you're not that author, I'm still honored and grateful for your interest and support. Just wanted to acknowledge your own contributions before responding.)
Your question reminds me of Bob Costa's comments after O.J. Simpson died. He framed his response to Simpson's trial as your question does. It is possible, he said, to have liked and been friends with OJ. And at the same time believe and accept that he committed a double homicide.
Trump's case is different. I agree that it's possible to believe he committed crimes and that the judicial system is being abused to prevent him from running. But it's only possible to believe the latter because that is how Trump and his amplifiers on Fox and in social media have framed it, repeated it, and branded it. To me, this is a triumph of marketing over truth.
Here's why I think this. When he left office, Trump knew he was likely to be indicted on multiple fronts. That is why he declared himself a candidate for 2024 much earlier than usual and well before any other horses were in the race. As candidate Trump, he could claim that any action taken against him was politically motivated. As someone who used to work in advertising and media, I can tell you that branding works. The thrice-repeated tag line in commercials do their work unconsciously. The message sinks in whether Dial takes the worry about of being close or not.
Here are some indictable crimes Trump has committed and should be held accountable for, which have nothing to do with Biden or politics.
1) He instigated and participated in an attempt to create a set of false electors in several states that had already certified their results in order to overturn Biden's victory and remain in power.
2) He called a mob of thousands to DC in order to march on the Capitol in 2021. Even Mitch McConnell said from the floor of the Senate that Trump was responsible for what happened on January 6, though he failed to vote for conviction during the impeachment, citing the justice process as a more suitable venue to hold him accountable.
3) Although Trump, Biden, and Pence held onto classified documents after leaving office, Biden and Pence cooperated with the FBI and Justice Department in resolving the issue, but Trump lied and obstructed their work on multiple occasions. There's also evidence that he shared classified information with others unauthorized to see them, risking national security in the process.
4) It's hard to believe that Michael Cohen would have paid off Stormy Daniels to keep her story from going public during the 2016 election without Trump's approval and endorsement of a plan to conceal the payments as legal fees billed to the Trump organization instead of logging the payoff as a campaign expense. The latter would have exposed the very thing Trump wanted to keep under wraps. It doesn't matter if he actually had sex with Daniels or not. The New York case is about the falsification of business records in order to conceal a crime. The jury will likely return a verdict on that next week.
5) The reason all of these cases are coming due at the same time is that Trump's team has filed numerous motions to delay the cases to keep from having the issues publicly aired in court before the election. Also, if he can delay the federal cases until after the election--and if he wins--he can use his control of the Justice Department to make those cases go away. The reason Trump keeps saying that the current federal cases are Biden-led is because Trump knows that he could and would do that were he still in the White House. As a matter of fact, he did do that when he appointed Bob Barr to undercut and misrepresent the findings of the Mueller Report. And he became angry with Barr only when Barr refused to do his bidding, telling him and the public there was no evidence to support Trump's false claim (lie) that the 2020 election had been stolen, a finding nearly 60 separate court cases upheld.
6) The state indictments in Georgia and New York are not under federal control or jurisdiction. One could argue that the DA's in those cases are politically motivated. But that doesn't take away the fact that there's reasonable basis to ask a jury to decide whether he's guilty or not.
If I really thought all these cases--federal and state--were political, I would definitely agree with you. But for all the reasons I've just mentioned, I'm bound to hold a different view. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this with you.
For starters, yes, I am the author of The Pink House, and Wow! I am so honored that you are familiar with my work! Also very honored to be in dialogue with you as well. You bring up some valuable points.
I often struggle when I hear broad-brush statements, or simplistic memes that are “shot across the bow” in social media and which (as you also pointed out) merely reflect/parrot narratives that have been carefully fed to media consumers. The intent of these is not to inform, but to promote fleeting engagement that furthers the objectives of the media outlet (e.g., the sale of eyeballs to their sponsors/advertisers). So your well-thought points really mean a lot to me.
I can only imagine the frustration of those who wholeheartedly believe in the guilt of Mr. Trump, when in trial after trial, he somehow escapes accountability for his heinous acts (many of which he doesn’t deny) and his contemptuous glee at being able to “beat the system” simply adds to the frustration and aggravation. Of course, those who believe in his innocence will take those acquittals as evidence of systemic persecution, which Trump continues to assert. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle — notwithstanding those acts which he does not deny.
I agree with you that much of the timing for the multiple trials is the result of maneuverings by Trump himself. In addition, I am familiar with the practice by pretty much any District Attorney who brings a case to trial to bundle together as many indictments as they can — it’s part of the way the justice system game is played, like it or not. It would happen to any defendant.
And that kind of brings me to the critical question: are all of these multiple indictments in multiple courts being treated any differently due to Trump being the defendant? Or could it be anyone who has done what he is alleged to have done would be treated the same? Your mention of Biden’s and Pence’s cooperation in the Improper Documents handling cases are excellent examples. Until they cooperated, they were being treated the same. Once they cooperated, that changed.
(I’m going to put a quick aside in on the Documents cases: as a previous holder of a Top Secret Special Access Required — TS/SAR — clearance, I understand completely how serious that Documents issue was. Trump’s cavalier attitude about all of it was shocking to me; and in my book, that alone should disqualify him from running for President, ever again. It wasn’t just his carelessness… it was his open/consistent display of nonchalance about the critical importance of protecting our nation’s secrets. Especially after his 2016 chants of “lock her up!” for Ms. Clinton being alleged to have done the same thing.)
I also agree that the current State and Federal administrations are not the first to weaponize the justice system. As far back as 60 years ago, it was common knowledge that J Edgar Hoover used the FBI to go after those he deemed “enemies.” Trump attempted to do it; Bush41 was well-known to do it, as was Reagan (although Reagan was such a smooth-talker… velvet glove kind of thing).
So for me, it’s not such a stretch to say that while Trump is very likely to be guilty of a lot more than he has been convicted of, there may also be a somewhat informal collusion on the part of multiple justice entities to finally get something (anything!) to stick.
The one thing that I still absolutely cannot figure out is why GOP voters selected him as their candidate when they had a very competent field of alternatives from which to choose.
Great points all, and I think we're basically in agreement. I'm familiar with Hoover's use of the FBI during the illegal COINTELPRO years. Even Mr. Luther King, Jr., was targeted by him because civil rights for African Americans was surely un-American, right?
But after congressional hearings in the late 70s and Hoover's death, the FBI was supposed to have been cleaned up. However, there's always a possibility of hidden agendas and foul play when you have a secret police force.
Since your question, I've been thinking a lot about why GOP voters continue to favor DJT for the White House. Watching Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio refuse to say whether they'll accept the outcome of the next election has me wondering with you why no one in the GOP leadership (except Chris Christie) has been willing to take him on.
I suspect Trump probably has dirt on them. Also, his core base is unique in political history. Several analysts have compared it to a religious cult. Just as I could not convert a Mormon to Islam, no one can dissuade Trump's followers from their belief in him. For them, it's not a matter of logical thought. It's a matter of faith.
But I also think the constant support of GOP leaders and social media sycophants has reinforced his uniquely populist brand. And that's just the way it is. Which is why it will be up to a handful of Independents in a handful of swing states to determine the outcome of the 2024 presidential race.
Thanks for getting back to me with such a thoughtful response. It's great to hear from you.
Question: do you believe it is possible to simultaneously these two thoughts -- 1) Trump has engaged in multiple acts of wrongdoing, many of which could be found to be illegal by a court of law; and 2) the justice system at both the Federal and (some) states level is being abused right now in a concerted attempt to prevent Trump from campaigning for President.
Personally, I do believe that. These are not mutually exclusive positions. I've never voted for Trump, and never intend to. However, he is the person that one of our major political parties has nominated for president (why? I do not know), and to engage multiple courts with multiple indictments right at this moment just feels anti-democracy to me.
I so desperately want to believe that we still live in a country where the voters get to decide at the ballot box who our leaders will be. (That said, I am still completely mystified at the GOP nominee, given that there were a number of candidates on their primary ballots who certainly seemed better-qualified than Mr. Trump in every possible way... and yet the GOP voters actually did end up choosing Trump... so I confess that there is a part of me that can completely understand why some powers-that-be would struggle to trust the democratic process and hope for a better outcome in November.)
Hi Jaynee,
Before I answer, may I ask if you're the author of The Pink House? Because if that's you, I'm honored to be in dialogue with you and grateful that you take the time to read, encourage, and support my work. You have had quite a journey. (Of course, if you're not that author, I'm still honored and grateful for your interest and support. Just wanted to acknowledge your own contributions before responding.)
Your question reminds me of Bob Costa's comments after O.J. Simpson died. He framed his response to Simpson's trial as your question does. It is possible, he said, to have liked and been friends with OJ. And at the same time believe and accept that he committed a double homicide.
Trump's case is different. I agree that it's possible to believe he committed crimes and that the judicial system is being abused to prevent him from running. But it's only possible to believe the latter because that is how Trump and his amplifiers on Fox and in social media have framed it, repeated it, and branded it. To me, this is a triumph of marketing over truth.
Here's why I think this. When he left office, Trump knew he was likely to be indicted on multiple fronts. That is why he declared himself a candidate for 2024 much earlier than usual and well before any other horses were in the race. As candidate Trump, he could claim that any action taken against him was politically motivated. As someone who used to work in advertising and media, I can tell you that branding works. The thrice-repeated tag line in commercials do their work unconsciously. The message sinks in whether Dial takes the worry about of being close or not.
Here are some indictable crimes Trump has committed and should be held accountable for, which have nothing to do with Biden or politics.
1) He instigated and participated in an attempt to create a set of false electors in several states that had already certified their results in order to overturn Biden's victory and remain in power.
2) He called a mob of thousands to DC in order to march on the Capitol in 2021. Even Mitch McConnell said from the floor of the Senate that Trump was responsible for what happened on January 6, though he failed to vote for conviction during the impeachment, citing the justice process as a more suitable venue to hold him accountable.
3) Although Trump, Biden, and Pence held onto classified documents after leaving office, Biden and Pence cooperated with the FBI and Justice Department in resolving the issue, but Trump lied and obstructed their work on multiple occasions. There's also evidence that he shared classified information with others unauthorized to see them, risking national security in the process.
4) It's hard to believe that Michael Cohen would have paid off Stormy Daniels to keep her story from going public during the 2016 election without Trump's approval and endorsement of a plan to conceal the payments as legal fees billed to the Trump organization instead of logging the payoff as a campaign expense. The latter would have exposed the very thing Trump wanted to keep under wraps. It doesn't matter if he actually had sex with Daniels or not. The New York case is about the falsification of business records in order to conceal a crime. The jury will likely return a verdict on that next week.
5) The reason all of these cases are coming due at the same time is that Trump's team has filed numerous motions to delay the cases to keep from having the issues publicly aired in court before the election. Also, if he can delay the federal cases until after the election--and if he wins--he can use his control of the Justice Department to make those cases go away. The reason Trump keeps saying that the current federal cases are Biden-led is because Trump knows that he could and would do that were he still in the White House. As a matter of fact, he did do that when he appointed Bob Barr to undercut and misrepresent the findings of the Mueller Report. And he became angry with Barr only when Barr refused to do his bidding, telling him and the public there was no evidence to support Trump's false claim (lie) that the 2020 election had been stolen, a finding nearly 60 separate court cases upheld.
6) The state indictments in Georgia and New York are not under federal control or jurisdiction. One could argue that the DA's in those cases are politically motivated. But that doesn't take away the fact that there's reasonable basis to ask a jury to decide whether he's guilty or not.
If I really thought all these cases--federal and state--were political, I would definitely agree with you. But for all the reasons I've just mentioned, I'm bound to hold a different view. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this with you.
All the best, Andrew
For starters, yes, I am the author of The Pink House, and Wow! I am so honored that you are familiar with my work! Also very honored to be in dialogue with you as well. You bring up some valuable points.
I often struggle when I hear broad-brush statements, or simplistic memes that are “shot across the bow” in social media and which (as you also pointed out) merely reflect/parrot narratives that have been carefully fed to media consumers. The intent of these is not to inform, but to promote fleeting engagement that furthers the objectives of the media outlet (e.g., the sale of eyeballs to their sponsors/advertisers). So your well-thought points really mean a lot to me.
I can only imagine the frustration of those who wholeheartedly believe in the guilt of Mr. Trump, when in trial after trial, he somehow escapes accountability for his heinous acts (many of which he doesn’t deny) and his contemptuous glee at being able to “beat the system” simply adds to the frustration and aggravation. Of course, those who believe in his innocence will take those acquittals as evidence of systemic persecution, which Trump continues to assert. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle — notwithstanding those acts which he does not deny.
I agree with you that much of the timing for the multiple trials is the result of maneuverings by Trump himself. In addition, I am familiar with the practice by pretty much any District Attorney who brings a case to trial to bundle together as many indictments as they can — it’s part of the way the justice system game is played, like it or not. It would happen to any defendant.
And that kind of brings me to the critical question: are all of these multiple indictments in multiple courts being treated any differently due to Trump being the defendant? Or could it be anyone who has done what he is alleged to have done would be treated the same? Your mention of Biden’s and Pence’s cooperation in the Improper Documents handling cases are excellent examples. Until they cooperated, they were being treated the same. Once they cooperated, that changed.
(I’m going to put a quick aside in on the Documents cases: as a previous holder of a Top Secret Special Access Required — TS/SAR — clearance, I understand completely how serious that Documents issue was. Trump’s cavalier attitude about all of it was shocking to me; and in my book, that alone should disqualify him from running for President, ever again. It wasn’t just his carelessness… it was his open/consistent display of nonchalance about the critical importance of protecting our nation’s secrets. Especially after his 2016 chants of “lock her up!” for Ms. Clinton being alleged to have done the same thing.)
I also agree that the current State and Federal administrations are not the first to weaponize the justice system. As far back as 60 years ago, it was common knowledge that J Edgar Hoover used the FBI to go after those he deemed “enemies.” Trump attempted to do it; Bush41 was well-known to do it, as was Reagan (although Reagan was such a smooth-talker… velvet glove kind of thing).
So for me, it’s not such a stretch to say that while Trump is very likely to be guilty of a lot more than he has been convicted of, there may also be a somewhat informal collusion on the part of multiple justice entities to finally get something (anything!) to stick.
The one thing that I still absolutely cannot figure out is why GOP voters selected him as their candidate when they had a very competent field of alternatives from which to choose.
Great points all, and I think we're basically in agreement. I'm familiar with Hoover's use of the FBI during the illegal COINTELPRO years. Even Mr. Luther King, Jr., was targeted by him because civil rights for African Americans was surely un-American, right?
But after congressional hearings in the late 70s and Hoover's death, the FBI was supposed to have been cleaned up. However, there's always a possibility of hidden agendas and foul play when you have a secret police force.
Since your question, I've been thinking a lot about why GOP voters continue to favor DJT for the White House. Watching Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio refuse to say whether they'll accept the outcome of the next election has me wondering with you why no one in the GOP leadership (except Chris Christie) has been willing to take him on.
I suspect Trump probably has dirt on them. Also, his core base is unique in political history. Several analysts have compared it to a religious cult. Just as I could not convert a Mormon to Islam, no one can dissuade Trump's followers from their belief in him. For them, it's not a matter of logical thought. It's a matter of faith.
But I also think the constant support of GOP leaders and social media sycophants has reinforced his uniquely populist brand. And that's just the way it is. Which is why it will be up to a handful of Independents in a handful of swing states to determine the outcome of the 2024 presidential race.
Thanks for getting back to me with such a thoughtful response. It's great to hear from you.