The Trump Verdict
I've felt it prudent to refrain from commenting on the immediate impacts of the Trump verdict, given that part of my reason for penning Rightwise and sustaining it is dissatisfaction with the mainstream media's sensationalization and overtly partisan reactions. I think that too much of the problem in our politics is that, rather than having to write deliberately, eloquently, and in a sober manner, as in magazines, newsletters, or print, these talking heads can tweet any fleeting thought in their head on their iPhone straight into the Twittersphere while scheduled to scream on a panel on primetime television later that evening. However, now that it has been around a week and a half, and I’ve gone to and from the beach, and a new weekend has arrived, the impacts of the verdict have finally begun to trickle in, and I feel my opinions on the matter have finally settled. And, from what I can gather, it seems the Democrats may have won the battle—to lose the war.
Alvin Bragg practically campaigned on getting Donald Trump, the Manhatten DA conjured, as if he were a sorcerer, a bookkeeping misdemeanor—long expired under the statute of limitations—into a spectacle of 34 felonies. In New York, misdemeanors are only transformed into felonies should they be committed to propagate another crime—yet Mr. Bragg's indictment was notably silent on what that crime might be. In their closing arguments, the prosecutors finally disclosed it was a federal campaign finance law violation. One wonders how a Manhattan district court is trying a case pertaining to federal election law. If this sounds confusing—it's because it is. The jury was instructed and left to consider a variety of potential violations yet was unable to agree on what specific crime was committed, which is why many in the public, celebrating the verdict or not, are still unable to explain what Mr. Trump was found guilty of.
Moreover, the falsification business records charge necessitates proof of a false record, which was evident in Mr. Trump's payments to his disgraced former attorney, Michael Cohen, for hush-money payments made to Stormy Daniels. These payments were marked as legal fees rather than loan repayments. However, New York law requires demonstrating an intent to defraud by misclassifying the records. How Mr. Trump intended to defraud anyone with a hidden entry that would never see the light of day remains unclear.
It's hilarious to me that the media constantly refers to it as a 'hush money' trial, as if the prosecution and the criminality are centered around the payment to Mrs. Daniels in exchange for her silence. If rich men paying women to keep silent about sexual rendezvous is a crime, we will see prisons lined with Hermès belts and Gucci loafer-wearing inmates being dropped off in G-wagons. Paying for Mrs. Daniels' silence is not a crime and does not breach any federal law, even if campaign funds were used. Mr. Trump would have to have knowingly violated campaign finance law, for which there is no proof. If one genuinely believes that Mr. Trump is an expert on campaign finance law and was able to devise some scheme in that regard, I would kindly ask you to email me, as I have some ocean-front property in Arizona that I believe may interest you.
Of course, I don’t necessarily buy into the narrative circulated on television that the jury was ‘rigged.' I believe Mr. Trump loves to lie and is his own worst enemy. Mr. Trump condemned himself by insisting that his defense not admit his affair with Stormy Daniels. To be clear, though I am not a lawyer, I think the jury may have been swayed had Mr. Trump and his counsel presented an argument that he was concealing the affair for the sake of his wife and children from a position of deep regret and a desire, after the stresses and scrutiny of a campaign and impending presidential term, not to put them through anything more.
But Mr. Trump is a fully cocked firearm, prefers to live spontaneously in the moment rather than take time in his head, and is notorious for being fired by his lawyers. Narcissists cannot admit wrongdoing, mistakes, or regret; the damage to their precious ego is too much to bear. It was Mr. Trump’s character and penchant for lying that allowed him to get convicted. The prosecution’s star witness was Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former attorney, a convicted fraudster and perjurer who has been disbarred and recently admitted to stealing tens of thousands of dollars from Mr. Trump's company. How is it, one wonders, that he was accepted as a witness?
The prosecution argued that Mr. Cohen’s lies, criminality, and crude behavior were on behalf of Mr. Trump and his criminal, crude, and lying behavior. Mr. Trump's lawyers, wisely, never allowed him to take the stand, but forcing his defense to perpetuate a lie achieved the same effect. Mr. Trump's shady conduct alone was enough to turn the jury against him, and he made no effort to dissuade them.
What happens now? Mr. Trump, it appears, might have the last laugh; his case stands on solid grounds for appeal and is likely to succeed—though probably not in time for the upcoming election. Democrats, beltway pundits, and the ever-eager "resisters" will no doubt revel in Trump's felon status, but if anything, this might cement an already tight race. Since the verdict, Mr. Trump's poll numbers have climbed, bolstered by $141 million raised in May alone, mainly from grassroots donors averaging $70 each, with a third being new contributors.
The notion that this verdict will sway swing voters—an idea enthusiastically propagated by the media—highlights their detachment from reality. Those apprehensive about Mr. Trump typically cite his moral character, dissatisfaction with his policies, or issues like January 6th and election denialism. It seems improbable that this hypothetical voter would not cite their unease with Mr. Trump stemming from the January 6th riot or election denialism but by drawing the line at concealing a porn star payment.
The average American likely doesn't care, being more concerned with soaring gas prices, hefty AC bills, the crisis at the southern border, and mismanaged foreign conflicts. It wouldn't be the first time I've misjudged an election based on a single issue—those who've known me will remember my bold, ill-fated prediction that abortion would have no impact on the 2022 midterms and that a red wave was inevitable, a prediction I still laugh about today. But I hardly think this verdict, or any others, will sway the upcoming election. The country is thoroughly familiar with these two candidates—their perks, flaws, pros, and cons—and ultimately, more people seem inclined to vote for Mr. Trump over Mr. Biden, regardless of what legal battles may unfold.