Category: Uncategorized

Life in the time of Trump.

The verdict has come in.

Guilt on every single count;

For Bragg, it’s a big win.

The left has no time to rejoice;

The red base will explode.

Will the rule of law survive

As faith in it erodes?

Trump is back at Trump Tower with one of his Secret Service agents after the trial.

SS: Wow, bad day, boss!

T: At least I’m free now. I don’t have to sit in that cold courtroom with all those fascists and communists anymore. I’m back in control again. I can go out and campaign again. I can focus on kicking Biden’s ass.

SS: It must be hard, sitting in this place, to think of yourself as a common convicted felon.

T: I’M NOT! I’M A VICTIM OF A RIGGED SYSTEM! THE JUDGE WAS CORRUPT AND THE PROSECUTORS ARE ANIMALS! THE JURORS WERE ALL MANHATTAN LIBERALS! I HAD NO CHANCE!

SS: So what are you going to do about it?

T: I WANT REVENGE! I’LL GET ELECTED, AND THEN I’LL PUT ALL THOSE PEOPLE IN JAIL! BIDEN WILL NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY AGAIN!

SS: What does this have to do with Biden? The Manhattan DA doesn’t work for him.

T: OF COURSE HE DOES! THEY ALL DO! THEY’RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM, AND THEY’RE MAKING AMERICA A BANANA REPUBLIC! THAT’S WHY I HAVE TO WIN THE ELECTION–TO CLEAN HOUSE AND START OVER AGAIN!

SS: I thought you were supposed to be running to help the American people with stuff like inflation. You make it sound like the campaign is only about your personal grievances.

T: I’m bigger than America. It’s all about me. If I do well, the little people will do OK.

SS: Well, I just hope you don’t go to jail.

T: Why do you care?

SS: Because I’ll have to serve the time with you to protect you. You’re not that popular with those people, you know.

T: Well, just make sure to vote for me in November. That will keep you out of jail for sure.

SS: I’ll keep that in mind.

If Trump had taken the stand, admitted the sexual encounter and the hush money payment, but denied having any meaningful involvement with the falsified records, the outcome of the trial could have been different, as it is possible the jury would have taken his word over Cohen’s on that one point. The problem, of course, is that Trump would have been the world’s worst witness, for the reasons I have described on many previous occasions. Subjecting him to cross-examination would only have made matters worse.

Alternatively, the defense team could have admitted most of the prosecution’s case, thereby building some credibility with the jury, while attacking the case at its two most vulnerable points: the secondary crimes and the creation of the falsified records. Trump’s standard approach to all legal matters–deny everything– undoubtedly made that impossible.

The bottom line is that when Trump gets up tomorrow morning and views himself in the mirror, he will be looking at the guy who is responsible for losing the case.

Trump is guilty on all counts. Now what?

As to the consequences for the election, you can be certain this will have no impact on the base; if anything, they will take it as still more proof that he is a martyr for their cause. The real question revolves around undecided swing voters. Can they bring themselves to vote for a convicted felon? We will have some idea of that when we see the next round of polls, but we won’t really know until November.

The other question, in my mind, is whether there will be a violent response from members of the extreme right. I think there probably will be. We’ll see.

Having read the jury instructions, I feel sorry for the jury. This case is even more legally convoluted than I thought. I knew the prosecution was required to prove the existence of two different violations of law; in fact, it has to prove three.

The bottom layer of this cake is the allegation that business records were falsified with involvement by Trump with the intent to defraud, which must include the commission or concealment of a second crime. The second layer–the second crime referenced in the business records statute– is a conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a candidate by unlawful means. The top layer–the one I was not aware of–involves the “unlawful means,” which means by committing a third crime. The prosecution has thrown out three different theories for that: an illegal campaign contribution under federal law; the falsification of other business records under state law; or violations of state tax law.

I don’t really know what evidence has been put on with regard to the “unlawful means;” the live blogging has been unhelpful on that point. I can’t see where state tax law violations or the falsification of business records after November 2016 in any way resulted in the promotion or prevention of Trump’s election. As I see it, the only proposed “unlawful means” that had anything to do with the outcome of the election was an illegal campaign contribution. Did the prosecution prove that? I don’t know; we’ll see what the jury thinks.

In recent months, it has appeared that the House crazoids–MTG, Matt Gaetz, and the like–are more royalist than the king. Trump has ostentatiously supported Mike Johnson even though the Speaker has taken positions on important issues that are clearly inconsistent with his. Will this continue in a second Trump term?

Trump likes being the focus of everyone’s attention. He doesn’t need any competition in the chaos department. The MAGA crazoids will lose their purpose once he is back in power.

The closing argument for the defense spent a bit more time on Stormy Daniels than I expected, but otherwise, it was what I anticipated–lots of memorable attacks on Michael Cohen and plenty of mud on the wall. In my view, the scattershot approach probably burned some credibility with the jury on the factual issue that is genuinely debatable: the lack of corroboration as to Trump’s role with the false records. You can probably attribute that to Trump’s desire for complete vindication, not to any lack of competence on the part of his lawyers.

The prosecution’s closing was at least an hour too long. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that it demolished the arguments of the defense on issues such as whether Cohen was freelancing or whether the payments were actually reimbursements. I don’t think there is any real likelihood the jury will decide for the defense on those points.

The real issues in this case are legal. What was the prosecution required to prove relative to the intersection of the falsified records and the alleged election conspiracy? After all, the records were generated after the election, and they weren’t in the public domain.

As far as I can tell, neither side said much about that during the closing. My guess is that means the judge has told them he will be giving jury instructions that favor the prosecution. We’ll find out today.

We know that Biden will use the opportunity to bash Trump for his authoritarian sympathies and for his vacuous ideas about policy. He will also do his best to set the record straight on the condition of the country in 2020, and how things have improved since then. But what about the future? Will we see a return of the FDR for the 21st century?

Probably not, for two reasons. First, it is highly unlikely that the election will deliver a solid Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, so the plausibility of an ambitious agenda is very limited. Second, Biden will want to portray himself as a genuine constitutional conservative, in contrast with the nihilistic Trump, in order to win over moderate swing voters. Proposing a far-reaching agenda that could lead to increased inflation and a confrontation with the Supreme Court does not further that objective.

The convention is scheduled for the middle of July in Milwaukee. It will, of course, be dominated by Trump, who will spend most of his time and energy trying to persuade us that America under Biden is a hellhole run by woke women and minorities that has been invaded by illegal immigrants. He will also talk at length about the rigged 2020 election, his ongoing legal martyrdom, and his fears for 2024. But what will he say about his agenda for the future? Will he give us a realistic plan to fight inflation? Will he say much about what happens next in Gaza? Will he make the case for tariffs? Will he reveal his secret plan to end the war in Ukraine? Will he say more about federal regulation of abortion? Will he cut taxes for rich people again? And so on.

My guess is that the answer to all of those questions is no. Trump has a vision of America, but no plausible plan to get us there. Whatever plans he does have would be very unpopular. It is in his interests to say as little about them as possible.

It’s fairly clear that Biden’s plan was to withdraw from center stage and let Trump destroy himself in front of the public. Why not? It worked last time, and it isn’t as if Trump has become more rational and disciplined in the last four years.

As of today, the plan isn’t working, for two reasons. First, it was inevitable that the record of Biden the incumbent would get more scrutiny than Biden the challenger. Second, Trump has blundered into an approach in which his extreme opinions simply aren’t getting much public attention. By refusing to debate and spending his time in courtrooms, he escapes any meaningful discussion about his views on Ukraine, Gaza, taxes, climate change, entitlement programs, abortion, and the like.

This is going to start changing soon. The trial should be over sometime this week. The first debate will take place in about a month. The conventions will come next. Supreme Court decisions that will impact the entire country, probably in a negative way, will require comment shortly. The public is going to start paying more attention to Trump’s policy ideas and less to his victimization narrative. That should help.

The prosecutors will rebuild their case brick by brick during their closing argument. They will identify each piece of evidence that supports their position on each element of the crime. Much of their time will be spent talking about Michael Cohen and how other testimony, documents, and common sense all buttress what he has to say.

But will they focus more on Cohen, or Trump? What will they say, if anything, about the absence of testimony from Weisselberg? Will they identify a single underlying felony, or make arguments on multiple grounds? And how will they connect the false records with the related crime or crimes?

We will find out tomorrow.

We are inevitably told on Memorial Day that the dead perished fighting for our freedom. That isn’t really true. No hostile power other than the USSR had the will and the ability to deprive us of our freedom, and we never had to fight a war against them. Even the Nazis probably had neither the strength or the desire to invade and conquer us.

So the fallen died fighting for American interests, not our way of life. At times, you could argue that the wars they fought weren’t even in our interests. Does that diminish the value of their sacrifice? To me, the opposite is true. It’s relatively easy to fight when your back is against the wall; the sacrifice is greater and more impressive when it is made voluntarily with less at stake.

Trump appeared at a national convention of libertarians and asked for support yesterday. It didn’t go well. He wound up mocking the party, which isn’t usually a good way to win votes.

Why did this happen? Because Trump is a PBP on taxing and spending issues and a Reactionary on everything else. He doesn’t want to reduce the size of the state; he wants to bend it to his will and use it to oppress his opponents. He wants freedom for his supporters, but government-imposed misery for everyone else.

He is the opposite of a libertarian.

In spite of rapid technological change, it was an age of decadence, according to many of the intellectuals of the time. Birth rates were falling in the developed world, which caused grave concern to leaders who saw it as a symptom of eventual decline and surrender to inferior cultures. Homosexuality was on the rise, to the alarm of many. Women were making new demands on the system, which was fighting back. Mental health issues were much discussed, largely due to the unforeseen negative impacts of the new technology, and attempts were being made to revive true masculine virtues.

Is it 2024 or 1914? You decide.

In the next few weeks, I expect the Supreme Court to strike a number of hammer blows against the traditional instruments of liberal governance. The judicial counterrevolution will at that point be more or less complete. The McConnell Project will be in place–ironically, just at the time its author is fading into irrelevance. The center left, with its respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, will be helpless to do anything about it. Is that the end of the story?

No, because Trump 2.0 will make a habit of blatantly disregarding judicial decisions he doesn’t like, probably starting with some on immigration law. This will, in the long run, provide cover to the left to do the same thing. Since the Supremes won’t reform themselves, and the system won’t allow Congress or the public to do it, they will ultimately be checked by being ignored.