https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wsj-opinion-the-law-and-donald-trump/vi-BB1nulFY?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=d65ae2d550164e9a8837cd45a8d5b342&ei=34
This is a discussion that occurred on a WSJ broadcast. The fact that it was WSJ already makes you suspect it.
The discussant argues that the judge showed partiality, and that this should have disqualified the judge, and possibly the hearing. The discussant even specifies that the judge's daughter benefitted financially from a position adverse to the defendant (Donnie Trump). This case, possibly importantly, since the discussant says there was no victim, was about Donnie's fling with Stephanie Clifford ("Stormy Daniels"). And that assertion has some importance for how this defense could have been handled.
The asserted "crime," of course, was that Trump unlawfully (the discussant thinks it's important whether this was a misdemeanor or a felony) paid Clifford for her silence, and his reason for doing so was to create an image of himself as the equivalent of not a bad husband, so that he would be less unappealing to voters.
Trump's deal with Clifford was his best defense. Setting aside that almost no one argues that he had an affair with her while his wife was home with their infant son (Donnie, of course, disagrees with any criticism anyone makes of him), the fact is that Clifford signed an agreement not to reveal this affair, and she agreed to accept, and did receive, $130K not to reveal it. (She reportedly changed her mind later, when some tabloid offered her a lot more than that to reveal it.) But apart from the fact that she agreed to considerably less money than someone else later offered her, the discussant here is right: Clifford is not a victim of anything. She made a deal, and the party on the other end of the deal delivered as promised. So she should have kept her end of the bargain, too, and never spoken about it.
The fact that she did speak about it alerted the government to Donnie's crime, which led to the trial in which he was convicted completely. Donnie cheated on his wife, which some might argue he shouldn't have done, he paid off his floozy, she agreed to be paid off, and no one would have known he committed a crime if she had not reneged on the deal to which she agreed and for which she accepted payment: to keep her mouth shut for once in her life. Donnie's wife was a victim (although she wouldn't have known that if Clifford had honored the contract she signed, which was accompanied by an amount of money to which she agreed), and it could be argued the public/voters were a victim, but they, too, wouldn't have known that without Clifford's violation of her agreement. If there's a punishment here, it should be applied to Clifford. Donnie is sort of a victim, since there appears to be agreement that this roll in the hay cost him $130K, but he's not complaining about that. He just says no part of any of this is true, but that's what he always says, and he is not remotely credible. Everything is "rigged" and a "scam" and supported by terrible and criminal people who sort of want to hurt him, but mostly want to hurt the American people whom he's here to save and protect. He's equated himself with Jesus before, and it sounds like that's his favorite self-image. He's even grudgingly said the Bible is his favorite book, although he can't cite any passages he particularly likes about it. He doesn't even specify which Bible he likes so much.
The problem comes with the discussant's complaints about the judge. The discussant, if you bother to listen to the linked interview, is a lawyer, and has been Donnie's lawyer. So there's no reason on earth to imagine he's impartial, fair, or honest. The problem is that besides suggesting "sexy" bases for appeal, he also unloads on Judge Juan Merchan for things like predetermining how he wants this trial to go (and making various communications and jury instructions to get it to go there), and being partial, including citing how be believes Merchan's daughter benefits from the Democratic Party, as if that had anything to do with this charge, or the jury's conclusion. But neither the moderator nor the discussant mentioned one word about Aileen Cannon or the Supreme Court, both of which are vastly more glaring examples of the problem the discussant believes exists. Nor do various people who claim that people like Juan Merchan's daughter, who is said to have made a few million dollars or so on something or other allegedly connected to this (or Joe Biden's recently convicted son, who was unrelatedly alleged to have made about $7M by referencing his father), ever talk about the $2B Donnie's son-in-law got from the Saudis while Donnie was in office. And the discussant also takes swipes at Alvin Bragg, whom he portrays as having prosecuted this matter sort of because he felt like it, or perhaps because he doesn't like Donnie.
It's too bad the discussant couldn't have brought himself to be impartial, fair, or honest, or that the WSJ wants to ride this nag.
No comments:
Post a Comment