RIGGING

Ten years ago that title word brought to mind sailboats. The rigging on a sailboat is, to the likes of me, a complicated set of devices with names that confuse: we are talking headsails, shrouds, spreaders, cross trees, and the like.

But in the age of Trump "rigging" has taken on a new meaning. Trump-world rigging is the process that takes place before and during any election that he has not won. It is his standard practice to accuse the other electoral candidate of rigging the election, even before the votes are cast and counted, and then if and when he loses, he claims that election was “rigged," and despite the numbers, he actually won.  Facts have nothing to do with the matter.

Now we learn that even the election he won was, in fact, “rigged” — by Trump. A New York jury has found that Trump unlawfully interfered with the election by making an undeclared campaign contribution and then violated state law by covering it up with fraudulent book entries. Trump has thus become the first former president in the history of the United States to be convicted of a felony.

In the judgment of this non-objective observer, there was no doubt of Trump's guilt from the git-go. His denial of the encounter with Stormy Daniels was unpersuasive. In fact, he never denied it in court, he never looked at the jury and said "I didn't do it" because he didn't dare testify for fear of being shredded on cross-examination, resulting in a possible indictment for perjury and an enhanced sentence after conviction in the case on trial. The trial evidence makes it clear that the so-called "hush money" case was really about unlawful interference with the 2016 presidential election process. That was Trump’s concern, not any difficulty with Melania. (He was not worried about losing Melania because “Who wouldn’t want me?)  His conviction demonstrates conclusively that the election was rigged.

It is also clear that Trump would not, and now has not accepted the guilty verdict, Indeed, he is using it as a political weapon to demolish yet another constitutional timber in our democracy: the rule of law. He has been found guilty of contempt of court 10 times because of his unlawful criticism of the jury, the witnesses, the prosecutors, the judge’s family, etc. Of course, he has his MAGA supporters coming forward to declare that he should not have been indicted in the first place, this is all a Biden stunt, and the New York citizenry hates him. The Republican politicians who have come down to the courthouse and spoken on his behalf, including the Speaker of the House (two steps away from the presidency) are a disgrace.

If you want an example of the absurdity of the MAGA complaints I have a beauty: last night we were glued to the television, watching the interviews on MSNBC. Overwhelmed with curiosity I switched to Fox where an anchor was interviewing a reporter who really knew little or nothing about the trial and its consequences. The anchor nevertheless reported on a comment that he thought proved the counterfeit nature of the conviction. The proof, he said, lay in the fact that “all 12" of the jurors voted for conviction. That, he thought, demonstrated the certainty that the entire process was “rigged.”

It ain't over yet. There will be an appeal which doubtless will result in affirmance. But before the appeal there will be a sentencing now set for July 11, but likely to be adjourned when the defendant files a meritless motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

What will the sentence be? What will the prosecution ask for and what will the judge do? The range of theoretical possibilities is enormous. It runs from probation to 20 years in prison. Given the standard factors considered by sentencing judges, i.e. remorse, acceptance of guilt via plea, etc., I predict this judge is likely to sentence Trump to a minimum stay in Rikers Island, or at least home confinement wearing an ankle bracelet. When you put together his lack of remorse, his courtroom conduct, his 10 convictions of criminal contempt, the likelihood of incarceration is significant.

Trump’s filing of an appeal will not automatically stay the sentence. His lawyers will have to seek an order from the trial judge or an appellate judge and in doing so they need to point to significant error and make a case for the likelihood of reversal. It is hard to see any judge finding that here, though Trump's active pursuit of the presidency will, no doubt have an unforeseeable influence on any decision about a stay.

Happily, the defense has not yet found a way to put this case before Mr. Justice Alito, who, no doubt, doesn't give a shit about the Constitution and will stretch any law or rule in order to overcome a Trump conviction. Maybe Trump will fly an upside down American flag outside his window at Trump Tower?

Result, there is now a fourth leg to the Biden electoral pitch to those who are wavering. The first leg, I believe, is Trump's support of the Supreme Court decision reversing Roe v. Wade, the second leg is his rejection of family, marriage vows, Stormy, Karen MacDougal, etc, the third is his pattern of lying and threatening violence any time the tide seems to be flowing against him, (the Constitution be damned,) and for the fourth leg, we now have 34 felony convictions.

Oh yeah, and when he loses in November, he’s got three other felony cases waiting for him. But if he wins in November, all the eggs will be scrambled..

Conclusion:

If we can keep our Constitution despite the likes of Trump, Alito, etal, Trump’s next hotel room will not have private bath, and his pajamas won’t be silk

A bientot.

..................................

There is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you would like to receive a notice of each new posting, please fill out the form at <"http://eepurl.com/gf7fS9">

HARVEY AND DONALD, TWIN OGRES

Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump have a lot in common. They are both serial sexual abusers of women. Both have used lies related to prospective employment to gain sexual favors. 

The Trump/Weinstein facts are not in dispute. In each case, the defendant was a man of great power in the entertainment industry and held out the prospect of theatrical employment. In each case, the defendant suggested  a “business” meeting in his hotel room. And in each case, the defendant used the meeting to gain sexual favors from the female employment-seeker. The similarity of approach is undeniable.

I found the testimony in the current criminal case fascinating. Stormy Daniels’s report of how she came to be Trump's victim was straightforward. She arrived for a business meeting (in Trump’s hotel bedroom of course!) and found the powerful billionaire and entertainment magnate dressed in silk pajamas! Weinstein used similar tactics, setting up business meetings in his hotel room and then seeking massages which led to sexual abuse.

(The Weinstein conviction was reversed because four of the seven appellate judges thought that the testimony of three women who were not complainants on the trial was prejudicial because they just proved Weinstein’s propensity for criminality. That kind of proof is deemed unlawfully prejudicial unless there is some connection to the case on trial. In Weinstein, the prosecutors argued that the defendant’s traditional set-up showed his intent to commit the sexual crime, and that intent overcame his defense of consent. It was a close question and appellate courts in many states, and in federal court, might well have reached a different result. He will be tried again in New York, while California is waiting to get its hands on him.  He has been sentenced there to 16 years.)

 But my point is that Trump used the same manipulative process that Weinstein did to satisfy his sexual demands. Stormy Daniels’ interest in the meeting with Trump was because he dangled the possibility that he could get her a spot on his tv show “The Apprentice.” It was the classic "casting couch" lure and it worked for both disgusting slugs.

The Stormy Daniels testimony made it very clear what happened in Trump’s hotel room. And that testimony was before the jury, under oath, and subject to cross-examination. On the other hand, Trump has denied the affair in tweets and statements to the press. And his lawyer has done so in his opening statement to the jury.,  But so far, the only legitimate trial evidence is the Stormy testimony that the sexual encounter occurred. 

Trump, of course, will have, the opportunity to testify, and repeat his denials under oath and subject to cross-examination. Will he take that opportunity? Not a chance. 

Nope. Trump will limit himself to sitting in court and shaking his head at unflattering testimony, and then walking out of court, and making unsworn denials via tweets and unsworn statements to the television cameras.

On one occasion, he actually said that he was barred from taking the stand because he was under a court-imposed gag order. That was an outright lie. He has every right to take the stand and say his piece. Hah. he will never do so. For good reason. He risks being exposed before the jury as a liar, and in addition to losing the case, he risks an enhanced sentence for perjury.

Bottom line, if the jury follows the judge’s instructions, it must conclude the sexual encounter occurred. 

Whether or not all of this proves Trump guilty of falsifying business documents is a different question and not the subject of this piece. What I suggest is that the Stormy Daniels testimony (along with the Karen MacDougal “Catch and Kill story) was highly injurious to Trump’s political fortunes whether the jury convicts, acquits, or hangs.

We have already seen that Supreme Court decision in Dobbs resulted in a significant swing away from Republicans, who, for the most part, supported the decision and who supported a ban on women's freedom of choice when it came to their personal reproductive decisions. Trump took credit for appointing the three justices who overturned Roe. When he saw the backlash, he modified his position by proposing a 15-week ban. That of course is a continued interference with freedom of choice. 

If the ‘’Me Too’ movement means anything it means serial sex abusers like Weinstein and Trump are to be exposed as trash and should be treated accordingly.

Bottom line, I conclude that the women of this country will not tolerate Donald Trump. The case on trial has already made it clear, (whether he is convicted or not,) that he is an adulterous serial abuser of women. Taken together with his position on abortion, it is difficult for me to see how any self-respecting woman could vote for Donald Trump, or indeed how any man who respects women could do so. 

I realize that is hyperbole. I do not expect 100% of women to vote against Trump because he is a slug, but I do believe the current trial re-emphasizes his character, and that re-focus will peel away enough votes so that, whether he admits it or not, he will lose the election. When you come down to it, this trial accomplishes the exposure that Trump feared in 2016 and paid hush money to Stormy to avoid.

Conclusion: What has been described as the weakest trial of the four pending criminal indictments of Trump may prove to be the one that assures a Biden victory in November.

(I confess I also predicted Trumps' election loss in 2016. But this time I think I have it right!)

A bientot.

………………………………….

There is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you would like to receive a notice of each new posting, please fill out the form at <"http://eepurl.com/gf7fS9">