Counting the 91 corruption ways to "Dump Trump". Republicans must end Trumpziism cult
"Any other politician, from a Boston city councilor to a congressman, would face calls to drop out of the race after a felony conviction. Trump obviously will not do that."
As much as we thought we knew back then what made Trump tick, today we know more — much more.
And those are lessons about character and behavior the nation cannot afford to forget, regardless of verdict. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents him from continuing to run, or even serving if he wins, which makes it all the more incumbent on voters to carefully weigh what the trial told us about his character.
For some — those who remain in thrall to the former president no matter what — the legal intricacies of the trial will matter not at all. True believers have a way of setting aside inconvenient facts.
For others — those who long ago tired of the lies and obfuscation, the dysfunction of a White House in constant chaos, and a president who when defeated at the ballot box was prepared to trample the rule of law underfoot to remain in power — the trial was just another bit of confirmation the man remains unworthy of holding high office.
But those in neither camp, those waiting to be convinced that Trump’s behavior makes him unworthy of being president — then and now — well, these six weeks gave them plenty to ponder.
“I made the decision to buy the story because of the potential embarrassment it would have to the campaign and Mr. Trump,” Pecker told the court, adding that it was important to have it “removed from the market.”
Then came Playboy model Karen McDougal alleging a 10-month affair with Trump in 2006-2007. McDougal, Pecker testified, was paid $150,000 in August 2016 by The National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., for her story, which The Enquirer did not publish and, Pecker told the court, never had any intention of publishing.
“Was your principal purpose in entering into the agreement with Karen McDougal to suppress her story so as to prevent it from influencing the election?” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked Pecker.
“Yes, it was,” he replied.
Pecker, however, expected his firm to be repaid. He said Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen promised, “The boss will take care of it.”
But “the boss” didn’t repay AMI. So when in the wake of the now infamous Access Hollywood tape, it was feared porn star Stormy Daniels might go public with her story of a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump, Pecker wasn’t buying.
“I am not a bank,” Pecker recalled saying.
That set the stage for the elaborate scheme that would provide Daniels with a $130,000 hush-money payment — wired 12 days before the presidential election — through a shell corporation set up by Cohen. After the election, Trump, according to court records, reimbursed Cohen with monthly checks (nine of 11 of them signed by Trump himself) disguised as payment for legal services.
Here was a man, after all, who would go to any lengths to hide the truth of his conduct — or misconduct — from the American people before the 2016 election.
His good friend, David Pecker, former publisher of The National Enquirer, testified about the so-called “catch and kill” scheme he used to shield Trump from several tawdry tales being shopped around. A former Trump Tower doorman, peddling a story alleging Trump had fathered a child out of wedlock, was paid $30,000 for a story eventually deemed to have no basis in fact.
Cohen has already done prison time for his part in the fraudulent scheme.
But as seamy as the underlying stories were, this wasn’t a trial about sex or Trump’s dubious reputation with women. It was about an attempt to deceive and to corrupt the electoral process.
The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump was about the former president using friends, like Pecker, or employees, like Cohen, and corrupting them into covering up his behavior until it was too late for voters to make an informed decision.
Twelve good men and women gave it their best shot over six weeks and then some. Their work — as the work of all juries — must in the end be respected for the difficult assignment it is. Although that too will get disparaged in the days ahead because, well, this is at the end of the day a man with little respect for the rule of law — not when an election is on the line.
 |
| "I only lie to my wife" |
Echo Editorial Opinion published in the Boston Globe:
For the first time in American history, a former US president has been found guilty of a felony in a court of law, for a scheme to deceive voters during his first electoral run.
Donald J. Trump has been judged by a jury of his peers — fellow New Yorkers all — who Thursday found him guilty of all 34 counts of business fraud in an attempt to cover up hush-money payments to a porn star.
The verdict came with breathtaking speed in a process Trump not unexpectedly labeled “a rigged, disgraceful trial” as he exited the courtroom.
In fact, the verdict was a testament to the overwhelming nature of the evidence and the skillful work of prosecutors from the office of Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, in the six-week trial.
Trump has every right to appeal the finding, as he surely will — and to complain about the prosecution, as he already has. But he must refrain from attacking the jury and the rule of law, and he must insist that his allies not cross that line either.
An appeal could take months and may not be decided before the election. But whether the verdict stands up won’t change the facts presented at trial — facts voters should bear in mind in November.
The days of trial testimony provided a backdoor look at the way this particular man (IMO "creature") — at a moment when he was on the verge of election to the nation’s highest office — thinks and operates.
Donald J. Trump has been judged by a jury of his peers — fellow New Yorkers all — who Thursday found him guilty of all 34 counts of business fraud in an attempt to cover up hush-money payments to a porn star.
The verdict came with breathtaking speed in a process Trump not unexpectedly labeled “a rigged, disgraceful trial” as he exited the courtroom.
In fact, the verdict was a testament to the overwhelming nature of the evidence and the skillful work of prosecutors from the office of Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, in the six-week trial.
Trump has every right to appeal the finding, as he surely will — and to complain about the prosecution, as he already has. But he must refrain from attacking the jury and the rule of law, and he must insist that his allies not cross that line either.
An appeal could take months and may not be decided before the election. But whether the verdict stands up won’t change the facts presented at trial — facts voters should bear in mind in November.
The days of trial testimony provided a backdoor look at the way this particular man (IMO "creature") — at a moment when he was on the verge of election to the nation’s highest office — thinks and operates.
And those are lessons about character and behavior the nation cannot afford to forget, regardless of verdict. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents him from continuing to run, or even serving if he wins, which makes it all the more incumbent on voters to carefully weigh what the trial told us about his character.
For some — those who remain in thrall to the former president no matter what — the legal intricacies of the trial will matter not at all. True believers have a way of setting aside inconvenient facts.
For others — those who long ago tired of the lies and obfuscation, the dysfunction of a White House in constant chaos, and a president who when defeated at the ballot box was prepared to trample the rule of law underfoot to remain in power — the trial was just another bit of confirmation the man remains unworthy of holding high office.
But those in neither camp, those waiting to be convinced that Trump’s behavior makes him unworthy of being president — then and now — well, these six weeks gave them plenty to ponder.
“I made the decision to buy the story because of the potential embarrassment it would have to the campaign and Mr. Trump,” Pecker told the court, adding that it was important to have it “removed from the market.”
Then came Playboy model Karen McDougal alleging a 10-month affair with Trump in 2006-2007. McDougal, Pecker testified, was paid $150,000 in August 2016 by The National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., for her story, which The Enquirer did not publish and, Pecker told the court, never had any intention of publishing.
“Was your principal purpose in entering into the agreement with Karen McDougal to suppress her story so as to prevent it from influencing the election?” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked Pecker.
“Yes, it was,” he replied.
Pecker, however, expected his firm to be repaid. He said Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen promised, “The boss will take care of it.”
“I am not a bank,” Pecker recalled saying.
That set the stage for the elaborate scheme that would provide Daniels with a $130,000 hush-money payment — wired 12 days before the presidential election — through a shell corporation set up by Cohen. After the election, Trump, according to court records, reimbursed Cohen with monthly checks (nine of 11 of them signed by Trump himself) disguised as payment for legal services.
Here was a man, after all, who would go to any lengths to hide the truth of his conduct — or misconduct — from the American people before the 2016 election.
His good friend, David Pecker, former publisher of The National Enquirer, testified about the so-called “catch and kill” scheme he used to shield Trump from several tawdry tales being shopped around. A former Trump Tower doorman, peddling a story alleging Trump had fathered a child out of wedlock, was paid $30,000 for a story eventually deemed to have no basis in fact.
Cohen has already done prison time for his part in the fraudulent scheme.
But as seamy as the underlying stories were, this wasn’t a trial about sex or Trump’s dubious reputation with women. It was about an attempt to deceive and to corrupt the electoral process.
The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump was about the former president using friends, like Pecker, or employees, like Cohen, and corrupting them into covering up his behavior until it was too late for voters to make an informed decision.
Twelve good men and women gave it their best shot over six weeks and then some. Their work — as the work of all juries — must in the end be respected for the difficult assignment it is. Although that too will get disparaged in the days ahead because, well, this is at the end of the day a man with little respect for the rule of law — not when an election is on the line.
No sooner was Trump out of the courtroom than he was once again criticizing the judge and the fact that the case was actually heard in New York City. There will be more. Count on it.
Any other politician, from a Boston city councilor to a congressman, would face calls to drop out of the race after a felony conviction. Trump obviously will not do that.
After the trial, Trump insisted, “The real verdict is going to be November 5.” He’s right about that. A man found guilty of deceiving the nation’s voters once doesn’t deserve another chance to do so.
Any other politician, from a Boston city councilor to a congressman, would face calls to drop out of the race after a felony conviction. Trump obviously will not do that.
After the trial, Trump insisted, “The real verdict is going to be November 5.” He’s right about that. A man found guilty of deceiving the nation’s voters once doesn’t deserve another chance to do so.
Labels: Boston Globe, David Pecker
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 6:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home