A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
|
|
Time for a Refresher on Trump’s Porn-Star/Hush-Money Case |
By David Corn February 17, 2024 |
Donald Trump appears at a Manhattan criminal court on February 15, 2024, for a hearing in his porn-star/hush-money case. Brendan McDermid/AP
|
|
|
Since the beginning of Donald Trump’s indictment-o-rama, the politerati have considered the criminal case filed in New York City against the former president by District Attorney Alvin Bragg to be a sideshow. Though this case has key elements of a bona fide scandal—porn star! hush money! alleged extramarital affair!—pundits and politicos have struck a dismissive attitude toward Trump’s Stormy Daniels mess and the legal peril it poses him. Perhaps because it’s not as weighty a matter as swiping top-secret documents or attempting to overturn an election by subverting the constitutional order of the republic. Also perhaps because this caper involves the less-sexy charge of falsifying business records to hide a possible violation of election law.
Bor-ing, right? Yet on Thursday, a New York City judge kicked aside
a Trump motion to cancel the prosecution and set a trial date for March 25. Presuming there are no postponements in this case, this means the first criminal trial of a former president will focus on Trump’s effort to pay off an adult movie actor in the weeks before the 2016 election. Up to now, the presumption was that special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case against Trump would come before a jury first, with Smith’s stolen-documents case, the Georgia RICO case, and the Bragg case lagging behind. But Trump has successfully delayed the two Smith trials with assorted motions and maneuvers, and the Georgia case has hit its own snag, as District Attorney Fani Willis has had to defend herself against the allegation that her romantic relationship with a fellow prosecutor working on the case somehow amounts to a conflict of interest.
It might be fitting that the sleaziest case will go first. But this prosecution ought not to be diminished. It also involves alleged criminal actions taken to influence an election—or prevent an election from being influenced by Daniels’ claim that Trump had a tryst with her at a 2006 charity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe while his wife, Melania, was home with 4-month-old Barron. And here’s an important fact: The Justice Department and a federal court have already declared that a crime occurred in the commission of this $130,000 payoff.
Those of you who might need a refresher course in the Trump-Daniels Affair are fortunate. About a year ago, I published a comprehensive rundown of this nasty business based on court records and public accounts. If you believe possessing a thorough knowledge of all this will impress your friends, you should read this article. But for our purposes now, you only need to recall this: Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to arranging the bribe paid to Daniels, and he was sent to the hoosegow for that and other infractions of the law. That is, a crime did happen. The question now is whether Trump will be held accountable for it.
It's tough to keep track of all of Trump’s legal woes. But you might remember that when the feds were prosecuting Cohen, they referred to Trump as “Individual-1” in their court filings. In the sentencing memo that the US attorney’s office filed in December 2018 after Cohen pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution with the Daniels payment and to other unrelated charges, the prosecutors stated that regarding that payoff to Daniels, Cohen “acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1.”
Trump’s Justice Department said the hush-money payment was a federal crime, and its prosecutors declared in an official proceeding that Trump had been a co-conspirator and caused this crime to be committed. Yet nothing happened to Trump. Cohen was shipped off to federal prison in upstate New York to serve two and a half years.
This episode raised the question of high-level corruption. Following the resolution of Cohen’s case, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York intended to continue investigating the matter, which could have included further probing Trump’s role. But in his book, Holding the Line, Geoffrey Berman, who served as the US attorney for the Southern District, revealed that Bill Barr, who became attorney general around this time, tried to kill “the ongoing investigation”—and that Barr in a “highly unusual” move suggested that Cohen’s conviction be reversed. Berman wondered if Barr’s goal was “to ensure that the president could not be charged after leaving office.”
It was classic: The boss got off; the lieutenant did the time. Bragg seeks to remedy this unfairness. Legal experts will tell you that the case—with its 34 felony counts
of falsifying business records to hide the $130,000 payment—is not a slam dunk. But it is important. As Norm Eisen, a former Obama White House counsel, puts it, “It is really an election interference case—the gateway drug to what later developed with election interference in 2020.” And in the aftermath of Trump's $83 million loss in the sexual assault and defamation civil case brought against him by E. Jean Carroll, a trial that showcases Trump's alleged infidelity could reinforce negative attitudes about his personal conduct.
And there’s more: This is a state prosecution, not a federal affair. Should Trump be convicted in this case, he could not pardon himself if he were to return to the White House. Nor could he order this case shut down were it to last that long due to appeals. One wonders what might happen if Trump is sentenced to prison and he wins the election. Will he defy the New York legal system? Will marshals from the Empire State seek to haul him in and find themselves in a standoff with Secret Service agents? As bizarre as the Trump years have been, they can become wilder.
While it made sense for Smith to go first with a trial related to Trump’s effort to end American democracy, that’s not what’s in the script now. The hush-money case, which forces Americans to once more confront Trump’s scuzziness, ought not to be scoffed at. It reveals so much about the man: his phoniness, his personal dishonesty, his hypocrisy, his corruption. Of his many alleged crimes, it may not be the greatest. But it may be the Trumpiest.
Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
A Farewell Message From Alexei Navalny |
As I write this, it’s being reported that Alexei Navalny, the Russian anti-corruption activist and opposition leader, has died in the maximum-security Arctic prison to which he was recently relocated. He was a brave man. His death and life are reminders that it does take courage to stand up to repression and fascism—and that Vladimir Putin, who is fawned over by Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and the MAGA right, is a war criminal and murderer who presides over a tyrannical state. A year ago, I wrote
about the moving documentary that CNN made about Navalny. There’s a moment in the film that has unfortunately become more poignant. Toward the end, director Daniel Roher asks Navalny to leave behind a message for the Russian people in the event he is killed. In English, he replies, “My message for the situation when I am killed is very simple: not give up.” Roher then requests he answer this question in Russian, and Navalny provides a more elaborate response: “Listen, I’ve got something very obvious to tell you. You’re not allowed to give up. If they decide to kill me, it means that we are incredibly strong. We need to utilize this power, to not give up, to remember we are a huge power that is being oppressed by these bad dudes. We don’t realize how strong we actually are. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. So don’t be inactive.”
I wonder how many of us would make such a sacrifice to fight for American democracy. And I wish more could have been done to help him. At the very least, watch this film and keep him in mind. Perhaps the best tribute we can pay Navalny is to be inspired by him. |
|
|
Dumbass Comment of the Week |
Donald Trump’s recent comment in which he encouraged Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin to invade NATO countries that did not spend enough on defense, of course, triggered outrageous responses. Dumbassery tends to breed more dumbassery. In that regard, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) did not disappoint. Asked about Trump’s irresponsible remark, Rubio said, “Well, that's not what happened...He was telling a story...He doesn't talk like a traditional politician...I have zero concern.” |
Rubio has come a long way from pointing out the smallness of Trump’s hands to serving as a cabana boy for him.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) outdid Rubio in idiocy, while addressing Trump’s statement on Putin and NATO. Speaking on The Jeff Poor Show, Tuberville went ga-ga over the Russian leader: “You can tell Putin’s on top of his game.” Praising a war criminal and murderer? How Trumpian.
Tuberville went on to hail Putin for decrying “the propaganda media machine over here” that promotes “anything they possibly can to go after Russia.” The GOP senator also blamed the US and NATO for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, saying, “We forced this issue. We kept forcing NATO all the way to Eastern Europe, and Putin just got tired of it.” He added, “I can understand what he’s talking about.” This is what a useful idiot looks like.
Appearing on Fox Business, Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) pulled off a display of racist misogyny. Referring to Vice President Kamala Harris, he said, “Kamala, good lord, we talked about intelligence being a risk factor for dementia. Let's not even go there with her." |
Murphy was calling Harris, a former district attorney, state attorney general, and senator, stupid. But based on what? The DCotW judges didn’t have to try too hard to guess. After all, in 2020, Murphy tweeted that Harris, then the vice presidential nominee, was a “walking disaster” who “was only picked for her color and her race.” In June 2022, after Roe v. Wade
was overturned by the Supreme Court, Murphy tweeted that “no one forces anyone to have sex.” Though he deleted both tweets, they suggest that this guy has a problem with Black people and with women. Murphy came close to grabbing first place, but that honor went to Jared Kushner. On Tuesday, he was speaking
at a conference in Miami organized by Axios. Naturally, the topic of the Saudis investing $2 billion in Kushner’s private equity firm came up. He was asked about the US intelligence report
that implicated Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Kushner said—of course—that he had not seen the report, which was made public and which concluded MBS had likely okayed the gruesome assassination of Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. He praised the prince as a “visionary leader.” But when pressed if he believed the conclusion of the US intelligence community, Kushner said, “Are we really still doing this?”
This crass and creepy display of arrogance and elitism caused jaws to drop in the shared chambers of the DCotW judges. Once the astonishment receded, they unanimously agreed on this week’s winner: the American prince with blood on his hands. |
I was wrong. I recently noted that writing about the Middle East provokes the most amount of mail. Scratch that. It’s writing about Joe Biden and his age, which I addressed two issues in a row.
Nancy Bruski represented one (very) strong school of thought: I’ve been a longtime admirer of yours and enjoy my subscription to Our Land
, but I was quite disturbed to see you, even this week, harping on the dangers of Biden’s advanced age and wondering how and whether it might still be possible to get him off the Dem ticket. Have you lost your mind? And just who would replace him? As you mentioned, Kamala Harris should be the rightful person to become the next candidate of the Democratic party, since she is V.P. Yet for some mysterious reasons, many Dems don’t like her. (Misogyny? Racism? What?) The only result of pushing Biden off as a candidate would be a bloodbath that would surely result in a Trump victory.
I’m actually pretty shocked that a sophisticated guy such as yourself can’t see that even talking about wishing one could get Biden off the ticket is a very bad idea at this point. The time for that passed ages ago. And Biden is actually pretty sharp in his thinking, if not always his wordsmithing. And his performance in office has been mostly stellar.
I hope you will let go of this hand wringing over his age and focus on how Biden is infinitely better than the alternative! The more people with followings who obsess about his age, the worse things will get. Trump can’t even get out a sentence that makes sense and is planning to destroy NATO and would give Poland to Putin, and you’re still worrying about Biden’s age? Come on, now! So please stop with this already, and as my mother used to say, don’t get your kishkes in an uproar over the craziness about Biden’s age! Besides, 81 is the new 70!
First, I would be delighted if 81 is the new 70. My back tells me otherwise. And in my defense, I was not calling for kicking Biden to the curb. I was recognizing that for some voters his age is indeed an issue, and that should not be ignored. I also speculated about what could happen should either he choose to bow out or Democrats lean on him to do so. At the same time, I have pounded the conventional media for going nuts over this, while letting Trump slide for so much. All in all, I think that’s a balanced approach. But, of course, I would.
Dan Chabot was more favorable: I think you hit on the required approach: “Biden needs to do what he can to address the matter.” Many of his surrogates talk about how sharp he is in meetings, etc. He needs to get out and show it. The Hur report didn’t really say anything people weren’t already thinking. Nicholas Sinisi emailed: How culpable do you feel Attorney General Garland is in all of this? He put a Trump-appointed special prosecutor in charge of the Biden documents case, and Robert Hur obviously felt it necessary to put a partisan tone on the final report. Maybe Garland should have insisted on vetting (editing?) Hur's report before it landed.
As far as the media goes, it seems like they constantly bend over backwards to find and exploit Biden's flaws so that they don't appear biased against a candidate who faces an unprecedented number of criminal counts. This "horserace" mentality, which is good for TV ratings and sells newspapers, is destructive to the democratic process. Biden is old. He can't do anything about that. But the MSM is so cowed by the MAGA media and fearful of blowback that they knuckle under. They need to stop trying to "even the score.”
It does seem to me that Garland doesn’t have a good sense of how MAGA politics works these days, and he assumed too much good faith in handing this investigation to a Trump appointee—especially after the disaster with special counsel John Durham. As for the media, I pointed out in my most recent outing on this front that it often fails in one of its most important missions: assigning the appropriate priority to stories. Gary Michael shared this: Everyone is missing the point. Vice President Kamala Harris is less popular than Biden. She has never had a large following. The fact that she is next in line makes Biden’s age an important issue. He needs a new more likable running mate to allow people to get past the age issue.
Were Biden to bounce Harris, that would lead to tremendous conflict within the Democratic coalition, with Black voters (particularly Black women) outraged. Democrats probably cannot win without them. Diane Wagner had a similar thought to Gary’s:
Biden remains the candidate for president. Gavin Newsom replaces Kamala Harris as vice president. Kamala replaces Merrick Garland as attorney general. Garland retires to a tortoise farm. This would ease voters' anxiety. It would also get rid of Garland, who has made a significant contribution to our current mess. What do you think? P.S. I am halfway through your book
American Psychosis. I compliment you on your taste in books...I still think a move like this would be widely seen as shunting Harris aside to make room for a white guy. I’ve heard others suggest she should be appointed to the Supreme Court—but that would require a vacancy. Doug Greenberg hopes Biden will say goodbye:
The Democrats appear, as usual, to be led by what some of us call "stupid smart people," unable to transcend their own righteous and sometimes arrogant assumptions. In 2016, a lot of people could see well in advance of election day that Hillary Clinton was a flawed, even disastrous candidate. Part of this was not her fault, as the right-wing media had been pounding her for decades, and some (not all) of their attacks were mostly baseless. But in elections, perceptions are reality. Repeated declarations by Democratic leaders that "the attacks are unfair" did nothing to change people's perceptions. So now in 2024, here we go again. Some Democratic leaders bleat that attacking Joe Biden because of his age is "ageist" and "unfair." Well, this is true, but no matter how many times this judgment is repeated, it will not move the electoral needle. Biden has become a fatally flawed candidate, and the stakes in 2024 are too high to simply allow him to run and lose, and then afterward wag fingers about "ageism."
In late March 1968, Lyndon Johnson declared he would not seek the nomination of his party. He knew his presence in the race would be fatally inflammatory and divisive. The Democrats lost anyway, but Humphrey made it close. Biden should follow Johnson's example. For the good of the nation, it is best that he withdraws from the race in favor of a candidate that has a better chance of winning this all-important election.
So to whom do the Democrats turn? One alternative would be Gavin Newsom, but with his slick, calculating demeanor and his California political base he would not be a winner nationally. As for Kamala Harris, I am a Bay Area resident who has followed her career from its early days, and I am not a fan. But nationally, it's really a case of "here we go again." Yup, she has been tarnished fatally by the vicious worlds of punditry and negative social media memes. In my opinion, the best candidate for the Democrats would be Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. She is tough, smart, has no serious baggage (that I know of), and she has shown herself to be an astute and appealing politician. She could win.
As I note above, any plan that involves dumping Harris will create problems. But I am curious about how Whitmer would perform on the national stage—if not this year, then perhaps soon. Jo Kooser had a question:
Why does not even one news outlet publicize the very relevant fact that Trump’s father was diagnosed at 70 with Alzheimer’s disease, which, in many cases, is inherited? Peter Greenwald shared this:
In March 2020, while campaigning for presidential nomination, Joe Biden said, “I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else.” Do you think when he said that he intended to be a one-term president, but now he is so impressed with his position as president that he’s changed his mind?
I wish I could offer insight into his thinking. But your guess is as good as mine. As Biden likes to note, he did beat Trump once, and perhaps he truly believes that’s the best qualification. |
“Is that a Valentine’s Day gift, Moxie?” “No, I was sitting here minding my own business, when someone walked by and dropped this on me.”
“You look so pretty, and it goes nicely with the bow you have on.” “That’s another thing: I don’t know why they put this silly thing on every time you take me to that awful place with the clippers.” “It’s just to make you look nice.” “I’m tired of being judged by my appearance.” |
Read Recent Issues of Our Land
|
February 13, 2024: Joe Biden’s age and how the media covers it; The Greatest Night in Pop lives up to its title; Slow Horses and For All Mankind and the challenge of producing high-quality television; and more. February 10, 2024: Biden or Trump and the memory hole; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Marjorie Taylor Greene); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. February 6, 2024: Joy Reid and a civil rights love story; a new biography of Lou Reed; and more. February 3, 2024: A too-late Biden shift on Israel?; writing about Taylor Swift; a classic Trump video on lying; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar); MoxieCam™; and more. January 30, 2024
: New book tells the inside story of the Georgia RICO case against Donald Trump; Trump pals around with accused billionaire sex criminal; Anatomy of a Fall soars; and more. January 27, 2024: The dilemma of the anti-Trump conservatives; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
January 23, 2024: Trump, Putin, and Russia—it never ends; my warning to Ron DeSantis; Ava DuVernay’s big idea in Origin; Allison Russell and The Returner; and more. January 20, 2024: The absurdity of No Labels; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Ron DeSantis); the Mailbag: MoxieCam™; and more. January 17, 2024: Hugh Hewitt’s constitutional con; the truth of American Fiction; George Saunders’ Liberation Day; and more.
January 13, 2024: Is Trump extremism getting more extreme?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (everyone!); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. |
|
|
Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com
. |
|
|
|