In a recent interview on Fox News that doubled as an audition to become the running mate of a budding authoritarian, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has predictably cried foul over what has been called a “silent trial over money.”
“There is only one person who could face such charges, and he has to have the last name of Donald Trump,” declared Rubio.
“Little Marco” is far from the days of GQ profiles like “All eyes on Him,” which saw him as the future of the Republican Party, but despite how much more pathetic he’s been since then, he’s making a point – only it’s not the one he thinks he’s making.
My knowledge of law is limited to Maxine Shaw, old episodes of “Law and order” and no matter what the contracted legal beagles say on cable news, but even without JD it always seemed crazy for people to downplay the Trump criminal case related to the money paid to Stormy Daniels in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign.
I agree that the 34 indictments The payments related to the reimbursement of lawyer Michael Cohen are nothing more than paper crimes and allegations of commercial fraud and are much less serious than an attempted coup d’état and the theft of the most secret documents of the federal government and their storage in the restrooms of its members-only club.
So what ?
No, it’s not a coup, but according to Rubio, only Donald Trump would be involved in a matter like this, because Trump is the only politician who would use a tabloid to defame his political opponents while protecting himself .
Any other politician would have suffered from such a scandal, and yet Trump managed to continue to slip through.
He does this thanks to cable news anchors, newspaper columnists and analysts, TV pundits and lawyers with paid TV contracts who have actively downplayed this matter, calling it less serious and, in many cases case, unworthy of criminal prosecution.
You can also add unserious and useless politicians like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on the list, as he told CNN: “There are two really strong cases: January 6 and Georgia. Everything else makes no sense. »
Some of the critics of this case and its prosecution may have informed their opinions on the use of the law here, but ultimately many people dislike this case and find it less important because it involved a porn star and an extramarital affair.
Yes, people voted for Trump despite multiple sexual assault accusations leveled against him toward the end of the 2016 election, but there was obviously enough concern about Trump having sex with an actor in adult cinema shortly after his wife gave birth to their son. make a payment to silence her.
I also don’t want to hear about Trump being spanked with a magazine or his alleged condom use, but this is the man who has been saying the most outlandish, violently racist and sexist things since he was elected. become a political force that if we had to endure all of this, people can drop the fake Puritan act and talk about it.
Another argument against Trump’s prosecution of the case was that indictments with more serious charges should have been prioritized.
Sure, but when it comes to seeing Trump face justice, beggars can’t be choosers.
Trump has long proven himself capable of bending systems to his will, and when it comes to the criminal justice system, he’s been doing it since the 1970s. So I don’t know why all these justice warriors Justice in the political media believed that somehow he would fail to do the same with his rotating criminal charges.
In some cases – coughFulton County, cough – the actions of some of Trump’s prosecutors indirectly helped him in his efforts to delay his trials.
The result of these perpetuated narratives about the affair has arguably led Americans to largely ignore it.
According to a PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist Poll released in early May, 55% said they weren’t following it much or at all, compared to 45% who said they were paying some or a lot of attention to the trial.
And as Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan heads toward closing arguments, in a separate CBS News poll56% say Trump is definitely or probably guilty of his crimes, but they are almost split down the middle on what they think the jury will decide.
Considering the fact that the next president may be a convicted felonI’m irritated by how polarized Americans remain on this topic.
And the Republicans already have their line of defense.
Alex Castellanos, a veteran Republican strategist, recently explained to the New York Times, “An acquittal would vindicate him, and a guilty verdict would martyr him – and, hey, that’s how you start a religion.”
Certainly, the conservative media ecosystem is massive enough to still blur the lines, but again, this was done with the help of the mainstream media who actively reduced the severity of the “secret” trial because they felt that the other crimes were more serious.
Fortunately, at least some people have come to their senses. In “The Trump affair in New York is pretty perfect” George Conway writes in Atlantic: “The truth is that I have come to the idea that People v. Trump is, at least in some ways, the perfect case to put Trump in the dock for the first time, and – I hope, but we will. see – maybe prison. Because this affair really captivates Donald Trump.
The reason is that, no matter what you call his current criminal trial, Conway notes, “what it really is about is Trump’s modus operandi: lying.”
Indeed, all of his crimes and each of his impeachment trials revolve around an underlying lie that he wanted to perpetuate in order to defraud the American voter.
And he will not only lie, but he will also use force – no matter how violent – in order to facilitate his lie and get what he wants.
It was always a mistake not to bring him to heel sooner in this matter, because it allowed him to continue to believe that no lie is too big to tell to get what he wants.
There is unlikely to be another trial before the November election, so whatever the final verdict in this case, it is not too late for those who control our news stories to reshape and reimagine the Trump’s modus operandi before it is too late.
yahoo
