Some predicted jury selection in the ex-president’s trial would take two weeks. Thanks to the civic-mindedness of ordinary Americans, it took three days.
Stalin would be proud of this kangaroo court show trial. 85% of the jury pool is anti trump and majority of those selected read Pravda aka New York Times. The worst part is Judge Marchan. His daughter is paid millions to run campaigns for democrats like Russiagater Schiff. His wife worked for New York AG Letitia James, who campaigned on getting Trump and bragged about the massive fine for the real estate fraud where every bank testified they were fully paid back. Trump has been gagged from drawing attention to this. If the roles were reversed, the left would be shrieking for the judge to recuse himself.
This is pretty obviously integration propaganda intended to prerationalize a potential guilty verdict in a trial that was SET UP to set up Trump, to create farcical charges that had already been passed on by several Federal prosecutors.
Put simply, Trump OBVIOUSLY committed no crime. Not only no felony, but no misdemeanor. If they were not trying to get him, there would be no jury to select because there would be no trial.
It's getting to where it's necessary to assume dishonesty, and moral malignancy of anyone who fails to see the obvious facts. And I don't see how one goes about reaching people who choose this sort of evil. I try, but I seem to fail, always.
"It's getting to where it's necessary to assume dishonesty, and moral malignancy of anyone who fails to see the obvious facts." I heard a far leftist person say almost exactly this yesterday. I think you're all on the war path, fueled by hubris.
The difference is that I know what they believe and why. They, in contrast, get angry and stop listening when confronted with truths they dont want to accept.
You cant avoid left wing spin. Its everywhere. But given the paucity of journalists even attempting to tell full truths its very easy to live an entire life and NEVER encounter conservative ideas in forms other than deceptive caricature.
There are probably a lot of differences between you and the far left, but that's not really the point. The point is that that you are calling anyone who disagrees with you on this subject "dishonest" or "morally malignant". That's going to include a whole lot more people than just the far left. I'm not denying that there is a truth, but it's hubris that makes us believe that we know exactly what it is and couldn't possibly be mistaken. At the same time, I shouldn't be making assumptions about you being on the war path based on one Internet comment, so I'm sorry.
I am saying that anyone who believes this current trial in New York is anything but an UnAmerican absurdity and mockery of honest law is ignorant, malignant, or stupid.
If you have zero idea why I would say this, then EDUCATE yourself. Some things are not ambiguous, and if ine side is completely insane, the truth will never, ever be found in the middle.
I’m not even angry. I am simply speaking blunt truth as I see it. If you want to disagree, feel free to do so. But educate yourself first. If you know what you are talking about, them I feel fully confident you will agree that I am right.
When genuine crimes are committed—here by amoral and authoritarian prosecutors in New York—then righteous anger is entirely warranted.
And when people are being stupid, saying “you are being stupid” is not unwarranted, even if it can be very unhelpful in many ways.
This story crosses the line from gaslighting to lying.
“Anyway, the two already-identified jurors were immediately outed as lying, anti-Trump moles. One was an older, white oncology nurse (female). In what the Washington Post described as a surreal exchange, she tried covering for her awful 2016 posts bashing Trump by apologizing to him in court and saying she’d gotten a little crazy during the election but was fine now.
Her 2016 posts said things like: “We must … protect the rights of people at risk from this racist, sexist narcissist”, “I wouldn’t believe Donald Trump if his tongue was notarized”, and “Trump is an anathema to everything I was told about love and about Jesus.”
Yet according to this TFP she is a victim of journalism committed by Jesse Watters.
You can’t - we can’t - I can’t - it’s a kangaroo court one need only look at the judge, the prosecutor and the AG just to see how corrupt this case is against President Trump, we are living in very strange times
This is going to end Republican trust in Democrat courts, and it should.
I knew people in Seattle who told me four years ago they wanted Trump in jail and they didn't care what ultimately got him there. Justice had nothing to do with it. They presumed guilty and we're proud of it, and some of them would absolutely lie to get on the panel and then vote guilty.
You cannot have "free press" and "partisan courts" at the same time. Journalists are failing in their watchdog role in this critical transition into totalitarianism.
The Prog Dems I know are very clear about Trump's crime, i.e., Jan 6th. They talk as if that is what he is being tried for. When I point out that he is being tried for paying a woman he had sex with to keep her mouth shut, they immediately reply that Trump deserves to be punished for "that, too." Of course, what Trump is actually being tried for is neither of the above.
Which is to say, they know this is political persecution, it's once again rooted in Democrat lies and propaganda, and they're so full of blind partisan hate that they don't care about justice at all.
This is the state of the typical Democrat. Not the radicals, all of them.
I certainly find that all Democrats are like this, but I live in Portland where a moderate Democrat anchors the right end of the political range, and conservatives have either been driven out or silenced.
As fair minded people it is our duty to read and respect the authors point of view. We don’t have to agree with them, but that is what independent thinkers do. Unlike the left, we don’t squash or eliminate people from our sphere just because they have different perspectives.
Sure, I welcome this POV and I'm happy TFP prints it. It helps me to understand shall I dare say it....TDS. But I don't have to respect his POV, which is a POV built on a lie.
To paraphrase an old saying about Brooklyn, you can take a.person out.of the New York Times, but you can't take the New York Times out of the person. Applies across the board at TFP.
The Free Press is telling me I cannot like this comment. Interesting.
As general note: if the Free Press starts blocking my comments, I'm gone in a New York minute. I'm here for the comments, and only on very rare occasions your coverage. If you want to drop from 650,000 subscribers to 300,000 in a month, start doing leftwing bullshit like all the other leftwing sites. It may well be worse than that, since you are disliked on most of the left too.
The only people left would be the people who read this story and think, gosh, he has a point. I'm very sure this very just trial on reasonable charges will be conducted fairly, because I was just told so.
Sometimes I hit the like button twice (inadvertently) but only notice that I seem to not be able to like that comment. But it’s because you can only ‘like’ a comment once. At least that’s what I have found.
Are you saying that you, specifically, are barred from “liking” a specific comment by someone else? You can subscribe and comment, but you cannot “like” someone else’s comment?
If the algorithm literally won’t let you like the comment, that means Bill Cribben has blocked you. Once someone blocks you, you are no longer allowed to interact with them on Substack. You can’t reply to their posts or mention them in your posts. Maybe you can’t even like their posts. Try replying to Cribben and if it won’t let you, then he has blocked you. Not TFP.
Could be. I'm not losing sleep over it. I prefer to lose sleep over lots of other things. If it doesn't happen again, I will have forgotten it in a week.
You believed them. Maybe I would, but I'd wonder if the pauses were not about sincerity, but about not giving away enough to be dismissed.
I question if it's possible to prosecute Trump fairly in a blue state. I also question whether this case could be brought in front of an impartial judge - it seems really, really thin - maybe as thin as the last case in New York where he was fined hundreds of millions of dollars and there were no victims at all. Is he ever going to get out of New York courtrooms?
On the other hand, I really dislike Trump as well, and wouldn't mind seeing him go away.
Maybe I shouldn't care about justice. Joe seems to have love for the system, but it seems all New York cares about is getting Trump. Jewish students are being attacked down the street and women are being punched and pushed in front of subway cars and the theft is non-stop and the perpetrators are back on the streets the next day, not even one dollar in bail.
Anyway, the outcome seems inevitable, and this promises to be the absolute worst election ever, this side of Venezuela. But I think the damage done to the judicial system will last a lot longer than Trump will.
Jim, I agree with everything you said, except about wanting Donald Trump to go away. His boorish personality aside, his policies made our country better, broadly speaking. And our alternative is Joe Biden.
I can handle the boorishness. I don't have to like the guy. But I think he's the only person in the entire Republican Party who could actually lose to Biden at this point.
I think it's time to elect someone who will bring people together, not continue to increase the divide. None of the last three presidents have made any secret about their hatred of those in the other party. Ruling by Executive Order is a weakness, not a strength.
I think that as long as a sufficient percentage of the population believes that it is permissible to allow completely open borders, that it is alright to prevent Jewish students from attending the classes they have paid for, that criminals should be allowed to walk the streets and be released, not just on 0 bail, but completely uncharged, that there will be a divide in this country, and no one will be able to gap it.
If it were simply a blue state, that would be one thing. This is a jurisdiction in which the man prosecuting the case was elected on "getting" the defendant in this case. His election victory is almost enough to suggest that Trump can't have a fair trial there. If they were interested in fairness, at all, this would have been moved to another jurisdiction. It is hard to think of another case where perception of fairness matters more.
It baffles me that Mr. Nocera seems naïve enough to think that Leftists who want to convict Trump would be incapable of lying convincingly in order to get seated on the jury.
Seems to me he is simply basing this on his gut feeling. There are no real facts presented here to back up his feelings. To me, the fact that so many had to be dismissed is actually a BAD thing.
Celia M — Maybe the jurors who raised their hands and admitted their bias should have been selected for the jury. After all, they’re probably the only honest people in the room.
A progressive judge is a progressive first and a judge second. A progressive juror is a progressive first and a juror second.
A progressive journalist is a progressive first and a journalist second.
I'm a little weary of hearing people weigh in on whether or not they "like" Trump. It's not about that and it's a little narcissistic to be asking that question. The question we all should be asking is what will the effect on our country and the world be if Trump is elected vs Biden being reelected? We actually have four years of experience with each, so it's not terribly difficult to compare. It is demonstrably and factually true that the four Trump years were more peaceful and prosperous than the Biden years. By far.
I agree with the questions. I don't agree with the answers. The Obama/Biden path is actively destructive. They try to tear the heart out of our country - small business is an enemy to them rather than a path for upward mobility.
People say you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Obama and Biden want to package up all the water and dole it out themselves - but only to horses who properly worship them.
If I have to choose between them, the choice is obvious. However, we don't just need a president who isn't trying to rip our country apart. We need a president who can begin to heal it as well. Trump can't get that done. Reagan won every state except Minnesota and DC because he knew how to get things done. Trump really can't get anything done.
It's too late for 2024, and we're stuck with him. Fortunately, I'm in one of the 43 states that doesn't matter one tiny bit in November, because I dislike him too much to vote for him. You call that narcissism, and I sort-of see that. Maybe more hypocrisy in that I think it would be disastrous to re-elect Biden, but I'm glad I don't have to get my hands dirty and actually put my vote down to that effect.
I would say that Trump got quite a bit done despite the ceaseless efforts of the Democrats to stop him, hence, the resulting peace and prosperity. Unfortunately the choice now is binary: Trump or Biden. I agree with you that Biden et al are extremely destructive, so they're out of the question. Hold your nose and vote for Trump. Life is full of choices for the lesser of two evils. In this case Biden is way, way worse than anything Trump is guilty of. So again, vote accordingly.
I do agree that this upcoming election promises to be straight out of the gates of Hell. But to your last point as to the damage on our judicial system - because of Trump we now have a conservative Supreme Court for at least the next fifteen years.
“It took some real courage to be on the Trump jury.”. Why? Because us right wing MAGA loving fascist deplorables will undoubtedly inflict pain and suffering on these public spirited heroes? Get your head out of your butt Nocera. Is this Stalinist court, combined with the atrocities inflicted at Columbia against Jewish students with the implicit blessing of Columbia and NYC officialdom “Americans at their very best”? I weep for our broken country. I fear we are doomed. Delusional musings such as Noceras fantasies do little to help. They are proof positive of the rot.
I really cannot overstate that once these fake trials end in convictions and slapping Trump with "felon" - which is the goal of their election campaign - Republicans will never trust Democrats in court again. For good reason.
This is going to destroy one of the most important pillars of our society. I'm shocked TFP is cheering them on.
This is a wrongfully brought case that has its genesis in hate for Trump. The comment that no one is above the law is itself revealing. Any statute of limitations concerns, any stretch of the law concerns are cast aside with that. The rule of law is not being applied fairly and to be sure, Trump is not a gnarly co-worker. He inspires hateful passion in 85% of New Yorkers; this jury has no chance of being impartial, no matter what these “sophisticates” tell the judge.
"Most of the reporters believed them" . . . Phew! I was beginning to hope that there might be some semblance of fairness in this whole imbroglio, but in one fell swoop, you've helped me cast aside such foolishness and come back down to reality The imprimatur of the most corrupt, shallow and mendacious of the chattering classes (not you, personally, Joe. I have no idea how corrupt you might be. I'm just talking about your friends and associates) has renewed my confidence that a fair trial for Trump in Manhattan is simply against the laws of physics. It's like you're trying to sell us a perpetual motion machine. It's yet another example of that annoying tic that prevents reporters from mentioning anything related to Trump without prefacing their remarks with "unsubstantiated" or "lies about [insert topic, but usually the election]". Every time it's uttered (and uttered it is, like a champion Wisconsin holstein) it only serves to further cement everyone else's confidence that the "Big Lie" isn't on the lips of a certain former President. It's a tell - more pathological, pompous and plainly transparent with each subsequent utterance, yet increasingly tinged with worry that the jig is up. It's like the Dem hysteria about all things Russian. In for a penny, in for a pound. Gotta keep the heat focused . . . over there. But hey! Wasn't it ol'Hills that hit the unbelievably comically incorrect "reset" button in Moscow? They were buddies.
What happened to their love? 'Cause now it's all Russia RusSIA RUSSIA, all the time. She invented the whole goddamn thing to explain why she, a plainly shit candidate with a YUGE sense of entitlement, lost an election to that boorish real estate developer and reality tv goon, who eats steak with ketchup. I mean, she did everything she could to win - corruptly boxed out ol'Bolshevik Bernie, alienated half the country with high-minded insults weeks before the election, hired a half-assed Brit ex-spook to play spoiler (and hid the payments), had her goons lie to the FBI and CIA . . . the list goes on and on. I mean, she had the press in her pocket and she even spoke with a terrible black accent, I mean, Urban affectation (you know what I'm talkin' about) -- and she still lost! Imagine! What a nation of ingrates, not to recognize what she has done for them, for you - the shit she's put up with, her trials and tribulations, that husband of hers, what with his running around and dipping his wick in whatever honeypot he can find, her time ranching in Little Rock . . . She's better than all that. It was she who deserved the oval office, not that charming rogue bastard peckerwood BillyBob. And then some Bernie-bro dipshit at the DNC leaks all her and her cronies' machinations and blamo! There it is for all to see. Fuck, there has to be someone we can blame. How about that weirdo homoerotic Russian dude - the one shirtless on a horse, petting the tiger and 69-ing a bear? Well son'of'a'bitch if it ain't Russia that's gonna take the fall, or blame, or whatever. Just so long as everyone goes along with it, it'll be ok. Maintain the facade, steady with the mantra, like the frog in Popeye croaking out: "Putin did it, Putin did it". And hey! Think not about how corrupt Ukraine has been - or how they're paying off the Biden syndicate . It's all about saving Europe from becoming Russia's bitch (even though, let's be serious, that's what they secretly desire, ESPECIALLY Germany). Like HRC staring in the mirror and smearing on lipstick as Balalaika blares in the background, or Mary Louise Kelly or Jenn White's stick-up-their-ass, too-smug-to-be-real assurances that Biden was freely and fairly elected (Marc Elias who?) It's a tell - the repetition shows, more than anything, that they realize what they've done and are desperately trying to cover up by placing any kind of questioning of a Biden victory so far outside the bounds of polite society that to suggest otherwise in any fashion makes you a lunatic, in the company of. . . of. . . well, deplorables. There, they haven't said it, but someone else did and they agree. Of any class of people, of any profession, the people who most desperately want the whole circus to appear "fair" are reporters, because the opposite would be yet another step toward their being fully revealed. We can just see them now, shoulder to shoulder in an anteroom, sweat-stained pits, bad haircuts and foul breath notwithstanding, nodding earnestly to each other, "looks good to me, Bob. Clean as a whistle. Sure some lied to the judge, but he knows what's in their hearts, and he's a judge - a pillar of civil government with knowledge and insight beyond reproach, just like Alcee Hastings or Lance Ito.
The assurances of reporters is a tell, and recounting or crediting their confidence is the absolute undoing of your point. They'd see what they want to see, no matter what, minimally so they can pat themselves on the back about what a great job they did protecting democracy, or some such shit. We've seen this act over and over and it's revolting.
And while we're on the topic of lunacy, we're supposed to believe that the people rioting in the streets, burning down buildings, looting, assaulting police - AND THE PEOPLE/POLITICIANS BAILING THE RIOTERS OUT OF JAIL (ahem, Candy Colored Clown Kamala) -- THOSE PEOPLE who have so little respect for property, or safety, or public order, or anyone else, for that matter, when it comes to the ballot, that's sacrosanct territory, pal.
No way any of them would monkey with an election, no way no how, no siree. It's so far beneath them, to suggest that they would cheat an election is simply beyond the pale. A base calumny. How dare you, sir? HOW DARE YOU? I mean, how dare I? (sometimes I get turned around when I'm mocking absurdity).
So, to make a long story short, you're going to have to do better than "reporters thought it fair", because you're citing the most provably dishonest cohort of hangers-on this society has to offer. Thanks, and have a great day!
You are correct. It was wordy, and repetitive in places, but it was 3 am and I wanted to push it out before the sober light of morning caused me to think better of it. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Mr. Monella, your writing style reminds me of Matt Taibbi. He has a special flair for sarcasm and humor, but he's more measured. He has to be, since he's a reporter, whereas you can just let it rip.
I did find this description of Putin a bit creepy, because it's hard to un-see:
"...that weirdo homoerotic Russian dude - the one shirtless on a horse, petting the tiger and 69-ing a bear..." But I have to admit, it's funny.
I'll bet Joe Nocera ducks down the next time Oliver Wiseman comes out of his office -- getting sacrificed like this by Salvatore Monella. (And both their names end in vowels).
Thx. I ask b/c I grew up with a Karg family in the neighborhood and have not heard or seen the surname since. Good people, the Karg’s. Sure, they were genetically prone to criminal
Activity, but I’m sure it’s a different branch of the family than the Akron Kargs. Now where’s that damn emoji smiley face button . . .
My brother and were the only criminals, out of 32 cousins. I hope you felt the compliment in my original comment, comparing you favorable to Bruce Miller.
"And hey! Think not about how corrupt Ukraine has been - or how they're paying off the Biden syndicate " This really troubles me. How are we not putting the Bidens on trial over their investments in Ukraine, that Ukrainian judge Biden bragged about having fired, and the Hunter Biden Laptop scandal instead of the completely political Trump trials? Humm... I suspect that a lot of the fanatical waving of Ukrainian flags by our government has to do with wanting to protect their gravy train.
"so far outside the bounds of polite society that to suggest otherwise in any fashion makes you a lunatic" They do this with everything. If you point out that some man is actually a man or that children should not be mutilated so that doctors make money and the AGPs get a happy - you are outside the bounds and a major phobe, doncha know?
"The assurances of reporters is a tell, and recounting or crediting their confidence is the absolute undoing of your point. " Exactly. We see this again and again.
"we're supposed to believe that the people rioting in the streets, burning down buildings, looting, assaulting police - AND THE PEOPLE/POLITICIANS BAILING THE RIOTERS OUT OF JAIL (ahem, Candy Colored Clown Kamala) -- THOSE PEOPLE who have so little respect for property, or safety, or public order, or anyone else, for that matter, when it comes to the ballot, that's sacrosanct territory," Bingo. There is probably a small group of hired people who could be arrested and we'd see such rioting and bridge blocking plummet. But, it won't happen under this regime.
Thank you. I'm sensing the an upper-midwest vibe from you, even independent of the "doncha know". Sensible, straight-forward, hot dish-centric. Good people, them.
What is hilarious is that you, without having seen any of the evidence, have already made up your mind about guilt. And that you can read the minds of the jurors from afar and judge them. So, actual potential jurors when asked about having already made up their minds, raised their hands and were excused. I doubt folks on this comment section will do the same thing.
Here is the truth. Most people aren't ideologues of either stripe. And from data that has been collected for decades, a huge majority of people attempt to give folks charged with criminal behavior a fair trial. You might not like the outcomes, but for the jurors, they attempt to do the best job with the evidence presented to them by the attorneys.
Eh, I believe you're mistaken in several important respects, to wit:
1) I operate on the premise that The Donald and Tits McGee did spend some quality time getting to know each other in the biblical sense, as I'm sure he has with other attractive women who somehow rotate into his orbit. I'm also quite certain that she was intending to go public and cash in, and DJT wanted to stop that from happening. So he turned to his lawyer/fixer/former sychophant buddy, Michel Cohen (probably not for the first time, and in all likelihood not the last, though obviously with a different lawyer) directing him to "Draw up a nondisclosure agreement, make contact with Chesty Larue and do what you have to do to shut her up - purchase the rights to her story, whatever. "
"How much is Mr. Trump, Master of all he Surveys, willing to pay the shady lady? Cohen the Imp inquires, his eyes darting furtively about the room, sweat beading on his upper lip.
"$125K. Final offer"
"Yes sir, Mr. Trump, sir." Cohen gushes, bowing and scraping as he sidles toward the door. "You have chosen wisely, as always. And your magnanimity is an example for all who aspire to greatness." DJT rolls his eyes
"One more thing," The Donald says. "I pay you a ton of money, Michael. You're lucky to know me" Cohen nods vigorously in agreement, his eager face alight. "Bill me at your hourly for the agreements and time arranging the deal. If she agrees, have the money on you to pay her right away and seal the deal. Don't want her having second thoughts. I'll reimburse you".
"Once more, sir," Cohen simpers, "you have unique insight into the human condition."
"Give Debra in accounting the, she's fantastic by the way. Brassy lady, great gams. Have you seen her dressed in blue? It's like the sky in front of you. I gave that line to Mick, you know. Timeless, my wisdom. Anyway, give Deb the signed NDA and proof of withdrawal from your account - not that I don't trust you, but you're a slippery character and who knows what nonsense you're into. You know that, we've discussed it many times. - anyway, no offense, but give Debra the documents and she'll cut you a check."
Speaking to someone out of frame. DJT ponders the situation. "Do you believe that? That roll in the hay with Ms. Bazongas was good, but not $125K good." he scoffs, exhaling wearily, "I guess its a sign of the times." A frown crosses his brow, "I'm just glad I got to this before Melania found out. She's been a trooper this campaign. She didn't ask for any of this, she's done nothing wrong, and she doesn't deserve this, it's my problem . . ." he trails off, moving to gaze out the window. "And the timing couldn't be worse, after that bit about grabbing females at the Y, in the home stretch of the campaign, no less." he pauses, then responds to a question posed from off camera. "No, the people against me are against me no matter what, and I don't care what they think. It's my supporters I'm worried about. It's not like they're going to vote for someone else, I just don't want to let them down - they put their faith in me and . . . they're wonderful, beautiful Americans, and boy do they love me. You watch." Suddenly his face brightens, and he grabs his phone from a pocket. "Cohen," he barks, "that phrase, `master of all he surveys' It fits me, right? Get it trademarked for me, pronto, and tack it onto the bill for lining up Ms. Funbags. He hangs up the phone and speaks again to a party off camera. "No, I don't trust him either. He's soft, and too used to living the good life - a life he didn't earn. Slippery as an eel, I say."
-SCENE-
2) the point of that richly detailed and entertaining backstory is that DJT is probably guilty of some low-level misreporting infraction (like, say, ol'Hills, who fraudulently entered the fee paid to that limey pseudo-spook Steele under "legal expenses". She/her campaign had to pay a $100,000 FEC fine for it. There was no talk of felony charges, because it'd be a patently absurd expansion of the plain meaning of the election interference statute), NOT the felony charges of allegedly intending to interfere with the election (which we'll get to).
The attempt to weave-in Felony-level culpability by Always Braggadocious is one of the more pathetic ideas to railroad DJT - which, by the way, was an explicit part of AB's campaign for DA, i.e. they had the man, and he promised to find the crime, which brings us to:
3) DJT's effort to muzzle the Storm and protect his public image, preserve his marriage and help his candidacy cannot be segregated individually - it's all normal activity for someone in the not-at-all normal world of presidential politics. You can't reverse-engineer it. One action, item or issue can and does bleed between these zones, effectively merging them - private, public and political -- in a largely unitary entity. Anything and everything in the public record, scandal, legal action, statements/mis-statements, policy, fundraising, etc. (much of what used to constitute actual "news"), is going to bleed together into a singular story line. Any news whatsoever about Trump, good or bad, true, half-true or completely false and/or the product of media bad faith or stupidity (which abounds) would impact public perception in some form and would have follow-on effects on the campaign. Trump wanted to avoid a host of negative consequences for his family life, political career, candidacy, etc. by suppressing the S. Daniels story. That act cannot support the claim that the entire thing was motivated solely for his political career. But even if political considerations controlled, to connect that act with a felony stretches the criminal statute way beyond its original remit.
The alchemy necessary to fit Trump's conduct to these charges constitutes yet another tell - this one exposing the entire effort as the PURELY political vendetta that it is. Democrats shouldn't be allowed to pervert the law any more than they already have -- it's yet another example demonstrating that Democrats don't care one whit about the law unless it does and says what they want. Otherwise, meh (e.g. Biden's latest student loan giveaway, despite SCOTUS ruling he lacks the authority to do so). Don't like the law, ignore it. Don't like the rules, change mid-stream. Classic Dem playbook. And, finally (whew):
4) I have picked juries in many serious felony cases as a prosecutor, and on balance, what you say is absolutely correct. The majority of Americans take jury duty seriously, and strive to be fair-minded.
But that's where it ends. I have sat on juries in Washington, DC and have seen what happens inside that room. The jurors spent half their time speculating about what "really" happened, often ignoring the actual evidence and the instructions from the judge. It was like a soap opera. Attempts to focus the conversation on what was presented in court were met with hostility and racial invective. It almost made me lose faith in the jury system, at least iuntiol I started picking them . . .
Having observed both of these dynamics, however, neither of them really applies here because this is, for many Manhattan residents, the trial of the century. True that most aren't ideologues, but people have preferences. We know Trump is deeply unpopular in this jurisdiction, and jurors have already been selected, then dismissed due to concealing partisan animus and lying to the court. For many people (probably a plurality), the possibility of participating in an historic event (even if it is a total train wreck from the outset) surely impacts their candor, even to themselves, with respect to fairness and impartiality. Many seeing stars and dreaming about being the hero - here comes their 15 minutes, TV appearances, book deals, etc. This is America, after all.
Oh, and one more thing. Stormy McDipshit signed the agreement and took the money. What the fuck is she doing? She should be forced to repay the money, with interest and penalties.
2. EXACTLY re "ol' Hills" and her "legal expenses". ARRRHGH! (she exclaimed, speechless in her frustration.) I know, I know; wasted energy but still - infuriating.
3. Veering off-topic, I must state that you really iced my cake writing, "an historic event". My geeky heart is glad. Purportedly literate media sources can't get that right; it makes me crazy. Many thanks :)
4. "Give Debra in accounting the, she's fantastic by the way. Brassy lady, great gams. Have you seen her dressed in blue? It's like the sky in front of you. I gave that line to Mick, you know. Timeless, my wisdom." GOLD!!
When I lived in Portland, it was a common occurrence to hear some speak in the most vehement and vulgar terms about their hatred for President George W. Bush. Somewhat regularly I would hear people say that he "should be shot." On some of these occasions, I would speak up to protest these objectionable utterances. In every instance, these people stood their ground - Bush should be shot. The only thing shocking to them was that I felt differently than they did on the subject.
My suspicion is that many in NYC have equally virulent opinions about Trump. There are people who believe he is tantamount to Hitler. That he must be stopped at any cost. During the Kavanaugh appointment hearings we even saw the lengths that some would go to, as there were several demonstrably false copycat accusations made against him. These people put themselves in legal jeopardy in an effort to halt Kavanaugh's appointment (though sadly they weren't prosecuted).
Could Trump receive a fair trial in New York? Hypothetically, yes, but only in the sort of hypothesis that ignores all lived experience.
So, to make a long story short, would you have preferred that Tucker had written this and not poor Joe? I guess in the end, we pick the bias we want to hear..
I dunno, Joe. I get the hope but the reality calls bullsh*t. @YuriBezmenov sets it out nicely. It is an ugly place, this blue state. I believe I read today it is the second bluest in the country. (I live in MA so I get it for sure.) I don't think it is at all possible to find an impartial juror in NYC in this matter, which is already so highly stacked against Trump. And God forbid there is an outcome which favors him; the state will work to take care of that too. Did you see Letitia James asked that his bond be voided? Yep let's make his appeal impossible, right? I'm not a fan but he's being railroaded in the most outlandish fashion(s) and it does not bode well for civilized society.
this is true - many of us non-fans see this as a threat to the rule of law. We can't wish the worst on our enemies if it falls outside the legal boundaries that were set in place by the Founders.
"The prosecutor elected in New York County of New York state indicted Trump, after Trump announced his 2024 run for president, for allegedly violating New York Penal Laws 175.05 and 175.10 seven years ago.
That local prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, is a member of the Democratic Party – and the voters who elected Bragg and from whom the jury will be chosen support the Democratic Party. In 2016, the people of New York County voted 87% for Hillary Clinton and 10% for Donald Trump, and in 2020, 87% for Joe Biden and 12% for Donald Trump. In other words, the jury pool is chosen from one of the most partisan jurisdictions in the country – a place where almost all the judges are Democrats as well.
So the Democratic prosecutor elected in the second most Democratic county in the United States will try the former Republican president and current putative Republican Party presidential nominee before a Democrat-appointed judge and a jury drawn from a pool 87% of whom voted against him (and who are being asked if they watch Fox News or listen to talk radio in the screening process)."
In what world can an impartial jury be found for a defendant like Trump, in a wildly leftist city like New York, where every juror knows they will eventually become known, in the middle of an election? Just like the jurors in the Derek Chauvin case in Minneapolis, these jurors will know their civic duty, and they will know the consequences for not voting guilty, and 'getting Trump.' It's a show trial. It could have been done long before this, or postponed until next year, but that wouldn't serve it's purpose. It is said we all need to 'come together' and 'put aside our differences' yet this is the kind of thing that make such sentiments impossible. When did conservatives or Republicans ever carry on multiple prosecutions against the Democratic nominee for President in the middle of an election? Never. There can be no compromise with those that abuse power so egregiously.
"They took a dead misdemeanor, they attached it to dead alleged federal felony, and zapped it back into life. Many of us are just amazed to watch this actually walk into court because it's not a recognizable crime."
Jonathan Turley, constitutional lawyer
If TFP is actually interested in the facts of this case, rather than sharing Friday am snark, perhaps they should invite Mr. Turley to share his views.
And regarding Mr. Nocera's confidence in the jury, is he aware that many of the potential jurors swore that they could be impartial ... only for it to be uncovered they had posted on social media how much they hated and despised Trump and wanted him to be beaten at any cost?
"When they said they could be fair and impartial, I believed them. So did Judge Merchan."
Well, if Judge Merchan agrees with you, what could possibly go wrong? The judge who denies Trump his First Amendment rights to speak, whose daughter makes millions of dollars opposing Trump, who had turned the accused's right to confront his accuser on its head by demanding that Trump be present, who should have dismissed the made-up case at the outset. Joe, you are a naive fellow.
The judge’s decision to not give Trump leave from the proceedings for one day to attend his son’s high school graduation tells you about the judge’s unfathomably deep personal animosity against Trump. Anyone who is a parent in particular can viscerally feel the seething loathing expressed by that kind of signaling.
Not hard to tell. Rule out naïveté because reporters are grizzled veterans trained to weed out the truth. Rule out fraud because it presents facts. Settle on gaslighting because it ignores obvious signs of a distinctly different interpretation to highlight a grossly improbable one. Our antennae are up so we noticed. Stay the course.
Are you joking Nocera? New York is literally an insane asylum masquerading as a city. A parody of Bonfire of the Vanities come to life.. The "trial," itself is a joke. A political stunt ginned up by a rotund little clown, whose election was bankrolled by Soros at the direction of the DNC. A leftist who prosecutes brave young men who protect their fellow subway passengers, while letting career criminals go free. The city, itself, is governed by an equally clownish poseur, who promised law and order and permits lunatics to use the subways as their private bedrooms and bathroom. And who squanders city funds on illegal aliens in fine hotels, while American citizens within its borders live in rat infested City run hovels. Trump has as much of a chance of getting a fair trial as the victims of Stalin and Beria.
Stalin would be proud of this kangaroo court show trial. 85% of the jury pool is anti trump and majority of those selected read Pravda aka New York Times. The worst part is Judge Marchan. His daughter is paid millions to run campaigns for democrats like Russiagater Schiff. His wife worked for New York AG Letitia James, who campaigned on getting Trump and bragged about the massive fine for the real estate fraud where every bank testified they were fully paid back. Trump has been gagged from drawing attention to this. If the roles were reversed, the left would be shrieking for the judge to recuse himself.
How can Americans trust the outcome with such blatant conflicts of interest? https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-conduct-a-show-trial-merchan
This is pretty obviously integration propaganda intended to prerationalize a potential guilty verdict in a trial that was SET UP to set up Trump, to create farcical charges that had already been passed on by several Federal prosecutors.
Put simply, Trump OBVIOUSLY committed no crime. Not only no felony, but no misdemeanor. If they were not trying to get him, there would be no jury to select because there would be no trial.
It's getting to where it's necessary to assume dishonesty, and moral malignancy of anyone who fails to see the obvious facts. And I don't see how one goes about reaching people who choose this sort of evil. I try, but I seem to fail, always.
"It's getting to where it's necessary to assume dishonesty, and moral malignancy of anyone who fails to see the obvious facts." I heard a far leftist person say almost exactly this yesterday. I think you're all on the war path, fueled by hubris.
The difference is that I know what they believe and why. They, in contrast, get angry and stop listening when confronted with truths they dont want to accept.
You cant avoid left wing spin. Its everywhere. But given the paucity of journalists even attempting to tell full truths its very easy to live an entire life and NEVER encounter conservative ideas in forms other than deceptive caricature.
There are probably a lot of differences between you and the far left, but that's not really the point. The point is that that you are calling anyone who disagrees with you on this subject "dishonest" or "morally malignant". That's going to include a whole lot more people than just the far left. I'm not denying that there is a truth, but it's hubris that makes us believe that we know exactly what it is and couldn't possibly be mistaken. At the same time, I shouldn't be making assumptions about you being on the war path based on one Internet comment, so I'm sorry.
I am saying that anyone who believes this current trial in New York is anything but an UnAmerican absurdity and mockery of honest law is ignorant, malignant, or stupid.
If you have zero idea why I would say this, then EDUCATE yourself. Some things are not ambiguous, and if ine side is completely insane, the truth will never, ever be found in the middle.
I’m not even angry. I am simply speaking blunt truth as I see it. If you want to disagree, feel free to do so. But educate yourself first. If you know what you are talking about, them I feel fully confident you will agree that I am right.
When genuine crimes are committed—here by amoral and authoritarian prosecutors in New York—then righteous anger is entirely warranted.
And when people are being stupid, saying “you are being stupid” is not unwarranted, even if it can be very unhelpful in many ways.
Or outrage on the part of the aggrieved correctists.
It's coming though.
How can Americans trust TFP if they applaud this and call it justice?
This story crosses the line from gaslighting to lying.
“Anyway, the two already-identified jurors were immediately outed as lying, anti-Trump moles. One was an older, white oncology nurse (female). In what the Washington Post described as a surreal exchange, she tried covering for her awful 2016 posts bashing Trump by apologizing to him in court and saying she’d gotten a little crazy during the election but was fine now.
Her 2016 posts said things like: “We must … protect the rights of people at risk from this racist, sexist narcissist”, “I wouldn’t believe Donald Trump if his tongue was notarized”, and “Trump is an anathema to everything I was told about love and about Jesus.”
Yet according to this TFP she is a victim of journalism committed by Jesse Watters.
Thank you for doing some actual journalism.
You can’t - we can’t - I can’t - it’s a kangaroo court one need only look at the judge, the prosecutor and the AG just to see how corrupt this case is against President Trump, we are living in very strange times
This is going to end Republican trust in Democrat courts, and it should.
I knew people in Seattle who told me four years ago they wanted Trump in jail and they didn't care what ultimately got him there. Justice had nothing to do with it. They presumed guilty and we're proud of it, and some of them would absolutely lie to get on the panel and then vote guilty.
You cannot have "free press" and "partisan courts" at the same time. Journalists are failing in their watchdog role in this critical transition into totalitarianism.
The Prog Dems I know are very clear about Trump's crime, i.e., Jan 6th. They talk as if that is what he is being tried for. When I point out that he is being tried for paying a woman he had sex with to keep her mouth shut, they immediately reply that Trump deserves to be punished for "that, too." Of course, what Trump is actually being tried for is neither of the above.
Which is to say, they know this is political persecution, it's once again rooted in Democrat lies and propaganda, and they're so full of blind partisan hate that they don't care about justice at all.
This is the state of the typical Democrat. Not the radicals, all of them.
I certainly find that all Democrats are like this, but I live in Portland where a moderate Democrat anchors the right end of the political range, and conservatives have either been driven out or silenced.
As fair minded people it is our duty to read and respect the authors point of view. We don’t have to agree with them, but that is what independent thinkers do. Unlike the left, we don’t squash or eliminate people from our sphere just because they have different perspectives.
Sure, I welcome this POV and I'm happy TFP prints it. It helps me to understand shall I dare say it....TDS. But I don't have to respect his POV, which is a POV built on a lie.
Is this article from the Babylon Bee?
I wish it were BB satire, but sadly, no. A low point for TFP.
Maybe we should listen respectfully, but we do not have a duty to respect insanity.
I agree. If we are not exposed to this kind of observation and thought, how can we grow?
By reading observations and thoughts that are thoughtful and observant, not ones rooted in partisan hate and a hypocritical betrayal of justice.
I have nothing but contempt for the left
The political Left asserts that truth is subjective and words are power constructs. It venerates "noble lies" and "political correctness".
By definition, left-wing people are unreliable sources.
To paraphrase an old saying about Brooklyn, you can take a.person out.of the New York Times, but you can't take the New York Times out of the person. Applies across the board at TFP.
We can’t
The Free Press is telling me I cannot like this comment. Interesting.
As general note: if the Free Press starts blocking my comments, I'm gone in a New York minute. I'm here for the comments, and only on very rare occasions your coverage. If you want to drop from 650,000 subscribers to 300,000 in a month, start doing leftwing bullshit like all the other leftwing sites. It may well be worse than that, since you are disliked on most of the left too.
The only people left would be the people who read this story and think, gosh, he has a point. I'm very sure this very just trial on reasonable charges will be conducted fairly, because I was just told so.
There aren't many people that stupid.
Articles like this are making me reconsider my continued support for TFP for sure.
Said the NYT subscriber upset at a Tom Cotton op-ed.
Sometimes I hit the like button twice (inadvertently) but only notice that I seem to not be able to like that comment. But it’s because you can only ‘like’ a comment once. At least that’s what I have found.
You'll find your likes erased from time to time.
Are you saying that you, specifically, are barred from “liking” a specific comment by someone else? You can subscribe and comment, but you cannot “like” someone else’s comment?
Yes. It says “you are blocked from liking this comment.” I just tried again from a different device.
And was the comment accepted? I hope so, otherwise something is rotten.
Yes.
If the algorithm literally won’t let you like the comment, that means Bill Cribben has blocked you. Once someone blocks you, you are no longer allowed to interact with them on Substack. You can’t reply to their posts or mention them in your posts. Maybe you can’t even like their posts. Try replying to Cribben and if it won’t let you, then he has blocked you. Not TFP.
Thank you for explaining this. I wasn't aware Substack had this feature.
Could be. I'm not losing sleep over it. I prefer to lose sleep over lots of other things. If it doesn't happen again, I will have forgotten it in a week.
I just liked your comment. No one blocked me..
And I just liked Bill's, just for fun. No one blocked me.
So true. Bizarre the reporter can't see the judges bias.
Yuri, all it takes is one juror who doesn't read 'Pravda'. I'd be surprised if all twelve vote to convict. The one who doesn't forces a mistrial.
Comrade Bezmenov, by virtue of your name, you should know better than to allude to Stalinist show trials.
You believed them. Maybe I would, but I'd wonder if the pauses were not about sincerity, but about not giving away enough to be dismissed.
I question if it's possible to prosecute Trump fairly in a blue state. I also question whether this case could be brought in front of an impartial judge - it seems really, really thin - maybe as thin as the last case in New York where he was fined hundreds of millions of dollars and there were no victims at all. Is he ever going to get out of New York courtrooms?
On the other hand, I really dislike Trump as well, and wouldn't mind seeing him go away.
Maybe I shouldn't care about justice. Joe seems to have love for the system, but it seems all New York cares about is getting Trump. Jewish students are being attacked down the street and women are being punched and pushed in front of subway cars and the theft is non-stop and the perpetrators are back on the streets the next day, not even one dollar in bail.
Anyway, the outcome seems inevitable, and this promises to be the absolute worst election ever, this side of Venezuela. But I think the damage done to the judicial system will last a lot longer than Trump will.
Jim, I agree with everything you said, except about wanting Donald Trump to go away. His boorish personality aside, his policies made our country better, broadly speaking. And our alternative is Joe Biden.
I can handle the boorishness. I don't have to like the guy. But I think he's the only person in the entire Republican Party who could actually lose to Biden at this point.
I think it's time to elect someone who will bring people together, not continue to increase the divide. None of the last three presidents have made any secret about their hatred of those in the other party. Ruling by Executive Order is a weakness, not a strength.
"Ruling by Executive Order is a weakness, not a strength." Well said!
I think that as long as a sufficient percentage of the population believes that it is permissible to allow completely open borders, that it is alright to prevent Jewish students from attending the classes they have paid for, that criminals should be allowed to walk the streets and be released, not just on 0 bail, but completely uncharged, that there will be a divide in this country, and no one will be able to gap it.
“Boorishness” in Trump? I like it. Tough men in tough times. I swear we are failing as a country because of whimps.
You nailed it on these two comments.
100% true, the only person that could possibly lose to Biden is Trump.
I loathe DJT. I voted for him twice. His policies were good. That more wasn't accomplished is due to the leftist shitstains.
If it were simply a blue state, that would be one thing. This is a jurisdiction in which the man prosecuting the case was elected on "getting" the defendant in this case. His election victory is almost enough to suggest that Trump can't have a fair trial there. If they were interested in fairness, at all, this would have been moved to another jurisdiction. It is hard to think of another case where perception of fairness matters more.
My thoughts as well. Kind of a “glass full” take. They could have just as easily been trying to not get kicked off.
It baffles me that Mr. Nocera seems naïve enough to think that Leftists who want to convict Trump would be incapable of lying convincingly in order to get seated on the jury.
Seems to me he is simply basing this on his gut feeling. There are no real facts presented here to back up his feelings. To me, the fact that so many had to be dismissed is actually a BAD thing.
But on the other hand, the jurors are “sophisticated.” Doesn’t that count for something?
I guess I could make a joke about how that proves that they are not a Jury of Trump's Peers?
You just did!
Celia M — Maybe the jurors who raised their hands and admitted their bias should have been selected for the jury. After all, they’re probably the only honest people in the room.
A progressive judge is a progressive first and a judge second. A progressive juror is a progressive first and a juror second.
A progressive journalist is a progressive first and a journalist second.
They're all reprobate
Or the very people that would lie to rig an election Celia
Exactly
I'm a little weary of hearing people weigh in on whether or not they "like" Trump. It's not about that and it's a little narcissistic to be asking that question. The question we all should be asking is what will the effect on our country and the world be if Trump is elected vs Biden being reelected? We actually have four years of experience with each, so it's not terribly difficult to compare. It is demonstrably and factually true that the four Trump years were more peaceful and prosperous than the Biden years. By far.
Vote accordingly.
Well said, good analysis.
I agree with the questions. I don't agree with the answers. The Obama/Biden path is actively destructive. They try to tear the heart out of our country - small business is an enemy to them rather than a path for upward mobility.
People say you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Obama and Biden want to package up all the water and dole it out themselves - but only to horses who properly worship them.
If I have to choose between them, the choice is obvious. However, we don't just need a president who isn't trying to rip our country apart. We need a president who can begin to heal it as well. Trump can't get that done. Reagan won every state except Minnesota and DC because he knew how to get things done. Trump really can't get anything done.
It's too late for 2024, and we're stuck with him. Fortunately, I'm in one of the 43 states that doesn't matter one tiny bit in November, because I dislike him too much to vote for him. You call that narcissism, and I sort-of see that. Maybe more hypocrisy in that I think it would be disastrous to re-elect Biden, but I'm glad I don't have to get my hands dirty and actually put my vote down to that effect.
I would say that Trump got quite a bit done despite the ceaseless efforts of the Democrats to stop him, hence, the resulting peace and prosperity. Unfortunately the choice now is binary: Trump or Biden. I agree with you that Biden et al are extremely destructive, so they're out of the question. Hold your nose and vote for Trump. Life is full of choices for the lesser of two evils. In this case Biden is way, way worse than anything Trump is guilty of. So again, vote accordingly.
I do agree that this upcoming election promises to be straight out of the gates of Hell. But to your last point as to the damage on our judicial system - because of Trump we now have a conservative Supreme Court for at least the next fifteen years.
I would not be so sure. Both Alito and Thomas are advanced in age. I wouldn't be surprised if Chief Justice Roberts steps down earlier than expected
The precedents being established are scary, to say the least, and will be used by future partisans against their opponents.
“It took some real courage to be on the Trump jury.”. Why? Because us right wing MAGA loving fascist deplorables will undoubtedly inflict pain and suffering on these public spirited heroes? Get your head out of your butt Nocera. Is this Stalinist court, combined with the atrocities inflicted at Columbia against Jewish students with the implicit blessing of Columbia and NYC officialdom “Americans at their very best”? I weep for our broken country. I fear we are doomed. Delusional musings such as Noceras fantasies do little to help. They are proof positive of the rot.
I really cannot overstate that once these fake trials end in convictions and slapping Trump with "felon" - which is the goal of their election campaign - Republicans will never trust Democrats in court again. For good reason.
This is going to destroy one of the most important pillars of our society. I'm shocked TFP is cheering them on.
I could not have said it better
If they find him not guilty, none of their friends will ever speak to them again. Other that that, no pressure.
that's ok as long as the cash from the books and interviews rolls in
And really it’s the left wing Democrats physically attacking everybody…
Wow such a great post thank you!
Reuters is probably too left wing for you, I get it. But here goes:
www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-judges-threats/
This is a wrongfully brought case that has its genesis in hate for Trump. The comment that no one is above the law is itself revealing. Any statute of limitations concerns, any stretch of the law concerns are cast aside with that. The rule of law is not being applied fairly and to be sure, Trump is not a gnarly co-worker. He inspires hateful passion in 85% of New Yorkers; this jury has no chance of being impartial, no matter what these “sophisticates” tell the judge.
Yes I almost laughed if it wasn't so pathetic when I read that quote as, Rob
almost as pathetic as E.Jean C wishing Trump assaulted her and them getting 84 million
"Most of the reporters believed them" . . . Phew! I was beginning to hope that there might be some semblance of fairness in this whole imbroglio, but in one fell swoop, you've helped me cast aside such foolishness and come back down to reality The imprimatur of the most corrupt, shallow and mendacious of the chattering classes (not you, personally, Joe. I have no idea how corrupt you might be. I'm just talking about your friends and associates) has renewed my confidence that a fair trial for Trump in Manhattan is simply against the laws of physics. It's like you're trying to sell us a perpetual motion machine. It's yet another example of that annoying tic that prevents reporters from mentioning anything related to Trump without prefacing their remarks with "unsubstantiated" or "lies about [insert topic, but usually the election]". Every time it's uttered (and uttered it is, like a champion Wisconsin holstein) it only serves to further cement everyone else's confidence that the "Big Lie" isn't on the lips of a certain former President. It's a tell - more pathological, pompous and plainly transparent with each subsequent utterance, yet increasingly tinged with worry that the jig is up. It's like the Dem hysteria about all things Russian. In for a penny, in for a pound. Gotta keep the heat focused . . . over there. But hey! Wasn't it ol'Hills that hit the unbelievably comically incorrect "reset" button in Moscow? They were buddies.
What happened to their love? 'Cause now it's all Russia RusSIA RUSSIA, all the time. She invented the whole goddamn thing to explain why she, a plainly shit candidate with a YUGE sense of entitlement, lost an election to that boorish real estate developer and reality tv goon, who eats steak with ketchup. I mean, she did everything she could to win - corruptly boxed out ol'Bolshevik Bernie, alienated half the country with high-minded insults weeks before the election, hired a half-assed Brit ex-spook to play spoiler (and hid the payments), had her goons lie to the FBI and CIA . . . the list goes on and on. I mean, she had the press in her pocket and she even spoke with a terrible black accent, I mean, Urban affectation (you know what I'm talkin' about) -- and she still lost! Imagine! What a nation of ingrates, not to recognize what she has done for them, for you - the shit she's put up with, her trials and tribulations, that husband of hers, what with his running around and dipping his wick in whatever honeypot he can find, her time ranching in Little Rock . . . She's better than all that. It was she who deserved the oval office, not that charming rogue bastard peckerwood BillyBob. And then some Bernie-bro dipshit at the DNC leaks all her and her cronies' machinations and blamo! There it is for all to see. Fuck, there has to be someone we can blame. How about that weirdo homoerotic Russian dude - the one shirtless on a horse, petting the tiger and 69-ing a bear? Well son'of'a'bitch if it ain't Russia that's gonna take the fall, or blame, or whatever. Just so long as everyone goes along with it, it'll be ok. Maintain the facade, steady with the mantra, like the frog in Popeye croaking out: "Putin did it, Putin did it". And hey! Think not about how corrupt Ukraine has been - or how they're paying off the Biden syndicate . It's all about saving Europe from becoming Russia's bitch (even though, let's be serious, that's what they secretly desire, ESPECIALLY Germany). Like HRC staring in the mirror and smearing on lipstick as Balalaika blares in the background, or Mary Louise Kelly or Jenn White's stick-up-their-ass, too-smug-to-be-real assurances that Biden was freely and fairly elected (Marc Elias who?) It's a tell - the repetition shows, more than anything, that they realize what they've done and are desperately trying to cover up by placing any kind of questioning of a Biden victory so far outside the bounds of polite society that to suggest otherwise in any fashion makes you a lunatic, in the company of. . . of. . . well, deplorables. There, they haven't said it, but someone else did and they agree. Of any class of people, of any profession, the people who most desperately want the whole circus to appear "fair" are reporters, because the opposite would be yet another step toward their being fully revealed. We can just see them now, shoulder to shoulder in an anteroom, sweat-stained pits, bad haircuts and foul breath notwithstanding, nodding earnestly to each other, "looks good to me, Bob. Clean as a whistle. Sure some lied to the judge, but he knows what's in their hearts, and he's a judge - a pillar of civil government with knowledge and insight beyond reproach, just like Alcee Hastings or Lance Ito.
The assurances of reporters is a tell, and recounting or crediting their confidence is the absolute undoing of your point. They'd see what they want to see, no matter what, minimally so they can pat themselves on the back about what a great job they did protecting democracy, or some such shit. We've seen this act over and over and it's revolting.
And while we're on the topic of lunacy, we're supposed to believe that the people rioting in the streets, burning down buildings, looting, assaulting police - AND THE PEOPLE/POLITICIANS BAILING THE RIOTERS OUT OF JAIL (ahem, Candy Colored Clown Kamala) -- THOSE PEOPLE who have so little respect for property, or safety, or public order, or anyone else, for that matter, when it comes to the ballot, that's sacrosanct territory, pal.
No way any of them would monkey with an election, no way no how, no siree. It's so far beneath them, to suggest that they would cheat an election is simply beyond the pale. A base calumny. How dare you, sir? HOW DARE YOU? I mean, how dare I? (sometimes I get turned around when I'm mocking absurdity).
So, to make a long story short, you're going to have to do better than "reporters thought it fair", because you're citing the most provably dishonest cohort of hangers-on this society has to offer. Thanks, and have a great day!
Love it or hate it, ya gotta admit that is one epic rant.
It ain’t epic it’s unbelievably poor
Much urbliged!
I loved it. Salvatore, sprinkle me some more ketchup on my steak and a bit of Lance Ito. Sizzler!
Appreciate it. There's more where that came from. It's such a target-rich environment these crazy days, it's tough to know who to ridicule first.
I’ve never enjoyed reading a comment more than this one. Bravo!
That's a very kind thing to say. Thank you. I'm sure you'll regret it at some point in the not too-distant future.
Good points. Could have been more concise. Four stars. I’d read this post again.
You are correct. It was wordy, and repetitive in places, but it was 3 am and I wanted to push it out before the sober light of morning caused me to think better of it. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Mr. Monella, your writing style reminds me of Matt Taibbi. He has a special flair for sarcasm and humor, but he's more measured. He has to be, since he's a reporter, whereas you can just let it rip.
I did find this description of Putin a bit creepy, because it's hard to un-see:
"...that weirdo homoerotic Russian dude - the one shirtless on a horse, petting the tiger and 69-ing a bear..." But I have to admit, it's funny.
Ms. Beeswax,
You are very kind. Thank you.
That Vladimir is dreamy, isn't he? That pale, oily skin, thin hair and beady eyes. He's my vote for Prison Guard Beefcake of the Month, for sure.
Yum.
I'll bet Joe Nocera ducks down the next time Oliver Wiseman comes out of his office -- getting sacrificed like this by Salvatore Monella. (And both their names end in vowels).
Thank you. 'Preciate it. Are you related to the Karg family from the Western suburbs of Chicago?
No, from the western, eastern and northern suburbs Akron. We about owned that place.
Thx. I ask b/c I grew up with a Karg family in the neighborhood and have not heard or seen the surname since. Good people, the Karg’s. Sure, they were genetically prone to criminal
Activity, but I’m sure it’s a different branch of the family than the Akron Kargs. Now where’s that damn emoji smiley face button . . .
My brother and were the only criminals, out of 32 cousins. I hope you felt the compliment in my original comment, comparing you favorable to Bruce Miller.
Make a long story short, that was a filibuster
Just to pull out a few parts, Salvatore,
"And hey! Think not about how corrupt Ukraine has been - or how they're paying off the Biden syndicate " This really troubles me. How are we not putting the Bidens on trial over their investments in Ukraine, that Ukrainian judge Biden bragged about having fired, and the Hunter Biden Laptop scandal instead of the completely political Trump trials? Humm... I suspect that a lot of the fanatical waving of Ukrainian flags by our government has to do with wanting to protect their gravy train.
"so far outside the bounds of polite society that to suggest otherwise in any fashion makes you a lunatic" They do this with everything. If you point out that some man is actually a man or that children should not be mutilated so that doctors make money and the AGPs get a happy - you are outside the bounds and a major phobe, doncha know?
"The assurances of reporters is a tell, and recounting or crediting their confidence is the absolute undoing of your point. " Exactly. We see this again and again.
"we're supposed to believe that the people rioting in the streets, burning down buildings, looting, assaulting police - AND THE PEOPLE/POLITICIANS BAILING THE RIOTERS OUT OF JAIL (ahem, Candy Colored Clown Kamala) -- THOSE PEOPLE who have so little respect for property, or safety, or public order, or anyone else, for that matter, when it comes to the ballot, that's sacrosanct territory," Bingo. There is probably a small group of hired people who could be arrested and we'd see such rioting and bridge blocking plummet. But, it won't happen under this regime.
Thank you. I'm sensing the an upper-midwest vibe from you, even independent of the "doncha know". Sensible, straight-forward, hot dish-centric. Good people, them.
What is hilarious is that you, without having seen any of the evidence, have already made up your mind about guilt. And that you can read the minds of the jurors from afar and judge them. So, actual potential jurors when asked about having already made up their minds, raised their hands and were excused. I doubt folks on this comment section will do the same thing.
Here is the truth. Most people aren't ideologues of either stripe. And from data that has been collected for decades, a huge majority of people attempt to give folks charged with criminal behavior a fair trial. You might not like the outcomes, but for the jurors, they attempt to do the best job with the evidence presented to them by the attorneys.
Perhaps, but the kangaroo "trial" should not be happening.
Eh, I believe you're mistaken in several important respects, to wit:
1) I operate on the premise that The Donald and Tits McGee did spend some quality time getting to know each other in the biblical sense, as I'm sure he has with other attractive women who somehow rotate into his orbit. I'm also quite certain that she was intending to go public and cash in, and DJT wanted to stop that from happening. So he turned to his lawyer/fixer/former sychophant buddy, Michel Cohen (probably not for the first time, and in all likelihood not the last, though obviously with a different lawyer) directing him to "Draw up a nondisclosure agreement, make contact with Chesty Larue and do what you have to do to shut her up - purchase the rights to her story, whatever. "
"How much is Mr. Trump, Master of all he Surveys, willing to pay the shady lady? Cohen the Imp inquires, his eyes darting furtively about the room, sweat beading on his upper lip.
"$125K. Final offer"
"Yes sir, Mr. Trump, sir." Cohen gushes, bowing and scraping as he sidles toward the door. "You have chosen wisely, as always. And your magnanimity is an example for all who aspire to greatness." DJT rolls his eyes
"One more thing," The Donald says. "I pay you a ton of money, Michael. You're lucky to know me" Cohen nods vigorously in agreement, his eager face alight. "Bill me at your hourly for the agreements and time arranging the deal. If she agrees, have the money on you to pay her right away and seal the deal. Don't want her having second thoughts. I'll reimburse you".
"Once more, sir," Cohen simpers, "you have unique insight into the human condition."
"Give Debra in accounting the, she's fantastic by the way. Brassy lady, great gams. Have you seen her dressed in blue? It's like the sky in front of you. I gave that line to Mick, you know. Timeless, my wisdom. Anyway, give Deb the signed NDA and proof of withdrawal from your account - not that I don't trust you, but you're a slippery character and who knows what nonsense you're into. You know that, we've discussed it many times. - anyway, no offense, but give Debra the documents and she'll cut you a check."
Speaking to someone out of frame. DJT ponders the situation. "Do you believe that? That roll in the hay with Ms. Bazongas was good, but not $125K good." he scoffs, exhaling wearily, "I guess its a sign of the times." A frown crosses his brow, "I'm just glad I got to this before Melania found out. She's been a trooper this campaign. She didn't ask for any of this, she's done nothing wrong, and she doesn't deserve this, it's my problem . . ." he trails off, moving to gaze out the window. "And the timing couldn't be worse, after that bit about grabbing females at the Y, in the home stretch of the campaign, no less." he pauses, then responds to a question posed from off camera. "No, the people against me are against me no matter what, and I don't care what they think. It's my supporters I'm worried about. It's not like they're going to vote for someone else, I just don't want to let them down - they put their faith in me and . . . they're wonderful, beautiful Americans, and boy do they love me. You watch." Suddenly his face brightens, and he grabs his phone from a pocket. "Cohen," he barks, "that phrase, `master of all he surveys' It fits me, right? Get it trademarked for me, pronto, and tack it onto the bill for lining up Ms. Funbags. He hangs up the phone and speaks again to a party off camera. "No, I don't trust him either. He's soft, and too used to living the good life - a life he didn't earn. Slippery as an eel, I say."
-SCENE-
2) the point of that richly detailed and entertaining backstory is that DJT is probably guilty of some low-level misreporting infraction (like, say, ol'Hills, who fraudulently entered the fee paid to that limey pseudo-spook Steele under "legal expenses". She/her campaign had to pay a $100,000 FEC fine for it. There was no talk of felony charges, because it'd be a patently absurd expansion of the plain meaning of the election interference statute), NOT the felony charges of allegedly intending to interfere with the election (which we'll get to).
The attempt to weave-in Felony-level culpability by Always Braggadocious is one of the more pathetic ideas to railroad DJT - which, by the way, was an explicit part of AB's campaign for DA, i.e. they had the man, and he promised to find the crime, which brings us to:
3) DJT's effort to muzzle the Storm and protect his public image, preserve his marriage and help his candidacy cannot be segregated individually - it's all normal activity for someone in the not-at-all normal world of presidential politics. You can't reverse-engineer it. One action, item or issue can and does bleed between these zones, effectively merging them - private, public and political -- in a largely unitary entity. Anything and everything in the public record, scandal, legal action, statements/mis-statements, policy, fundraising, etc. (much of what used to constitute actual "news"), is going to bleed together into a singular story line. Any news whatsoever about Trump, good or bad, true, half-true or completely false and/or the product of media bad faith or stupidity (which abounds) would impact public perception in some form and would have follow-on effects on the campaign. Trump wanted to avoid a host of negative consequences for his family life, political career, candidacy, etc. by suppressing the S. Daniels story. That act cannot support the claim that the entire thing was motivated solely for his political career. But even if political considerations controlled, to connect that act with a felony stretches the criminal statute way beyond its original remit.
The alchemy necessary to fit Trump's conduct to these charges constitutes yet another tell - this one exposing the entire effort as the PURELY political vendetta that it is. Democrats shouldn't be allowed to pervert the law any more than they already have -- it's yet another example demonstrating that Democrats don't care one whit about the law unless it does and says what they want. Otherwise, meh (e.g. Biden's latest student loan giveaway, despite SCOTUS ruling he lacks the authority to do so). Don't like the law, ignore it. Don't like the rules, change mid-stream. Classic Dem playbook. And, finally (whew):
4) I have picked juries in many serious felony cases as a prosecutor, and on balance, what you say is absolutely correct. The majority of Americans take jury duty seriously, and strive to be fair-minded.
But that's where it ends. I have sat on juries in Washington, DC and have seen what happens inside that room. The jurors spent half their time speculating about what "really" happened, often ignoring the actual evidence and the instructions from the judge. It was like a soap opera. Attempts to focus the conversation on what was presented in court were met with hostility and racial invective. It almost made me lose faith in the jury system, at least iuntiol I started picking them . . .
Having observed both of these dynamics, however, neither of them really applies here because this is, for many Manhattan residents, the trial of the century. True that most aren't ideologues, but people have preferences. We know Trump is deeply unpopular in this jurisdiction, and jurors have already been selected, then dismissed due to concealing partisan animus and lying to the court. For many people (probably a plurality), the possibility of participating in an historic event (even if it is a total train wreck from the outset) surely impacts their candor, even to themselves, with respect to fairness and impartiality. Many seeing stars and dreaming about being the hero - here comes their 15 minutes, TV appearances, book deals, etc. This is America, after all.
Oh, and one more thing. Stormy McDipshit signed the agreement and took the money. What the fuck is she doing? She should be forced to repay the money, with interest and penalties.
Thank you and good night.
1. Oh, this was such a treat to read.
2. EXACTLY re "ol' Hills" and her "legal expenses". ARRRHGH! (she exclaimed, speechless in her frustration.) I know, I know; wasted energy but still - infuriating.
3. Veering off-topic, I must state that you really iced my cake writing, "an historic event". My geeky heart is glad. Purportedly literate media sources can't get that right; it makes me crazy. Many thanks :)
4. "Give Debra in accounting the, she's fantastic by the way. Brassy lady, great gams. Have you seen her dressed in blue? It's like the sky in front of you. I gave that line to Mick, you know. Timeless, my wisdom." GOLD!!
When I lived in Portland, it was a common occurrence to hear some speak in the most vehement and vulgar terms about their hatred for President George W. Bush. Somewhat regularly I would hear people say that he "should be shot." On some of these occasions, I would speak up to protest these objectionable utterances. In every instance, these people stood their ground - Bush should be shot. The only thing shocking to them was that I felt differently than they did on the subject.
My suspicion is that many in NYC have equally virulent opinions about Trump. There are people who believe he is tantamount to Hitler. That he must be stopped at any cost. During the Kavanaugh appointment hearings we even saw the lengths that some would go to, as there were several demonstrably false copycat accusations made against him. These people put themselves in legal jeopardy in an effort to halt Kavanaugh's appointment (though sadly they weren't prosecuted).
Could Trump receive a fair trial in New York? Hypothetically, yes, but only in the sort of hypothesis that ignores all lived experience.
Bravo!
what? I did not know about the bear..
Oh yes, and you wouldn’t believe the unspeakable things done to the poor mastodons they dig up from the permafrost.
actually I would
Gonzo?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro".
That was one helluva ride, thanks!
And I was completely sober, I think . . .
Many thanks.
Hilarious. But… paragraphs?
So, to make a long story short, would you have preferred that Tucker had written this and not poor Joe? I guess in the end, we pick the bias we want to hear..
I dunno, Joe. I get the hope but the reality calls bullsh*t. @YuriBezmenov sets it out nicely. It is an ugly place, this blue state. I believe I read today it is the second bluest in the country. (I live in MA so I get it for sure.) I don't think it is at all possible to find an impartial juror in NYC in this matter, which is already so highly stacked against Trump. And God forbid there is an outcome which favors him; the state will work to take care of that too. Did you see Letitia James asked that his bond be voided? Yep let's make his appeal impossible, right? I'm not a fan but he's being railroaded in the most outlandish fashion(s) and it does not bode well for civilized society.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/n-y-ag-letitia-james-asks-civil-fraud-judge-to-void-trumps-175-million-bond/?utm_source=recirc-mobile&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=second
this is true - many of us non-fans see this as a threat to the rule of law. We can't wish the worst on our enemies if it falls outside the legal boundaries that were set in place by the Founders.
Completely agree.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-lawfare-against-donald-trump
Here is where I read about the blue state bit. I was a bit off-- but same difference (CITATIONS FTW):
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/04/16/ny_gives_trump_the_anne_boleyn_treatment_150804.html
"The prosecutor elected in New York County of New York state indicted Trump, after Trump announced his 2024 run for president, for allegedly violating New York Penal Laws 175.05 and 175.10 seven years ago.
That local prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, is a member of the Democratic Party – and the voters who elected Bragg and from whom the jury will be chosen support the Democratic Party. In 2016, the people of New York County voted 87% for Hillary Clinton and 10% for Donald Trump, and in 2020, 87% for Joe Biden and 12% for Donald Trump. In other words, the jury pool is chosen from one of the most partisan jurisdictions in the country – a place where almost all the judges are Democrats as well.
So the Democratic prosecutor elected in the second most Democratic county in the United States will try the former Republican president and current putative Republican Party presidential nominee before a Democrat-appointed judge and a jury drawn from a pool 87% of whom voted against him (and who are being asked if they watch Fox News or listen to talk radio in the screening process)."
In what world can an impartial jury be found for a defendant like Trump, in a wildly leftist city like New York, where every juror knows they will eventually become known, in the middle of an election? Just like the jurors in the Derek Chauvin case in Minneapolis, these jurors will know their civic duty, and they will know the consequences for not voting guilty, and 'getting Trump.' It's a show trial. It could have been done long before this, or postponed until next year, but that wouldn't serve it's purpose. It is said we all need to 'come together' and 'put aside our differences' yet this is the kind of thing that make such sentiments impossible. When did conservatives or Republicans ever carry on multiple prosecutions against the Democratic nominee for President in the middle of an election? Never. There can be no compromise with those that abuse power so egregiously.
"They took a dead misdemeanor, they attached it to dead alleged federal felony, and zapped it back into life. Many of us are just amazed to watch this actually walk into court because it's not a recognizable crime."
Jonathan Turley, constitutional lawyer
If TFP is actually interested in the facts of this case, rather than sharing Friday am snark, perhaps they should invite Mr. Turley to share his views.
And regarding Mr. Nocera's confidence in the jury, is he aware that many of the potential jurors swore that they could be impartial ... only for it to be uncovered they had posted on social media how much they hated and despised Trump and wanted him to be beaten at any cost?
I always respect what Turley has to say.
"When they said they could be fair and impartial, I believed them. So did Judge Merchan."
Well, if Judge Merchan agrees with you, what could possibly go wrong? The judge who denies Trump his First Amendment rights to speak, whose daughter makes millions of dollars opposing Trump, who had turned the accused's right to confront his accuser on its head by demanding that Trump be present, who should have dismissed the made-up case at the outset. Joe, you are a naive fellow.
The judge’s decision to not give Trump leave from the proceedings for one day to attend his son’s high school graduation tells you about the judge’s unfathomably deep personal animosity against Trump. Anyone who is a parent in particular can viscerally feel the seething loathing expressed by that kind of signaling.
Not naive. Running a partisan game
This is obviously an opinion piece and not hard news. My opinion is that if there ever was a trial that merited a change of venue it is this one.
Absolutely.
The question then becomes - where? Trump elicits strong reactions either way anywhere..
Suggest a “purple state” or swing state in “flyover country” where the primary newspaper is not NY Times or Washington Post.
But the primary media source might be Fox News?
Probably not in a “purple” or swing state. I’m in a red state, but the print media trends liberal anyway.
I'm torn about this article. Is it gaslighting? Is it naivete? Is it wilful fraud? I can't decide.
Naivete and gaslighting! TFP's unfortunate blind spot. This and their willful ignorance to report on the corruption of the Biden family.
Not hard to tell. Rule out naïveté because reporters are grizzled veterans trained to weed out the truth. Rule out fraud because it presents facts. Settle on gaslighting because it ignores obvious signs of a distinctly different interpretation to highlight a grossly improbable one. Our antennae are up so we noticed. Stay the course.
No, it's a combination of all three... it's just stupid.
Are you joking Nocera? New York is literally an insane asylum masquerading as a city. A parody of Bonfire of the Vanities come to life.. The "trial," itself is a joke. A political stunt ginned up by a rotund little clown, whose election was bankrolled by Soros at the direction of the DNC. A leftist who prosecutes brave young men who protect their fellow subway passengers, while letting career criminals go free. The city, itself, is governed by an equally clownish poseur, who promised law and order and permits lunatics to use the subways as their private bedrooms and bathroom. And who squanders city funds on illegal aliens in fine hotels, while American citizens within its borders live in rat infested City run hovels. Trump has as much of a chance of getting a fair trial as the victims of Stalin and Beria.
I've never seen "Salvatore Monella" before. Could that be a nom de plume?
I wonder of the jury's "sincerity" comes from their love of due process or from the possibility of a future book deal.
And as for the judge, if he had ANY interest at all I'm seeing Trump gers a fair trial, he would have granted the requested change of venue.
Trump is being railed right into a guilty verdict and everyone knows it.
Or let him go to his sons graduation!
What editor approved this drivel?
If the music was appropriately chosen for theme, cadence, pitch...this could be NPR!
And make sure you read it in a hushed tone.
It’s beyond amazing to watch the media pretend the Trump trial is a real case over a real crime
Let the rehabilitation of the Democratic Party machine begin!
Boss Tweed would be proud... The spirit of Tammany Hall is not dead!
Vote blue, no matter who!
Democracy dies in darkness!!
Just never asked who turned out the fucking lights...