Hubris thy name is Donald
What will probably become known as the Stormy Daniels trial began yesterday. There was much effort to delay it. There was wailing and gnashing of teeth as the good book says. Barring any unforeseen developments, the justice system has finally arrived at a place that it should have upwards of 40 years ago.
There is one nagging question that MAGA is asking and it deserves to be answered. Aren’t these prosecutions politically motivated? We’ve been ducking and side-stepping that question long enough. The simple answer is yes. They are politically motivated. However, I’m not sure if the details behind that answer really line up with what MAGA thinks it means.
The fact is that all of this is a prison of Donald’s thinking. Even if we take the facts from this particular case, we’d have to reach that conclusion. Would he have lost the election if the voting public found out he had a fling with a porn star? My guess is that it wouldn’t have had much of an effect at all. After the Access Hollywood tape came out, there was no doubt about who he was.
The defense is essentially the same one we give to the police officer when we get pulled over for speeding. Look at all the other people speeding. While that might seem persuasive, we cannot deflect from the obvious point that we were in fact speeding. Similarly, Richard Nixon could point to dirty tricks that others had pulled throughout history as some sort of relative defense, but he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
I surmise that at least half of these prosecutions wouldn’t be happening at all if he weren’t running for president again. Of course, that observation cuts both ways. A normal president would have accepted defeat, went back home, and made a killing on the lecture circuit. He would have sold books or been a guest professor at some prestigious university. He likes golf. He could have played every day on just about any course he wanted.
History has seen this happen before and history has seen similar deals go awry. Most of western Europe made a deal with Napoleon in order to get him out of power without bloodshed. That didn’t work, Appeasement didn’t work with Nazi Germany. I suspect that overtures were made behind the scenes to broker a similar deal with Trump. Just return the documents and move on with your merry life and no one would be the wiser.
The Donald cannot accept defeat even if it is the prudent thing to do. That’s all this has been about and all that it ever will be about. He lost in 2020 and couldn’t accept it. He continues to lose and can’t accept it. He lost for decades in business and refuses to accept it or learn from it. It is essentially hubris mixed liberally with idiocy. A wiser man would have walked away a long time ago.
Donald is not most people. I suspect most of us wouldn’t have sex with a porn star when our wife was pregnant. I suspect most of us wouldn’t consider stealing confidential or secret files from our place of work. We certainly wouldn’t hide them from the authorities after the fact. Donald is clearly not most people. So, would you or I be prosecuted in a similar situation? I suspect just about anyone else wouldn’t be in this position in the first place and that is kind of the whole point.
The described is certainly one consequence of 45’s behavior.
But further: “Only 1 in 3 US adults think Trump acted illegally in New York hush money case, AP-NORC poll shows”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-indictment-hush-money-poll-b3d9a555993faf22e6ebfaf798bfbd2b
And the media mostly continues to fail to inform the 2/3 who apparently believe 45 acted legally:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GK-5TNcXwAA3yzU?format=jpg&name=small
1I think the problem is one of intent. People are looking at the chief act and the chief act involved is not a crime. I can pay anyone not to divulge something about me. The question is not the what but the why. Of course, the question is also the mechanisms that were put in place to conceal it and deflect it.
Burglarizing the Watergate hotel is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. It was all the efforts to cover it up. The cover up is always what gets you.
2I remember listening to the evangelicals say for decades that the president had to be a godly man and that character counted. All that went out the window with Trump. They think he hates the same people they do, so that’s all that matters.
3Like the orange blowhard said, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and wouldn’t lose any votes. He’s proven that as a tax fraud (which is a main ingredient in this being a felony), he led people to die as a result of his incitement of an insurrection and much more. He’s right that it’s politically motivated. He’s been politically motivated for many of his crimes since 2015.
4Oh his DJT media stocks continue down the crapper this morning. Of course MAGA blames Biden and libs for that, too.
Gone back home. Where did gone went?
Nick joins the went brigade, along with numerous Ivy League profs, national broadcasters etc.
Sister Mary Margaret would never approve.
On a more cheerful note, if you project TruthSocial’s stock price graph, it drops below its $12 original price in a week, and in another week hits $0.
No womder trump falls asleep i coirt/ He ain’t htting any sleep at night.
5Just as a point of curiosity, are any of you pointing out the errors that the other writers are making or am I the only one that gets that joy?
6Is Trump’s prosecution politically motivated? Well, sort of. Trump is a politician who committed crimes, who wants to be president, so some of his crimes seem more urgent, and the prosecution more political.
Still, the crimes–some of them against national security, like the retention of secret documents that belong to the National Archives, some of them business-related, like accounting fraud, and some of them election-related, like his effort to disguise a hush-money payment as “legal services,” in order to hide it from the public before an election–were committed, and should be brought to trial. So here we are. Politicians who commit crimes are prosecuted for their crimes, not particularly because they are politicians–except where those crimes involve the national interest. Donald Trump has managed both.
7Nick, my three years as an editor and 40 years as a college professor showed me that any time one tries to call attention to somebody else’s writing errors there is a strong risk of making an error oneself. If it is in correcting an internet post the odds approach 100%
8Nick, you do seem to get more than your share of corrections, but there is schadenfraude in noting that many who correct others make more egregious mistakes themselves, as your “editor” has clearly done. Enjoy!
9Nick,
I enjoy reading your posts. They’re always well written, thoughtful, and thought provoking. I usually don’t notice any grammatical infelicities, and I have Roget’s (obviously), Strunk & White, Barnhart, Garner’s, etc. on my desk. The thicker stuff is under my desk.
In my view you’re more than qualified as a contributor to The Beauty Shop. If we take Trump’s Gettysburg address from last Saturday as an example, you’re better qualified than some presidential candidates. For just about anything.
10Nick, you pressed my hottest button. The near extinction of gone in American speech has not been remarked on by anyone else, as far as I know, but has happened amazingly fast.
Less than a year for it to have become — apparently — accepted usage among every social and educational class.
Otherwise, I don’t usually remark on usage, unless someone writes with exceptional grace and clarity.
11Is gone gone?
12Nick, just keep doing what you’re doing. We need it and appreciate it. If anyone on this site never makes a fat thumb mistake or grammatical error, please let us know. I for sure do even when I proof read.
13Nick – i just appreciate your use of the subjunctive where appropriate.
14