But once it happens, it's too late to worry about what effect it will have. At that point, everyone against Trump will fight to make it hurt him and everyone for Trump will fight to make it help him. Rubin's column is an early — premature? — effort in the fight to make it hurt him.
Rubin's first point is that Trump hasn't yet received much support from Republican politicians.
On Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, an all-but-announced Trump 2024 challenger, only belatedly criticized the Manhattan district attorney. However, the governor seemed to delight in repeating the charge that Trump had paid hush money to an adult-film star.
It's easier to take shots at Trump for paying hush money to a porn actress when it hasn't been turned into a criminal case. If the criminal case proceeds, the criminalization will become overwhelmingly important. Criticizing the Manhattan district attorney will vastly overshadow Trump's tawdriness.
Rubin's second point is that the notion that the indictment would help Trump comes from Trump.
And as he emotionally decompensates, his ability to conduct a rational campaign that revolves around anything other than his own victimhood diminishes. He might not be turning into a more formidable candidate, but he’s already a more hysterical one....
That is: It's Trump's idea, Trump is crazy, therefore the idea is wrong.
Finally, Rubin changes the subject. We shouldn't be asking who wins and loses, but what's right and wrong:
[T]he “this will only help him” view is a bizarre way of converting a story about serious matters such as the rule of law....
How does she know what the "story" is "about"? I'm not even convinced that she thinks the story is "about" the rule of law, and I don't see any serious discussion of the rule of law. Would this prosecution be looming if Trump were not a political candidate? I think not, and therefore what's bizarre is to try to convert this into some hazy cant about the rule of law.
पोस्ट्स
६२ टिप्पण्या:
Jennifer Rubin is pro banana republic.
The corrupt left are letting real criminals walk.
A payment to a porn star to keep quiet about sex? This is a felony? A federal crime...? They are stretching that Trump used campaign money - but there is no proof. I thought the left loved sex and sex and Bill Clinton and sex? If this is all they have?
That is the insanity.
Real criminals - Like Biden Family influence peddling for millions during Biden's stint as VP, and street thugs, car theft, physical assault on the streets of NYC... etc.. all unpunished - while they obsess over Trump's sex life.
Jennifer Rubin is a microcosm of the sub=mediocrity of contemporary journalism.
If we’re going to worry about the rule of law, when will Stephanie Gregory Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) be arrested for extortion?
Then, finally, there is the fact that history shows that *anything* the terminally-ill with TDS Jennifer Ruben says about Donald Trump is to be ignored.
Hear the sound of a game show buzzer going off for the wrong answer.
Sorry, Jen, here's your consolation prize.
What's the big deal? Ultimately, the Democrats will become victims of the same political interference in the justice system that they exert when in power.
"Rubin's first point is that Trump hasn't yet received much support from Republican politicians."
And he never will. Ever. Both parties have a pretty tight lock on the modern American Cursus Honorum, and in the case of Republicans the Curses are hurled at their base while they give themselves all the Honorum.
The uniparty is a big club, and he was never in it. It's one of the reasons he won.
A frivolous and trumped-up charge is not healthy for our banana republic, hack-D Jennifer.
you'd think she would know that - but her hatred for Trump clouds her judgement, just like it does all leftists who hate fear and loathe the man.
Trump doesn't help himself with his strange and clumsy rhetoric.
So far nobody has told us what specific law was broken.
We do know, I think, that the charge seems to have nothing to nothing to do with the payoff. That seems perfectly legal.
The charge seems to be that he misclassifiefd the expense in his private records.
Arguably misclassifiefd it. I think a strong case could be made that it actually was a legal expense.
John Henry
I caught a few minutes of Tucker's first segment last night. He had on a lawyer who testified in front of the grand jury. This guy knew Michael Cohen will; met with him about 20 times. Cohen was suicidal about going to prison. Cohen has no credibility.
In Omaha, a former Creighton basketball player was charged with rape. When the credibility problems of the woman became known, the County Attorney dismissed the case. Lesson: In a criminal trial (or any trial, really) credibility is key. Bragg has no business indicting Trump. And, of course, his case is barred by the statute of limitations too.
Retired federal judge Lyle Strom told Creighton law students: Every trial is a trial of credibility.
Doesn’t she claim to be WaPo’s conservative ?
"his ability to conduct a rational campaign that revolves around anything other than his own victimhood diminishes"
Trump's campaigning is often about his own victimhood. It's why many of us are exhausted about him. However, he's actually a victim with this case. He has an honest complaint. Americans overwhelmingly believe in justice, and this case is unequally applied. This strengthens Trump.
And the fact that DeSantis believes the p0rn star angle is relative diminishes him.
I supported Trump throughout his presidency, but at this point he's just a sideshow.
But then again, so is Biben.
Except for the real crimes that he and his family committed. That went far beyond paying off a porn star.
converting a story about serious matters ..
serious matters? Like Chinese Communists paying MILLIONS of Dollars in Bribes, to the Biden Family?
serious matters? Like the wide-spread ESG banking disasters?
serious matters? Like the rampant inflation, that is destroying America?
serious matters? Like the wide-spread layoffs, and recession? At The Same Time, as the Inflation?
serious matters? Like the massive war we are proxy fighting with russia?
serious matters? Like the SOON to be hot war, that WE will be fighting with russia?
serious matters? Like the SOON to be hot war, that WE will be fighting with china?
THOSE serious matters?
Trump broke the reasoning abilities of many establishment people. Example #482,499,220
"Would this prosecution be looming if Trump were not a political candidate?" Was John Edwards a political candidate when he was prosecuted for the same thing? Are you saying that a political candidate should be immune from prosecution for violating campaign finance laws in the weeks leading up to the presidential election in 2016? So by declaring himself a political candidate, Trump shrouded himself in immunity? Bragg was moving ahead with the investigation before Trump declared himself a political candidate, so the answer to your question is "Yes, the prosecution would be looming (in fact it was looming) when Trump was not a political candidate."
It is not at all bizzare to suggest that when someone violates campaign finance law, prosecuting that person upholds the rule of law.
Recently read a history of the English Civil War and came across an interesting quote: A group of solidiers in Cromwell's Army offered a petition to the head of the Army, Lord Fairfax, expressing their earnest desire "that impartial and speedy justice may be done upon all criminal persons and ... that the same fault may have the same punishment in the person of King or Lord as in the person of the poorest commoner."
It is distressing that Trump's status as a former and potentially future President causes so many to think that the law, for whatever reason, does not apply to him. Even in 1648, the poor unschooled soldiers in Cromwell's Army saw the injustice of that.
"Say Jennifer Rubin"
Thanks for leading with that. Saved 90 seconds scanning her words. Or more likely someone elses words.
I'll reprise a comment I made to Inga in one of the other Trump threads
Who has been correct more often, the people who claimed that "The walls were closing in", that Mueller would prove collusion with Russia, that Trump would be impeached and convicted, or any of a thousand other claims about Trump's actions or the people who have been pointing out these accusations have been largely smoke-and-mirrors?
You know what would hurt Trump? A criminal charge that doesn't depend on turning the law into a pretzel.
And you are absolutely right that the charge of paying hush money to Daniels is far more damaging if it's not adjudicated as a criminal matter because it becomes lost in the effort to twist the facts to fit a theory of legal rather than moral culpability. This is the same rabbit hole the Republicans went down with the Clinton impeachment. The fact that Clinton lied in the deposition was lost in machiniations surrounding impeachment.
More to the point, would this prosecution be looming if Trump were not a Republican? (It is to laugh.)
Jennifer Rubin is a liar. She started out as liberal Democrat. A hollywood lawyer. Then morphed into a Conservative republican. A pose she maintained until Trump came along. Never-trumper was the next stop, and now its back to Liberal Democrat.
That her opinion piece is full of dishonesty, shouldn't be a surprise. She regards words as weapons and will shamelessly use any argument, including those she argued against yesterday, to get her way. I get tired of responding to people like that, since knocking down their insincere arguments accomplishes nothing.
DeSantis' response was disappointing. And it’s significant. Like other Republicans, he seems incapable of actually fighting the Democrats in an enthusiastic way and simply stating what is RIGHT in a clear loud voice. Wouldn’t be prudent. Wouldn't be responsible. Wouldn't be statesman like. WE need to look at the BIG Picture, and do what's best of ALL AMERICANS. And let the process play out and RULE OF LAW.
If DeSantis gets elected POTUS, this will be his MO. Look for plenty of "reaching across the aisle" and surrenders.
Revenge for defeating Hillary. That's what this and everything since Russia, Russia, Russia!!!! is about. Meanwhile, the law is reduced to a blunt instrument, a crudely-chipped cobble in the filthy paws of the sloughing rough beast.
Hillary Rodham Clinton. Future historians will marvel as they sift through the charged remains of Western Civilization, bookended by Pericles and Hillary. The lowest of low comedy. It's Gotterdammerung that ends, not with the fall of Valhalla and the triumph of Love, but with a very loud and stinking fart.
Another in a baffling series of choices. The focus on anti-Trump and pro-DEI articles has successfully cooled engagement on the Althouse blog. Jen Rubin and Dean Steinbach etc are all voices of the monoculture singing the same tune. I hear enough rote leftism in the media already. Used to be I’d come here to see a worthy alternative perhaps even interesting take. Jen fucking Rubin hasn’t had an original thought since 1994. Sad.
From a rational position, it is a bizarre argument. However, after examining the output of Rubin for awhile it is almost drearily predictable. She speaks for the DC consensus and the interests of the federal workforce. Their career goals and stability are paramount, and Trump wants to blow their world up. This must be avoided by any means necessary.
There is no consistency of argument, only one of interest. Follow the bouncing ball.
It helps him precisely because it shows that they're discarding the rule of law.
Rubin is a joke, a liar, and an idiot, and anybody who takes her seriously, should get a life.
My suspicion is that someone in the DA's office leaked this to the press, either because they were hoping to impress a journalist, or because they wanted a backlash that would force the DA to reconsider the whole thing.
Are NDAs illegal now?
Paying someone to keep their mouth shut isn't a crime......unless what they're keeping their mouth shut about is.
This is the first time DeSantis has looked scared. Fear is not what you want to see in the eyes of your leader.
Trump's sordid legal problem is not a hill DeSantis wants to die on, but this isn't really about Trump, is it? It's about all of us. It's actually a very important piece of high ground to fight for.
Rubin is pretty much the last person you go to for credible analysis of anything having to do with Trump.
With few exceptions, Trump Has never received much support from Republican politicians.
But once it happens, it's too late to worry about what effect it will have.
Progressives don't believe in bad effects and repercussions of their actions.
When your "defund the police" and "let the criminals out" mayor finally loses due to soaring crime rates, you just blame racism.
Premature weaponization.
"Would this prosecution be looming if Trump were not a political candidate?"
That's all if it right there; that's what makes this political, having nothing to do with the rule of law.
Rubin may be one of if not THE most disingenuous writes at the times, and that is saying a lot. About the only writer I can recall that 180 degreed their positions on life long positions, well Obama comes to mind but he is not a writer.
Bananas? We have bananas! We are a banana republic.
I remember when Jen Rubin was telling me Mitt Romney was going to win.
I like to write it backwards, like this;
"nibuR refinneJ".
It's like I'm erasing reh. Bye-bye, refinneJ!
Not sure what "emotionally decompensate" means, but I don't like the sound of it.
Trump's sordid legal problem is not a hill DeSantis wants to die on, but this isn't really about Trump, is it? It's about all of us. It's actually a very important piece of high ground to fight for.
Yup. Trump has made missteps for sure, but overall he seems to have managed to maneuver the GOP into a position where they have to stand and fight, or risk destroying the party. If they throw him to the wolves, there's no way that the base will turn out to vote for whomever gets the nomination.
Meanwhile we have incontrovertible evidence publicly available that multiple Biden family members were given millions of dollars by the Chinese government.
Out of everything going on here this is the only thing that matters.
Desantis has ruined any chance he had in 2024 by pretending this isn't a real issue.
He flubbed this badly. His reactions here show a calculated servant of donors. There is just too much evidence that Ron is a Big Donor first politician. He is not a leader. He does what he is told to do.
"Trump!"
Is that the musical that we know Broadway is just dying to make?
___
I doubt that fanatical soldiers in a civil war really are the people we should look to for an understanding of the details in this case.
John Edwards paid hush money out of campaign funds. He was acquitted on one count and jury couldn't make up their mind about the others. Eventually the charges were dropped. Haven't we all gotten used to the idea that Democrats can get away with anything?
The argument against the possible indictment of Donald Trump is not based on the fact that Trump is a candidate, though it's clear that the prosecution is politically motivated. If Trump had paid Daniels out of campaign funds he would have broken the law. He didn't. If Trump did do anything wrong, it likely wasn't a felony.
Bob Boyd said...
This is the first time DeSantis has looked scared. Fear is not what you want to see in the eyes of your leader.
Trump's sordid legal problem is not a hill DeSantis wants to die on, but this isn't really about Trump, is it? It's about all of us. It's actually a very important piece of high ground to fight for.
He is looking at the polls.
He knows he is losing support from the base.
Choosing Club for Growth over CPAC hurt him badly.
Coming out with a backhanded weak obviously donor scripted response to the destruction of the rule of law in this country is pathetic.
This Jen Rubin?
Allegations of olde with plausible leverage, spun on a loom in a handmade tale, brayed until there is a capitulating consensus.
Jennifer Rubin: Anti-Trump.
Ann Althouse: Anti-anti-Trump, not wanting to be Pro-Trump.
Me: Anti-anti-anti Trump, not wanting to be Anti-Althouse. Aw, fuck it. Enough antis. I'm anti-Trump and could not possibly be more pleased or proud about it.
Althouse I do think that a problem with this blog post is too much anti-.
The simplest formulation of what I think is beyond dispute:
1. Rubin clearly suggests that the Trump base of hard-core supporters is shrinking. She supplied a hyperlink in support. Take it as you wish.
2. A little less clearly, Rubin suggests that an indictment of Trump (or four, or five indictments by multiple prosecutors in multiple jurisdictions) might well energize that core base of Trump fanatics, but that it will further alienate Trump from independent or movable voters.
3. And while some pundits may be talking generally about Trump being "helped" by an indictment, it is terribly limited "help." I look no further than the comments pages of the Althouse blog. Where some commenters who were previously Trump supporters are now supporting DeSantis. Suggesting that Trump is an electoral loser and that Trump's nomination would be the end of Trumpism. While more devoted Trumpists are remaining true believers. The fights between those two groups are getting increasingly bitter. It's all bad, and indictments are making it worse.
Blogger Big Mike said...
If we’re going to worry about the rule of law, when will Stephanie Gregory Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) be arrested for extortion?
I still wonder if she was put up to it by Avanatti. That was a public golf event at a Trump owned course. Hundreds of photos were taken.
He is looking at the polls.
He knows he is losing support from the base.
DeSantis has to thread the needle. He could very easily be the nominee and lose all those Trump voters who are "Reagan Republican" types who came out to vote for Trump specifically. Of course the Democrat ballot printing press may make this argument academic.
Good to see Ann for one using story's right professional title. "porn actress" not "porn star".
But thinking on it, is even this correct in light of her allegations? I believe she is alleging that trump paid her for sex, not for putting on an exhibition.
Would that not make her a whore? (hooker, prostitute, sex worker etc)
And if she took money for sex, as she alleges with no evidence, isn't that criminal in New York?
Where is her indictment?
John Henry
At that point, everyone against Trump will fight to make it hurt him and everyone for Trump will fight to make it help him
I'm against Trump. But I will fight to make any corrupt indictment (and any indictment by Bragg will be corrupt) against Trump help Trump, because I'm a decent human being, and decent human beings oppose politically corrupt abuse of the justice system
If your hatred of Trump outweighs your human decency, it's because you actually have no human decency
A premature indictment might end up with a premature incarceration.
Fortunately there's a pill for that...
I'm surprised Jen Rubin hasn't claimed that Donsld Trump is the love child of Eva Braun and Adolf Hitler spirited out of Berlin and raised in the USA by foster parents like in the Boys from Brazil.
Ice Nine and Ron Winkleheimer,
You both wrote comments that have quite a few unnecessary qualifiers. ;-)
Many are bringing up Statute of Limitations etc.
Could Manhattan DA have done all this much earlier?
Coming out with a backhanded weak obviously donor scripted response to the destruction of the rule of law in this country is pathetic.
========
I am told he is also Yale Law ?
is JAG training ground for lawfare/selective process harassment over vague ROE in battle theaters?
John Borell said...
"Would this prosecution be looming if Trump were not a political candidate?"
That's all if it right there; that's what makes this political, having nothing to do with the rule of law.
=========
I would like to see pay-off matrix put together by Manahttan DA for his future prospects!
Mr Wibble said...
My suspicion is that someone in the DA's office leaked this to the press, either because they were hoping to impress a journalist, or because they wanted a backlash that would force the DA to reconsider the whole thing.
=========
was there a lesson plan for [leaky Depends worthy] law school graduates : e.g. Dobbs leak etc?
was there a lesson plan for [leaky Depends worthy] law school graduates : e.g. Dobbs leak etc?
I still think that Sotomayor gave the WH a copy of the Dobbs decision as a heads up, and that the WH decided to leak it because they needed a distraction back in April.
Bob Boyd said...
This is the first time DeSantis has looked scared. Fear is not what you want to see in the eyes of your leader.
Trump's sordid legal problem is not a hill DeSantis wants to die on, but this isn't really about Trump, is it? It's about all of us. It's actually a very important piece of high ground to fight for.
What are you smoking?
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2023/03/20/breaking-desantis-rips-soros-funded-da-who-may-indict-trump-n1679856
“So, I’ve seen rumors swirl. I have not seen any facts yet, and so I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I do know this,” DeSantis began. “The Manhattan district attorney is a Soros-funded prosecutor. And so, he, like other Soros-funded prosecutors — they weaponize their office to impose a political agenda on society at the expense of the rule of law and public safety.”
...
“If you have a prosecutor who is ignoring crimes happening every single day in his jurisdiction, and he chooses to go back many, many years ago to try to use something about porn star hush money payments, you know, that’s an example of pursuing a political agenda and weaponizing the office. And I think that that’s fundamentally wrong.”
Looks like DeSantis is fighting for that high ground.
At least if you're not blind it does
rcocean, Bob Boyd, Achilles
All claim that DeSantis refused to attack Bragg for weaponizing the law against Trump.
none give so much as a single link
this would be because all three are full of shit
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2023/03/20/breaking-desantis-rips-soros-funded-da-who-may-indict-trump-n1679856
“If you have a prosecutor who is ignoring crimes happening every single day in his jurisdiction, and he chooses to go back many, many years ago to try to use something about porn star hush money payments, you know, that’s an example of pursuing a political agenda and weaponizing the office. And I think that that’s fundamentally wrong.”
When you say "person X didn't say Y in his speech", then you also have to provide a link to a complete transcript of his speech, so we can see for ourselves if you claim is true.
lack of link == even you know you're lying
BothSidesNow said...
It is not at all bizzare to suggest that when someone violates campaign finance law, prosecuting that person upholds the rule of law.
Hillary Clinton laundered her campaign's payments to Steele through a law firm, laying and claiming they were "legal payments".
That is FAR more a a campaign law violation that anything you could accuse Trump of having done.
Has she been prosecuted for this?
Selective enforcement of the law, only going after one side, is the diametric opposite of the rule of law.
Are you really stupid, not to understand that?
Orr are you just really dishonest?
Michael K: "DeSantis has to thread the needle. He could very easily be the nominee and lose all those Trump voters who are "Reagan Republican" types who came out to vote for Trump specifically."
They really aren't "Reagan Republicans" at all. The name Reagan means nothing at all to these multi-ethnic working class low propensity voters that respond to a strong economic nationalist and populist message.
So far those arent "republican" voters, they are "Trump" voters only. If Trump is not the nominee they sit home.
They could be or could have been converted to lifetime republican voters, a new Roosevelt-like coalition...except for the fact the republican leadership hates their guts and wants to crush them economically with their GOPe America Last policies.
Drago, Was that supposed to be responsive to me pointing out that DeSantis most certainly did attack Bragg for exactly what you claimed he didn't attack Bragg for?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा