Sunday Morning Coffee
Musings about Trump's trial ... and links for thinking about life beyond politics
Is there anything better on the weekend then a languid Sunday morning with a mug of fresh, hot coffee, and the Sunday newspaper? These Sunday Morning Coffee posts are my occasional accompaniment to the Sunday paper. Just some topics that I’ve been reading or thinking about, along with a few links to various articles or podcasts that you may (or may not) find intriguing. I try to post these once or twice a month, or whenever I have time to expand on some topics I’ve been musing about.
WHAT I’M THINKING ABOUT
Trump’s Trial
It’s hard to let the news of Donald Trump’s criminal trial pass without comment this week. There is no electoral commentary here, but rather some news that cries out to be discussed. Or clarified. Honestly, some things just feel like they have to be said, even if I’m shouting into the wind.
In the aftermath of this week’s verdict, I was struck in particular by two things. One, how quickly my last post about “Flooding the Zone” became even more relevant as misinformation about the trial spread. And two, the torrent of Republican rage that erupted after the jury found Trump guilty.
So, a few musings about the news of the week …
(And if you’ve had your fill of trial coverage, feel free to skip ahead to the second half of this post where there are links for thinking about life beyond politics.)
1. Flooding the zone (again) with misinformation
Some notable GOP comments from the past few days:
Democrats “convicted the leader of the opposing party on ridiculous charges,” said Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, “predicated on the testimony of a disbarred, convicted felon.”
“These charges never should have been brought in the first place,” said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell.
“The district attorney … campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump,” said Sen. Susan Collins.
“The only thing that Donald Trump is guilty of is being in the courtroom of a political sham trial,” said Sen. J.D. Vance.
The truth is, this is all misinformation — spread by individuals who know better. None of these people are dumb. Vance has a freaking law degree from Yale. They all know they’re spouting nonsense. But, as noted in my last post, when you flood the zone with misinformation then the truth eventually starts to seem unknowable. And that’s what they’re trying to achieve here.
So, can we at least get a few things straight?
Trump was not convicted by the Democratic Party. He was convicted by a 12-person jury of his peers. A jury that Trump’s defense team had a hand in approving. A jury that had to agree unanimously on his guilt.
Trump was also not convicted based on the testimony of the “disbarred, convicted felon” Michael Cohen. He was convicted because a slew of business documents backed up what Cohen said. Do you know what else backed up Cohen? The testimonies of people like David Pecker and Hope Hicks, two people who still like and support Trump. Especially Pecker’s testimony about how he colluded with Trump to kill negative information in order to help his presidential campaign.
District Attorney Alvin Bragg did not campaign on a specific promise to prosecute Donald Trump. This information is so ridiculously easy to find that I know GOP leaders have to know the truth. In fact, when Bragg came into office he dropped a different case against Trump that his predecessor had been investigating.
2. Can we remember that this isn’t Trump’s first conviction?
Yes, Donald Trump is now the first former president to be convicted of a felony in a criminal court. But let’s not forget that he has also been convicted by another jury of rape/sexual abuse (the judge called it rape, the jury called it sexual abuse, the legal distinction is explained here). And of defamation. And was convicted by a judge of tax fraud (technically the Trump Organization was convicted).
Moreover, none of these are even considered the most serious charges he faces. Those would his indictments on charges of trying to overturn a democratic election in connection with January 6; of unlawful retention of defense information, hiding classified documents, and obstruction of justice in connection with the dozens of boxes of classified documents he took from the White House, and of subverting a democratic election in Georgia. And he’s an unindicted co-conspirator in several other state election cases.
At what point is it legitimate to start seeing a pattern of conduct here with the former president and to stop assuming that every single judge, jury member, and prosecutor across multiple states is somehow part of a vast legal conspiracy out to get one man?
3. What about the charge that this was a political prosecution drummed up by Democrats?
Can Republicans make a case that this was a flimsy indictment and a political prosecution? Sure. Some arguments may even make a little sense. But do the arguments hold up under scrutiny? Let’s look at a couple of the suggestions being thrown around this week.
One: Some people, like McConnell, are suggesting that the charges never should have been brought in the first place. Or that it’s merely a case of covering up a sexual affair. So, yes, you can make that argument. Many made a similar case with the Bill Clinton impeachment over perjury when he lied about a sexual affair in 1998.
But this was not merely a case of lying about sex. New York has prosecuted almost 10,000 cases of falsifying business records just since 2015. So are we saying that the law regarding falsifying business records is stupid and those 10,000 other cases should also never have been brought? Or, that the law shouldn’t have been used against Trump?
Additionally, Trump’s case was considered more serious because he falsified the records as part of an effort to keep negative information away from voters during his 2016 presidential campaign. It can never be proven one way or the other, but there is a coin flip of a chance that he actually won the 2016 election because of this coverup.
Two: Some are also making the argument that this was politically motivated prosecution. And, yes, Bragg is a Democrat. Can I guarantee that Bragg didn’t have partisan animus? No. Obviously, this is an easy argument to make and it’s at least debatable.
However, as noted, Bragg did also drop a different case against Trump, which is noteworthy. And a jury, after hearing the evidence, did find Trump guilty. But sure, you can suggest this to be true, just as the same argument was made when the Republican Ken Starr investigated President Clinton in the 1990s.
What you can’t do, however, is insist that this was a partisan prosecution initiated by the Biden Department of Justice. This willfully ignores the reality that the Manhattan D.A. is elected by the people of New York and doesn’t work for the Biden administration. And even if he did, how would this square with the fact that the Justice Department is currently also prosecuting Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas? Strange way to only go after one party.
Not only that, but someone else who is being prosecuted by the Biden Justice Department? Hunter Biden! And oh, by the way, the attorney who brought the charges against Biden was appointed by Trump. And when Joe Biden became president he chose not to remove the attorney who was investigating his son because he didn’t want to be seen as interfering in an investigation.
So let me throw a hypothetical your way: what if a U.S. Attorney appointed by Obama or Biden had indicted Donald Trump, Jr. on charges of illegally owning a gun and of not paying his taxes? I mean, can you even imagine the outrage on Fox News or from Republicans in Congress? And yet that’s essentially the situation Hunter Biden is in.
I write this not to make an argument about partisanship, but to point out the absurdity of suggesting that Trump’s case is political and Hunter Biden’s is not. Neither party can have it both ways. If someone believes that Donald Trump’s case is a sham because of potential partisanship by the attorney, then you have to acknowledge the same possibility for Hunter Biden’s case. And vice versa.
4. Needless to say, the outrage about the Trump verdict is dangerous
The outpouring of outrage this week, largely manufactured by a torrent of misinformation, is dangerous.
"Don't just get angry about this travesty, get even!" said Sen. Marco Rubio.
"This is a battle of good versus evil," said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
"Anyone who defends this verdict is a danger to you and your family," said Tucker Carlson.
The one Republican who had a moment of sanity was former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, who is running for the Senate: “Regardless of the result, I urge all Americans to respect the verdict and the legal process,” he said. Pretty boring, standard stuff, right? Apparently not. Trump’s campaign manager responded to Hogan: “You just ended your campaign.”
In today’s GOP, you’re either 100% in with Donald Trump or you’re excommunicated.
This is not a game that has many happy endings. Look at this news about threats against those involved in the Trump trial:
[T]here has been a high volume of social media posts containing violent rhetoric targeting New York Judge Juan Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, including a post with Bragg’s purported home address. The group also found posts of the purported addresses of jurors …
“We need to identify each juror. Then make them miserable. Maybe even suicidal,” wrote another user on the same forum. “1,000,000 men (armed) need to go to washington and hang everyone. That’s the only solution,” wrote another user. “This s--- is out of control.”
“I hope every juror is doxxed and they pay for what they have done,” another user wrote on Trump’s Truth Social platform Thursday. “May God strike them dead. We will on November 5th and they will pay!”
A member of the Proud Boys posted this:
“Now you understand. To save your nation, you must fight. The time to respond is now.”
An obvious response to this rage would be to stop the misinformation and try to calm the situation. But apparently a lot of so-called leaders would rather play with fire.
5. I’ll leave you with this …
[T]he rule of law is one of the great achievements of our civilization, for the alternative is the rule of raw power. We here today are the heirs of 3,000 years of history in which humanity slowly, painfully, at great cost evolved a form of politics in which law, not brute force, is the arbiter of our public destinies …
No man or woman, no matter how highly placed, no matter how effective a communicator, no matter how gifted a manipulator of opinion or winner of votes, can be above the law in a democracy …
We cannot have one law for the ruler and another law for the ruled. This was once broadly understood in our land. If that understanding is lost or if it becomes seriously eroded, the American democratic experiment and the freedom it guarantees is in jeopardy. That and not the fate of one man, or one political party, or one electoral cycle is what we're being asked to vote on today …
Let's look to the future, to the children of today who are the presidents and members of Congress of the next century. And let's not crush their hope that they too will inherent a law-governed society.
That’s Republican Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, making the case that the law is sacred and that no one is above the law, while arguing for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998. You don’t have to agree with the Clinton impeachment to be impressed by the words and the principles espoused.
Whatever happened, I wonder, to that Republican Party?
6. Sorry, one more …
I already posted this video once before, but it’s worth revisiting. Because this is how a leader calms a dangerous situation, rather than trying to manufacture rage.
It’s Bobby Kennedy in 1968, talking to a Black crowd in Indianapolis about Martin Luther King’s assassination that day, at a time when riots were breaking out around the country. Smithsonian Magazine called it “one of the most eloquent extemporaneous speeches of the 20th century.”
LIFE BEYOND POLITICS
OK, let’s get away from politics for a bit. Because the news can be exhausting and, yes, because there is always more to life than politics. So here’s a short roundup of some non-political things that caught my eye recently.
What I’m Reading
LIFE: Are you feeling overwhelmed? Can you train yourself to be less busy? Interesting essay about this in Vox.
IDEAS: Where do the best ideas come from? A piece in The Marginalian: “How Einstein Thought: Why “Combinatory Play” Is the Secret of Genius.”
MUSIC: Taylor Swift’s music is not just about her life and loves. If you look, there are layers of meaning, at least with her more recent work. Here is a guide to some of the many literary references in her newest album, The Tortured Poets Department.
SPORTS: Could/should Salt Lake City become the permanent host of the Winter Olympics?
BOOKS: What are the 30 best book series ever written? Harry Potter, not surprisingly, tops this particular list, but what else? Where is Lord of the Rings? A Song of Ice and Fire (which became Game of Thrones)? The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy?
SCIENCE/LIFE: What happened when a student asked her physics/cosmology professor about the meaning of life?
TRAVEL: It’s almost summer road trip season. What are some of the best national park road trips in the U.S.?
What I’m Listening To (or watching)
Does anyone not like Tom Hanks? How is it that he sometimes seem like sort of a salve for the American soul? Assuming you appreciate Hanks, check out his almost hour-long conversation with Ezra Klein on Klein’s podcast, during which Hanks talks about American history, yes, but also about the magic of typewriters, his new novel, superheroes, and the importance of kindness.
Or, on the New Yorker Radio Hour, Jerry Seinfeld talks about life in comedy and his new movie, Unfrosted, about the invention of Pop-Tarts.
In recent years, the annual release of the NFL schedule has turned into a huge event, complete with team-produced videos that reveal their upcoming opponents. Some teams have gone to great lengths to turn out catchy, popular videos, notably the Los Angeles Chargers and Tennessee Titans in the past two years.
But one of the more viral releases this year was by the New England Patriots, who used a Good Will Hunting theme, with Julian Edelman in the Matt Damon role (“Do you like apples?”), Rob Gronkowski as Ben Affleck, and a funny reference to The Town movie at the end. Less than four minutes long, but worth a few laughs …