Fighting Trump In The Court Of Public Opinion
Donald Trump will be tried in two places. I am not speaking of the fact that he's now been indicted on two sets of felony criminal charges, one in New York and one in a federal court down in Florida, but rather of the two arenas where he will be making his own case: in a court of law and in the court of public opinion.
Politically, the fresh new round of indictments will boost Trump, at least in the short term. He's well aware of this, as he will be holding his first fundraiser for his presidential campaign tomorrow night -- right after his (second) arraignment in court. This is not backing away from his legal problems, it is instead leaning into it all in a big way. Trump will also most likely get a boost in Republican primary polling as well, as a "rally 'round the flag" effect -- which indeed also happened after his first indictment. The whole "Wahhhh! I'm the world's biggest victim!" schtick is going to pay off for Trump's campaign, once again.
Trump is already attempting to discredit the entire case in the court of public opinion. Convincing his MAGA faithful won't be a problem at all, since they all possess an unlimited ability to believe whatever Trump says, no matter how divorced it may be from actual reality. Convincing the right-wing media echo chamber won't be too tough either, although not everyone will go along with it. Over the weekend, people like Jim Jordan and Lindsey Graham ranted and raved about Trump's case while, surprisingly, Trump's former attorney general, Bill Barr, threw some cold water on everyone's attempt to whitewash the charges filed against Trump: "If even half of it is true, then he's toast." Barr also ridiculed the notion that this all was some sort of vast, left-wing conspiracy against Trump. Here are a few more choice quotes from Barr's appearance on Fox News Sunday yesterday:
Battle plans for an attack on another country or Defense Department documents about our capabilities are in no universe Donald J. Trump's personal documents. They are the government's documents.... This particular episode of trying to retrieve those documents, the government acted responsibly. And it was Donald J. Trump who acted irresponsibly.... This idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous. Yes, he's been a victim in the past. Yes, his adversaries have obsessively pursued him with phony claims. I have been at his side defending against them when he is a victim. But this is much different. He is not a victim here. He was totally wrong that he had the right to have those documents. Those documents are among the most sensitive secrets the country has.
This is from Bill Barr, who was complicit in Trump "weaponizing" the Justice Department in Trump's favor. So maybe he knows of what he speaks?
Most Republicans, predictably, are out there throwing sand into everyone's eyes, claiming all sorts of nonsense, bringing up wildly laughable "whataboutism" comparisons, and generally refusing to answer any of the basic questions of wrongdoing in the indictment. They're trying to claim: "Ahh, it's not so bad!" when, in fact, it is unbelievably bad.
This sort of what might be called red-herring-ism can indeed work in the court of public opinion. As Trump well knows. But none of it will matter in the slightest inside the courtroom. "Other people did it and weren't charged" isn't much of a legal defense, in other words. "I was allowed to do it" is blatantly contradicted by the facts and by the letter of the law. "I declassified everything" is a moot point, because none of the charges deals with crimes about classification. Trump had top-secret documents. He showed them to people who did not have clearance to see them. He knew they were still classified. He ignored a subpoena to return them. He hid them, instead. And he got caught red-handed.
The judge assigned to the case is the biggest wildcard so far. She is the same judge that issued rulings in the case surrounding the execution of the search warrant on Trump's property that were so laughably biased towards Trump that the appellate court not only scathingly overturned them, they did so in such a fashion as to give a green light to the government to appeal the entire ruling by the Trump-biased judge. Which they promptly did, and the entire ruling was overturned and tossed out.
The judge will be ruling on all sorts of things in the coming weeks. All sorts of procedural motions will be made and argued. But if she issues more laughably-biased rulings for Trump, she risks being removed from the case altogether. So we'll have to see how that all plays out. But in the end, it will be a jury who decides Trump's fate, not the judge. And the evidence is damning and voluminous.
But there will be a lot of time between now and when a jury gets to hear the case. And all of that time will be consumed with Trump proclaiming "Witch hunt!" to anyone who will listen, and his making fantastical "legal arguments" about why what he did was peachy-keen and no big deal.
As Keith Olbermann pointed out on his podcast last night, however, there is a way to counter this flood of nonsense from Trump. So far, Democrats have not engaged in this battle in the court of public opinion, Olbermann points out. But if they ever bestir themselves to do so, there is an excellent way to frame the entire mess. Cut straight to the heart of what Trump is accused of doing and explain in the strongest possible terms why it is so dangerous. Here is Olbermann, making this case (emphasis in original):
Donald Trump has put the lives of tens of thousands of American service men and women at risk -- all around the world -- by stealing the documents. Donald Trump doesn't give a damn if American troops live or die. Donald Trump HATES THE TROOPS. And why aren't we hearing that? Bill Barr, The National Review, Governor Sununu, and The National Review [sic?] blistered Trump. Scott Jennings, the rabid CNN conservative? Jennings hit a point that in normal times would have been enough for the Republicans to have already thrown Trump overboard, for all time? "If you had a son or a daughter who was serving... in a hostile place and you thought maybe their information was in a document that could have been picked off the friggin' floor, do you know how this could impact a military family? The thing is when you're commander in chief, you have this responsibility to the military and the people who serve. It's sort of offensive to me actually that we would be so cavalier with the information that could possibly put our people in jeopardy."
And if there is anything more shocking than the number of anti-Trump statements ESPECIALLY from lawyers and from HIS lawyers -- it is the fact that in normal times the Democrats would have taken the essence of Scott Jennings' point: TRUMP PUT THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN SERVICE MEN AT RISK, and they would have hung that fact around the necks of not just Trump and everybody close to him, but around the necks of EVERY Republican who didn't condemn him and the Democrats would be screaming: "Why does Donald Trump hate the troops?" and: "Why does Ron DeSantis hate the troops?" and: "Why does Lindsey Graham hate the troops?" and if the POINT ITSELF wasn't decisive enough, the Democrats could follow it up with the new CBS News poll that asks is there a national security risk if Trump kept nuclear and military documents and the answer was YES, Trump put the National Security at Risk, YES... from 38 percent OF REPUBLICANS.
Why in the chorus of sheep bleating about Trump's rights and Hillary Clinton this and weaponization that, are virtually ALL the dissenting voices... Republicans? Where are the Democrats? Where are the Democrats talking about the grave risk Trump was and is to National Security? Where are the Democrats demanding that he will be president again only over their dead bodies? Where are the Democrats saying no matter how this trial turns out, Trump definitely put American troops at risk for the sake of his ego, and he may have gotten American troops KILLED, and he may STILL get American troops KILLED? Where is the outrage?
This is indeed the right way to fight this battle. What Trump is accused of doing is highly illegal for good reason. It is not some peccadillo to be lightly brushed aside. It is dangerous. It can be deadly.
These are the points that apologists (like Lindsey Graham) don't want to talk about at all. These are the reasons why the Trump toadies absolutely refuse to talk about the actual charges themselves, and would much rather bleat about Hillary Clinton's emails or Hunter Biden's laptop.
The real case to be made to the American people is that Donald Trump showed a breathtaking disregard for our nation's secrets -- even about nuclear capabilities or possible war plans -- and refuses to or is incapable of seeing why this is a bad thing. Do you really want a man like that to become president again? How much more harm to the nation's security do you think he'd do if he got the chance?
That is the argument to make, plain and simple.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
When James Comey slimed HilRod back in 2016, he also said this:
"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
How many of those 4 criteria apply to Fat Donny? I'd say all 4.
Let's please leave the "look over there" bullshit to the MAGAts, OK? Hilary, Joe, and Pence did nothing close to what he did. Lock him up!
did you watch the CNN townhall tonight? my former governor is someone i never supported or voted for, but in this setting he was pretty strong.
Not on the topic of reproductive rights.
I also watched Christie’s CNN this evening and mark my words, I don’t fear Trump versus Joe. I don’t think DeSantos is ready for prime time and besides — why pick Trump-lite when Trump-full strength is running? The rest (IMO besides Christie) are pretenders and not to be paid any attention to.
Christie hit it out of the park. Period. For that reason I fear Christie versus Joe above every other Repug candidate on offer. CC only hit Repug orthodoxy about 20% of the time, otherwise he was appealing to swing voters.
Elizabeth, on reproductive rights Christie deferred to “let each state decide…until & unless our nation reaches consensus.”
Beau of the Fifth Column makes a compelling case that the various Republican excuses for Trump’s indictment rather neatly matches the “five stages of grief — denial, anger, bargaining, depression & acceptance.”
Five minutes & worth a peek.
I know what CC said at his town hall Re. Reproductive Rights. His wife - or any other so-inclined woman, for that matter - should withhold giving him any pleasure, whatsoever, until he sees the light. And, that goes for any man who thinks the state or any other entity should have any standing, whatsoever, in a woman's decision, based on sound medical advice, to have an abortion.
[7]
Elizabeth I truly “get” The Thou Shall Get NO More Nookie for Thou art a facist troglodyte, yea verily” impulse. I fully agree that they bleeping deserve it, BUT that’s such a tall order! Seems you hetero [redacteds] love being [redacted] as much as us [it is better to GIVE than to, er, RECEIVE] [redacteders] gentlemen. In fact, even the non-Gentlemen.
Christie was SLY on abortion, and I’ve no doubt he’d sign a Federal ban if it landed in front of him.
Anyways, in a just world your idea would solve this foolishness lickitysplit!
Jes’ saying.”
*sigh*
Indeed.
[4] I'm also really afraid of the results if Trump is not the nominee and instead it's Christie or DeSantis. Voters are likely to vote for the more vigorous-looking candidate.
John From Censornati
1
How many of those 4 criteria apply to Fat Donny? I'd say all 4.
Four.
The right-wing talking points regarding Hillary's emails and actual facts are two entirely different things, and for the reasons you rightly point out, Comey chose not to prosecute. Additionally, there were multiple AGs of the Trump administration who reviewed the case and also chose not to prosecute. As much as Republicans want to make this an issue now, it's nothing more than false equivalency and denotes the absolute dearth of defenses available for Trump in a court of law.
So many shitty Trumpian defenses.
Shitty Defenses in a Court of Law
* "If they can do this to me; they can do it to you." Accurate but a much better translation is: "No one is above the law." If you steal nuclear secrets, you bet your ass they can do it to you. Except there really is a 2-tier system of justice. If you did steal nuclear secrets, you probably wouldn't get 18 days -- forget about 18 months -- wherein you could return them and "no harm, no foul." After they searched and recovered nuclear secrets from your residence and every property you owned (not just one), your ass would be jailed until your trial and not allowed to be released "OR" -- on your own recognizance.
* If you stole nuclear secrets and refused to return them for 18 months, and your defense is "but Hillary," "but Joe Biden," or "but Mike Pence," it is like telling the entire world you have no defense and are up Shit Creek without a paddle.
* If you stole nuclear secrets and your defense is to whine about the sitting president having his political opponent indicted, that is also a shitty defense... particularly and especially when you were recently a sitting president who demanded his AG indict his political opponent. Are there no Republicans who remember the fact that Donald Trump demanded his AG arrest Joe Biden (and not for the first time)?
Donald Trump Calls for AG Barr to Indict Joe Biden With 26 Days Until Election
It's also an equally stupid defense when you keep claiming your opponent is helping you by having you indicted. I mean, pick a lane. You saying it helps you and then whining it hurts you is schizophrenic as well as quantifiably stupid.
* If you stole nuclear secrets and are claiming "I would have returned them if I only had time" after months and months of shit-tons of time, you're not a victim but an effing comedian.
* If you stole nuclear secrets and your defense is some bullshit story about declassifying the nuclear secrets beforehand by just thinking about it, it's not only asinine on its face, it's also side-splitting comedy. There is no "Jedi mind trick" method of declassification, and no amount of ridiculous claims by Trump that he declassified the nuclear secrets changes the fact he had unlawful possession of them and refused to return them. And say one of the last things you did just hours before leaving the office of the presidency was to actually declassify documents related to "Operation Crossfire Hurricane" ... how stupid do you think it would sound to claim that "Jedi mind trick declassification method" (not a method) when you obviously knew the proper procedure? Rhetorical question.
In conclusion, if Donald Trump wants to grab some lady parts, he should honestly and seriously consider manhandling himself all over because he is without question the biggest pussy on the planet.
I have said it before, and I'll say it again: It is Trump's own mouth that indicts himself. He has the right to remain silent; he just doesn't have the ability. :)
nypoet22
2
did you watch the CNN townhall tonight?
Yes.
my former governor is someone i never supported or voted for, but in this setting he was pretty strong.
The words "in this setting" are doing a lot of work there. He obviously wasn't challenged on his lies. A decade after "Bridgegate," and he's still lying about having no prior knowledge, which is absolute bullshit. Also, his revisionist history regarding the Trump campaign's contacts with Russians is laughable on its face.
Why wasn't his ridiculous stance on abortion not questioned further? Rhetorical question. He mentions not wanting the federal government being involved in the decision and asks (paraphrasing): Do you want the United States deciding you can only have two kids... like China? Obvious answer is "no."
Obvious followup question: What on God's green Earth makes you think that's a better proposition if it's New Jersey or another state telling me I can only have two children or (in the alternative) I must have two children? Another obvious question: What's so damn great about New Jersey or another state mandating forced birth of my rapist's baby? I don't think rapists should be given rights by either the United States or any state.
Chris Christie did not have the authority to fire Camden PD. It was Democratic lawmakers that did that. Liar!
:)
Elizabeth Miller
3
Not on the topic of reproductive rights.
Exactly!
This hot bag of wind thinks it's not the place of the United States to interfere. Interference into your personal pursuit of life, libery, and happiness should obviously take place at the state level. Positively nuts!
MtnCaddy
5
Elizabeth, on reproductive rights Christie deferred to “let each state decide…until & unless our nation reaches consensus.”
So until hell freezes over, your state government should mandate your personal reproductive decisions. If that's okay with any males on this forum, I hope your state mandates penile amputation because it would sure curtail the abortion rate. Just saying.
@kick,
yes, i did include those words for a reason. i'm doubtful that anyone in the republican debates could respond any better, however. and yes, of COURSE he's lying and/or misleading on any number of things, but townhalls and debates aren't about how well you do factually, they're about how well you "perform."
nypoet22
17
yes, i did include those words for a reason.
I figured you did.
i'm doubtful that anyone in the republican debates could respond any better, however.
"In this setting," wind them all up and watch them go, and Chris-Chris the Clown would definitely be among at least one of the top three performers... except with his own political party. :)