Trump to the Slammer?
Friday, March 31, 2023 12:00 AM
You cannot be serious!—John McEnroe
Dear Friends + Interlocutors,
I woke up this morning with a headache and was confronted with a banner headline in the print edition of the NY Times. TRUMP INDICTED!
I stopped my subscription to The Times some months ago, but it keeps hitting the front door. I don’t think The Times's HQ is able to communicate with the paperboys (or gals) in the field, or they don’t bother to read directives.
Can you imagine how many trees need to be cut down and processed to print The Times? Seems like a waste, especially when you consider its content, not to mention the “global warming” impact.
Besides, I don’t have time to read the paper. And it is a chore to throw it out so it can be recycled. At least I’m not being charged.
As for Trump, or Trumpie as I call him, I suppose this is the price he must pay for a one-night stand with porn queen Stormy Daniels. What a delayed payment due! It hardly seems fair.
The indictment is still under seal until it is leaked. From what I gather, the purported crime has something to do with paying "hush money" to Stormy so she wouldn't blab about a consensual sexual encounter that evidently took place some years prior.
Why would Stormy blab? She must have threatened to blab because otherwise no “hush money” would have been forthcoming. Blabbing would presumably have negatively impacted Trumpie’s election chances against Hillary Clinton, aka The Hildebeest, in 2016.
I guess you could call it blackmail or extortion, if Stormy demanded cash for her silence. Isn’t blackmail a crime, even in New York? Kiss-and-Tell on its own is no crime, just bad form.
Has anybody heard about an indictment of Stormy for blackmail? Let me know. I haven’t, not yet. Is paying off a blackmailer to avoid embarrassing disclosures a crime? It must be in New York City otherwise the hapless Trumpie would not be charged.
If Stormy did not blackmail Trumpie, was Trumpie perhaps simply delivering a long-overdue tip to Stormy for services rendered? That’s a stretch. In either case, this does not sound like a felony or crime to me.
I’m thinking back to POTUS 42, aka Slick Willie, aka Bubba, aka Teflon Bill. Didn’t Bill Clinton have related “women problems” concerning so-called “bimbo eruptions” from women alleging sexual harassment?
I realize that purported “bimbos” are not in the same category as genuine porn starlets, still the extra-curricular activity of these two Presidents does have a common denominator. Women who were not their wives.
In Bubba’s case, no “hush money” was exchanged but instead the “bimbos” were subjected to a determined public smear campaign orchestrated by the aforementioned Hildebeest. Bubba was never charged with sexual harassment. And the voters let it pass.
Bubba did eventually end up lying to a grand jury in the Paula Jones case, which civil case involved allegations of workplace harassment. There is no question that lying in grand jury testimony is a felony, and there is no question that Bubba lied.
At least with Trumpie, the matter involved consensual sex and no one got hurt or smeared, except perhaps Trumpie himself. Publicity-seeking Stormy made innuendos that his performance was not up to the high standards she was used to.
At the time of the "Bimbo Eruptions", the D.C. Dems and the liberal press flunkies, in contrast to their attitude today, felt the entire matter was much ado about nothing. They joked about it. Boys will be boys, and so forth.
Still, the hapless Bubba got himself impeached and wiggled off the hook. The jury was the U.S. Senate and the Democrats voted for jury nullification. Later Bubba paid a $850,000 settlement to Jones and was disbarred for his perjury. So much for that.
What concerns me about the instant case against Trumpie is the jury. His jury will not be the U.S. Senate but will be composed of New York City hard-core Democrats and, it seems likely, assorted deadbeats. Such will be the jury pool in Manhattan.
Under these circumstances, the chances of “jury nullification” will be high. That is to say, even if Trumpie did not commit a crime—what crime?—he will be convicted anyway.
Consider the imbecile jury in the OJ Simpson case. The evidence was overwhelming and scientifically undeniable that Simpson committed two murders.
Nevertheless, the all-black jury from inner city L.A. set OJ scot free. The opposite could be in the cards for Trumpie. Simpson’s jury loved OJ. The Manhattan jury, black or white, will dislike if not despise the ex-Prez.