In his current trial in New York, Donald Trump has clearly been convicted by various sections of the media, in particular MSNBC by various pundits. Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Ari Melber and others. There has been a plethora of ‘forensic’ examinations of the prosecution evidence. Tape recordings and paper exhibits explained in great detail. I do not know whether the members of the jury, whose decision is the only one that matters, have access to any of these broadcasts or publications, but if they have, it could be cause for concern.
Despite all this, from what I have been able to glean, the question is, does all this stuff add up nothing more than Mr Trump paying legal bills in the ordinary course of business, or can one infer from all the activity, a criminal conspiracy? It will all depend on whether the jury are prepared to give Mr Trump the benefit of the doubt. Will they believe him, or whatever witnesses his defence team may call, that he was just paying for legal services?
As to the members of the jury believing Mr Trump, sadly, the real test is whether or not they believe him when he so loudly proclaims he never had sex with Ms Daniels. The problem he faces is that if they think he has lied about that, they will be less willing to believe him about anything else. That’s only human nature. A man who has bragged about his fame and ability to have any woman he wants, does not have the best credentials to persuade a New York Manhattan jury.
In addition, it is highly unlikely that Mr Trump will give evidence on oath and subject himself to cross examination. If he doesn’t, then the Jury will most certainly think “Why not?”. If he does (and I’m sure his lawyers are terrified he will) then a careful and extended cross examination will surely reveal his character. If he reacts to questions that he feels impugn him or are contrary to his thinking, he may resort to insult and verbal abuse as he does when questioned by the press he hates. His childish and neolithic bravura will come out. His psychotic narcissism will be exposed. The scene might not be quite as dramatic as Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of Col. Nathan R. Jessep in A Few Good Men, but will be just as telling. The equivalent of shouting out “You’re God damned right I did!”
Indeed, given the verdict in the lawsuits brought against him by Ms E. Jean Carroll, despite his denials and his video defence, the unanimous jury clearly did not believe him. So, as far as the present members of the jury are concerned, there is precedent relating to his sexual conduct and denials.
In any event we will no doubt soon find out just who can handle the truth or not, as the case may be. He will either get away with it again, or finally be brought to book. If he does get away with it, we will all have to handle it.
There’s two related problems here. I will confront the second one first. Film and Television dramatizations do not reflect court room practice or drama. When it is not a lazy device for narrative exposition, it looks for the “gotcha” moment where a character be it a witness or a lawyer is caught revealing an unintended truth. What is five or ten minutes of screen time is a distillation of hours even days of court time. So we come to the first problem. Television news network or cable is in the entertainment business. The presenters of these programs know they are chasing ratings and for every one with their bias there is another show offering the direct opposite. They tried to give a semblance of evenhandedness with their expert guests. These experts are the quintessential usual suspects. The “BREAKING NEWS!” In the crawl under the discussion is a headline grab while the above is constantly burying the lead. Much of what happens in the show is nothing to do with understanding the law or legal nuances of courtroom practice. It is a series of critiques of various participants’ performances. Again entertainment values being applied to a legal process.
ReplyDeleteI did not intend for the long comment above to be anonymous. I’m available at ianbowater7@gmail.com. I’m in America and subjected 24/7 wall to wall coverage of this stuff but know nothing more than anyone else.
ReplyDeleteIan, I thank you very much for your comments. As you can realise, it is not wall to wall coverage in the UK, which has Rishi Sunak's sorry ass on the line, Keir Starmer, Gaza and Ukraine to deal with. In all these matters, the jury is still out. The worrying thing is that this particular Manhattan jury's decision can affect us all.
Delete