And so it begins. In the fullness of time, Trump will be indicted in Georgia, then by Jack Smith for the documents case, and perhaps even for the January 6 case. The Republican Party will rally to his support, he will win the nomination, he will be found guilty in all three or four cases, and either he will run for president from jail or the Republican Party will find some way to block him from being nominated. In either case, he will lose the election and if we are fortunate he will take down the entire party with him.
As Paul Newman tells Robert Redford when explaining to him the big con, it will not be enough but it will be all we will get and we must be satisfied with it.
27 comments:
This may wind up as an "all at once situation." Trump will soon be 77, is way overweight with a bad diet, looks terrible without the makeup, and is likely bleeding bucks. The stress of multiple indictments in three venues would be hard on a younger, healthier, and more solvent person. Competency may become an issue.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum!
Stormy Daniels commenting as reported in the Daily Mail:
Speaking to The Times, Daniels – real name Stephanie Gregory Clifford, said: A person in power is not exempt from the law.
'And no matter what your job or bank account says, you're held accountable for what you've said and done, and justice is served.'
'It's vindication. But it's bittersweet. He's done so much worse that he should have been taken down [for] before.
'I am fully aware of the insanity of it being a porn star. But it's also poetic; this p***y grabbed back.'
Watching PBS News Hour tonight, I learned of another link between Trump and fascism, as formulated by Mussolini. Trump’s exhortation to “drain the swamp” was actually first used by Mussolini, exhorting, “drenare la palude.”
This was noted by Madeleine Albright in 2018.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/may/09/madeleine-albright/madeleine-albright-right-about-mussolini-and-drain/
There's probably a lot of Puritan-like Christian Democrats throughout the United States saying to themselves: "Thank goodness for Porn Stars..."
Is there a substantial difference between 'blackmail' and whatever went on with Stormy Daniels and the payment to her?
Jerry Brown,
Yes there is. Blackmail, or extortion, is when the person to be paid is demanding the payment in order to do, or not do, something in reciprocity. There is no evidence of which I am aware that Stormy Daniels demanded any payment for her silence. Rather, Trump, anticipating that she might spill the beans while he was running for office, made the payment offer to her to buy her silence. That is not blackmail or extortion; it was hush money. Stormy Daniels did nothing illegal in accepting Trump’s offer.
Remember Michael Avenatti, the loud-mouth attorney who originally represented Stormy Daniels, ridiculed Trump and talked about running for President himself? Well, I checked to find out what had happened to him. He was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to 4 years in prison for defrauding Stormy Daniels of $300,000 in a book deal she had made, and has been disbarred. As an attorney friend of mine once advised me, regarding negotiating settlements in civil lawsuits, remember that pigs get fat, but hogs go to slaughter.
A legal side-note on the recently concluded Sanderson-Paltrow ski accident trial. Assuming the accuracy of Mr. Sanderson’s treating physician and expert medical physician’s description of his injuries, particularly that he suffered a number of broken ribs (6 or 8), I find Ms. Paltrow’s description of what occurred incompatible with Mr. Sanderson’s injuries, as compared to her leaving the scene relatively unscathed.
As she described it, Mr. Sanderson skied into her from behind, and got his skis entangled with hers, resulting in his falling down and suffering a number of broken ribs, and a concussion, none of which was disputed by the defense’s medical experts. In order for this to occur, with Mr. Sanderson striking Ms. Paltrow from the rear, he would have had to have collided with her with enormous force, in order for him to sustain these injuries in a fall. But, then, how could she not have been knocked over and sustained at least moderate injuries herself, especially if their skis were entangled, as she claimed?
By contrast, in Mr. Sanderson’s version, Paltrow struck him from behind, causing him to fall and sustain the undisputed serious medical injuries. In such a scenario, it is physically quite possible for Paltrow to have rebounded off of Sanderson, without falling down and without sustaining any serious injury. As between the two descriptions, Sanderson’s description was more consistent with his injuries, and Paltrow’s lack of injury, and was supported by the great weight of the evidence.
I do not know if Sanderson’s attorney had an expert in physics or accident reconstruction testify regarding this issue, but I believe, based on this inconsistency, that Ms. Paltrow misrepresented what occurred. The verdict, in my view, is contrary to the evidence – which, unfortunately, is not a rare occurrence.
My name is Donald Trump, President of Presidents;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of my colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone vistas of New York, Washington, and Mar-a-Lago
Stretch far away.
Reflecting further on the verdict in the Paltrow ski accident lawsuit reveals something very significant about human nature and rationality. As I stated above, Paltrow’s version of what occurred, given Sanderson’s serious, and undisputed injuries, and Paltrow’s relatively insignificant injury (she purportedly suffered some slight bruising), makes no sense, and is irrational. Why, therefore, did the jury decide in her favor, against Sanderson. I spoke to my nephew’s wife yesterday, who told me she watched the entire trial and agreed with the verdict. She concluded that when Sanderson testified about his injury, he came across unconvincing and duplicitous. I watched part of his testimony, and he did seem to exaggerate the degree of his concussion, asserting that after the accident, it was as if his body was occupied by two different people. But there was no question that he did, in fact, suffer a concussion. Even if he exaggerated the degree of severity of the concussion, this would not detract from the implausibility of Paltrow’s testimony regarding how the ski accident occurred. The manner in which Paltrow testified, who, after all, is an actress, probably also affected the jurors’ evaluation of her credibility versus Sanderson’s. That, notwithstanding, does not enhance the plausibility of Paltrow’s description of how the ski accident occurred – which was inconsistent with the physical and medical facts themselves. The jurors’ verdict was not a rational evaluation of those indisputable facts. They were swayed by irrelevant, cosmetic aspects of the litigants’ testimony.
Why is this important? Because it reflects aspects of human nature which can result in decisions which are not rational in light of all of the known facts. This observation bears on Game Theory, which Prof. Wolff has lectured on, and will continue his lecture this coming Monday, dealing, as I understand it, with the Prisoners’ Dilemma (Prof. Wolff’s preferred spelling). Game Theory assumes decisions being made by totally rational agents. But, as Prof. Wolff pointed out in a blog entry he made several years ago, this does not reflect reality. Humans do not make their decisions in an aseptic rational reality. With respect to the Prisoners’ Dilemma, for example, where individuals A and B are being prosecuted for having jointly committed a crime, where the prosecutor lacks sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction unless one or both of the accused fesses up, they have four possible choices: Both can remain silent, in which case they will each get the lightest sentence (in reality, however, if they both remain silent, under the premise that the prosecutor lacks sufficient evidence to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt, they would both go free); one or the other can defect against the other, and fess up, in which case the defector goes free, and the suspect who remains silent is convicted and gets a heavy sentence; or they can both fess up, in which case they will get a moderate sentence less severe than if only one defects, but more severe than if they both remain silent. The optimal rational decision would be for each to trust the other and remain silent, which results in the lightest possible total sentence for each – more than a defector would get, but less than a non-defector would get.
(Continued)
But, as Prof. Wolff has pointed out, the assumption that the suspects will act rationally without other considerations coming into play is not realistic – one of the suspects may so dislike the other that s/he is willing to defect, without knowing for sure that the other will not also defect, resulting in a higher sentence for both than if they had both remained silent. There may, alternatively, be a family or loyalty factor which influences what they each decide to do. History is full of decision-making which has backfired, and which a student of history should have known better not to make, the most infamous being Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union, knowing fulling what had happened to Napoleon. Putin’s own decision to invade Ukraine is a contemporary example. In light of these considerations, the utility of Game Theory in predicting human behavior is questionable.
There is another aspect of the Prisoners’ Dilemma which I believe is also overlooked. The assumption is that the prosecutor has properly charged suspects who are actually guilty. This clearly is not always the case; in fact, unfortunately, it is frequently not the case, and, in some instances, the error is not a matter of negligence or miscalculating, but deliberate. The presumption that the suspects are in fact guilty is subject to four possible alternatives: A and B are both innocent, having nothing to do the crime for which they are charged; or one or the other may be guilty, but not both; or they may be both guilty, which is the assumption in the manner in which the dilemma is generally presented. Let’s suppose one or both are innocent. This demonstrates the power dynamic at play in this situation. An innocent person may insist on not defecting because s/he is actually innocent, and refuses to confess to a crime s/he did not commit. But here is where the prosecutor’s power, and the uncertainty of the legal system comes in. Prosecutors engage in plea bargaining, offering the accused a lighter sentence if s/he confesses. Facing a possible lengthy prison term if the jury sides with the prosecution (particularly if the accused has a history of prior criminal offenses), even an innocent person may not be willing to risk a trial and will confess to a crime s/he did not commit in order to get a lighter sentence. Jurors, as in the Paltrow ski accident lawsuit, cannot be depended on to act rationally. The Prisoners’ Dilemma, as it is traditionally analyzed, does not take this into account.
"...from your lips...."
now, how to dump Harris?
Actuarial tables:
...if Joe Biden serves two terms, his expected chance of surviving to the end is 49.8%. In other words, over a two-term time period, there is a 50.2% chance that Joe Biden's VP has to be sworn-in.
Jerry Fresia,
Very bad idea. With whom would he replace her? If not another African-American female, he would risk losing support in one of the other, or both, of his strongest constituencies. Can you name another African-American woman who could equal Harris in appeal? Stacey Abrams? But what if his alternative choice declines, not wishing to appear to be stabbing Harris in the back, and word got out that he had made the overture. This could still backfire and hurt him among those constituencies. Prudence dictates that he stick with Harris – and, besides, she has not done as bad a job as many claim, compared to other Vice Presidents.
I am despondent. It has been a long-time aspiration of mine to be selected as a contestant on Jeopardy. I have taken the annual test over several years, without success. On March 30, I took the test once more– which consists of 50 questions in 50 different categories, with a time limit to answer within 15 seconds. I did the best I have ever done. Mentally reviewing the questions and my answers, I figured out that I got 23 answers correct for sure, and 18 incorrect for sure. (The incorrect answers were to questions I had on the tip of my fingers, but could not complete – I knew that the African-American Congresswoman from Texas was Barbara …, but could not remember “Jordan”; the capital of Nicaragua sounded like “Nicaragua,” “Managua”; I guessed that the Steinbeck novel which ends in a still-birth was “East of Eden,” but it is “The Grapes of Wrath.”) Of the 9 questions I could not remember, I was pretty confident that I got at least 2 of them correct, which would bring my score up to 25 correct answers, for a score of 50%. But today I Googled what is the minimum percentage to be selected as a contestant, and learned that it is at least 35 correct answers. This is beyond my ability, especially with the increase of my senior moments. I find it astounding that there are so many knowledgeable people out there with very good memories in order to have 3 players per game, 5 days a week.
I assume the test is available on Jeopardy's website?
Btw Marc you're off topic again. Why do you assume that anyone cares that it's a long time aspiration of yours to be on Jeopardy?
Have they no empathy for an acerbic attorney's aspirations?
And you cared, since your first response was to ask if the test is available on the Jeopardy website (it isn't).
"...now, how to dump Harris?"
Why, and as Marc has pointed out, a very bad idea. Besides, succession is probably the only way we get our first female president. The world won't end and most folks who thought it would will go NBD. Obama already mobilized the racists anyway so...
Marc, any collision is likely to cause the bindings to release. How one falls and what one hits is chance sometimes modified by experience. I know of one incident where chance put a ski pole in an eye.
By the way, the actuarial tables probably are not accurate when it comes to Biden.
He has a doctor with him 24 hours a day. If I have a heart attack or stroke and if I manage to call an ambulance before I lose consciousness, it still will take a while for the ambulance to arrive and for the medics to start to work.
If Biden has a heart attack or stroke, a doctor will be at his side in 15 seconds.
Besides the fact that doctors most probably supervise Biden's diet, that he has a personal trainer to keep fit, etc, etc.
aaall,
That does not help Paltrow's version of what occurred. If any collision is likely to cause the ski bindings to release, then both Sanderson's and Paltrow's bindings should have released, resulting in their both falling to the ground. If Sanderson's skis got entangled with Paltrow's, as she claimed, then they both would have fallen to the ground, and both would have incurred injuries. While Paltrow's may have been less severe than Sanderson's, they would have been more serious than the slight bruising she suffered. If, on the other hand, Paltrow struck Sanderson from the rear, as he claimed, it would have been possible for his bindings to release, with him falling to the ground, and her bindings not releasing. In point of fact, Sanderson testified that after striking him from behind, and his falling, Paltrow skied off, unscathed. A friend of Sanderson's, who witnessed the collision, corroborated Sanderson's version. No one corroborated Paltrow's.
s. wallerstein: If Biden has a heart attack or stroke, a doctor will be at his side in 15 seconds.
Trump's (and Obama's before him*) doctor was Dr. Ronny Jackson, nicknamed "Candyman" and "Dr. Feelgood" by White House staff & the press corps for his carefree attitude toward handing out drugs like opioids & sleeping pills. After numerous whistleblower complaints, a Pentagon investigation condemned Dr. Jackson for drinking on the job and misusing Ambien, which could have impaired his ability to render aid to the President in an emergency. (On at least one occasion he allegedly could not be reached when needed because he was passed out drunk.)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/25/ronny-jackson-crashed-car-while-drunk-and-mishandled-drugs-document-shows
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/03/03/pentagon-watchdog-hits-freshman-rep-ronny-jackson-with-scathing-report-on-tenure-as-white-house-physician/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronny_Jackson#/media/File:President_Barack_Obama_departs_Walter_Reed_National_Military_Medical_Center_with_Dr._Ronny_Jackson,_in_Bethesda,_MD.jpg
This morning I had this troubling thought (to me, at least). If lying, i.e., consciously and deliberately making a statement about something which one consciously knows is not true, is supposed to be a “bad” thing to do, why do so many people (including me, on occasion) do it, and why do we turn a blind eye and deaf ear to it? If I am correct regarding my evaluation of Ms. Paltrow’s testimony, then she lied under oath, which constitutes perjury and is a crime. Unless Ms. Paltrow was high on drugs, she could not be mistaken about whether she was struck from behind by another skier, or if she was the one who struck that skier from behind. Does lying occur in different times, and in different societies, in varying degrees? Has the degree of lying remained somewhat stable over time, or has it increased or decreased? Is the degree of lying which is accepted in a society an index of the health, or pathology, of a society?
I have become acutely aware of this issue over the last two years, because in that time period I have become sensitized to various forms of lying in the legal system, and I am finding it quite bothersome. Is intellectual disingenuousness, when, for example a judge writes a decision and quite obviously incorrectly applies a legal precedent to the facts of the case, when it should be quite clear that the judge is distorting the legal precedent in order to reach that result, not a form of lying? Lawyers assume that in almost every trial at least one witness consciously and deliberately lies. This year I have caught a judge – and not just any judge, but the Chief Judge of the court - making a blatant lie in a court order which she signed in February of this year, stating in that order that she had assigned my motion requesting her disqualification for a conflict of interest to the Michigan Supreme Court to be assigned to another judge for review, and I found out just last week that this was not true, that she had in fact not contacted the Supreme Court to have the motion reviewed by another judge. I believe this is pretty serious, and am inclined to file a judicial grievance against her, but I would not be surprised if she only gets a slap on the wrist for her mendacity.
I started reading the article which aaall cited in a previous post, The Long Con by Rick Perlstein, in which the author makes the claim that when Mitt Romney was running for President, he repeatedly lied about a wide range of issues. He opens the article stating, “Mitt Romney is a liar. Of course, in some sense, all politicians, even all human being are liars.” Well, that’s a fine state of affairs. According to Kant, in the hierarchy of moral sins (correct if I am wrong Prof. Wolff) lying is the worst. It marks a breakdown in the rational social order. Yet it appears to be ubiquitous. Everyone who reads this blog believes that Trump is a pathological liar, that it is obvious that he lies as a matter of course. Yet he has a base of supporters who are willing to die for him, and to destroy our democracy in his name. Is the degree of lying in our society higher than, and its acceptance, higher than it was when Augustus Caesar ruled the Roman empire?
Maybe Kant was wrong, as usual.
In my hierarchy of sins, deliberate cruelty is a lot worse than lying.
As a matter of fact, lying can be a form of being nice to others. You tell a small child that in spite of their low grade, you're sure that they are very bright. You tell your partner that she looks ten years longer with her new hair color, even though "no comment" would be more appropriate.
Lying in defense of a good cause is a lot different than lying in defense of a bad cause. If I were to discover that Bernie Sanders had lied about his healthcare program and that there was really little evidence that it would work well, I'd shrug it off.
It will not be enough but it will be all we will get and we must be satisfied with it
ICYMI
Teflon Don
"Donald Trump has been investigated in every decade of his adult life by federal and state agencies, among others."
1972-1975
"Federal investigators find evidence that Trump Management, the real estate empire run by Trump and his father, Fred, systematically discriminated against Black and Hispanic people by steering them away from mostly-White buildings and toward minority-dominated properties. Prosecutors filed suit against the Trumps in 1973 and the court battle ended in a settlement in 1975."
...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/01/trump-investigations-history-timeline
Is there another zoom class tomorrow?
Marc, Bandana is a mellow bunny run. My experience (skiing, surfing, sky diving, motorcycles, shooting, pyrotechnics) is that things can go south faster then one can reliably record. Also it's entirely possible for one person to walk, ski, swim, etc. away from some encounter and another to be carried (personal experience).
The sense I got was that Sanderson was broadly traversing while Paltrow was edging/snowplowing. The jury seems to have believed that Sanderson was uphill of Paltrow which is what matters for liability.
Post a Comment