Throughout the Republican primary campaign (and it used to be), it was perfectly clear that Donald Trump's multiple indictments were helping to shore up his support. This was a source of moral outrage for liberals, but their embarrassment was coexisted with hopes that what worked well with MAGA believers might backfire in the general election. Trump's cries of persecution may rally conservatives in the primaries, but the trial itself could help Joe Biden move toward re-election.
The actual trial we are undergoing, the indictment of Mr. Trump for falsifying business records related to hush-money payments related to his assignment with porn star Stormy Daniels, still has that impact in theory. there is a possibility. A guilty verdict could ease Trump's modest but steady poll lead by several points.
But looking at how the court case has played out so far, that seems just as likely as it did during the primary, so we're in the general election now. The political fallout from being indicted and put on trial will likely be slightly in Trump's favor.
First, let's consider how this trial would work if we weren't paying attention to the legal details. A casual follow of the press, especially the headlines about Daniels' testimony, shows that Trump is on trial as a politician, a candidate for high office, and a politician for cheating on his wife in an apparently despicable manner and trying to cover it up. It seems that he is receiving it. Lie about sex.
Coincidentally, the United States is a country where it is critical that a lecherous politician (whose campaign organization famously worked hard to prevent a “bimbo explosion”) cover up inappropriate sexual relationships. A significant amount of time was spent in litigation over the question of whether it constituted a crime. In fact, we even filed a lawsuit on whether committing brazen perjury in an attempt to conceal a sexual relationship is a serious crime. And this country answered this question by accepting the common position of American liberalism at the time and offering clemency, pardon, and pardon to Bill Clinton.
To be sure, some politically engaged Americans are too young to remember the Clinton presidency firsthand. But the Lewinsky case still casts a meaningful cultural shadow, with many of the headlines from the Trump trial casting Kenneth Starr-like parts on prosecutors. Nothing really new about Trump's conduct is revealed here. The country already knows that he is a playboy and a scoundrel. What was exposed instead was the seeming hypocrisy of his political opponents and how the Democratic party's once indifference to lies about sex easily gave way to lewdness when it offered a path to winning Trump. It's about what happened.
Now let's take a closer look at the trial and delve into the legal arguments. In that case, it would be understandable that Mr. Trump was not tried for trying to cover up the affair. That's because, no matter how much prosecutors emphasize Trump's personal shady nature, hush money payments aren't actually illegal. Instead, he is on trial for concealing fraud allegedly committed within his own accounting system.
I also understand that this alleged cover-up itself is a misdemeanor that would not normally be charged as a felony. The case was upgraded to a felony because prosecutors used a specific section of New York state law to argue that the case involved “intent to commit, aid, and conceal another crime.” It's just because I did it.
It also revealed that prosecutors have multiple candidates for “other crimes” that Trump is said to have attempted to commit, with legal analysts wondering how the misdemeanor charges relate to other possible crimes. I am forced to create a flowchart to explain what to do. That would probably be a violation of federal campaign finance law. Possibly some kind of tax evasion (the weird kind that ended up with an overpayment to the federal government). Or it could be a conspiracy to “promote or prevent election to public office by illegal means.”
Finally, you know that, according to the best legal analysis, prosecutors do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these related crimes were actually committed.
We follow the opinions of these analysts regarding the implications of New York case law. But I can't help but sum up the underlying situation in which a presidential candidate could be sent to prison for a second, unindicted crime that amounts to a misdemeanor without a seemingly Kafkaesque depiction. I don't think anyone would.
So if to the casual observer the poorly explained version of the trial looks like the Lewinsky case all over again, the overly explained version may just look like partisan prosecutorial overreach. . And all this before we get to the fact that the prosecution's entire case hinges on the testimony of admitted perjurer and Trump hater Michael Cohen.
Just as paranoid people can have enemies, even culpable agitators can face politically motivated prosecution and be subject to legal persecution. There is a possibility of profit. And so far, that appearance has been the political gift of this trial against Donald Trump.
