Mediaboss Marketing

As youve no doubt heard by now, Donald Trump was charged on Tuesday with an astonishing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. As The New York Times Maggie Haberman reported, not only did the ex-president look very unhappy as he walked into the courtroom,but he appeared as angry as he did after the Access Hollywood tape went public in October 2016. Why might Trump not have cartwheeled into the courtroom with a huge grin on his face, snapping his fingers, and blowing air kisses to the cameras? For one thing, Tuesday marked what was, effectively, the first time he had ever been truly held accountable for anything in his life. For another? Hes facing more than 100 years in prison.

View more

Reuters and others report that should Trump be found guilty of all 34 class E felonies, he could be sentenced to up to 136 years in prisonwhich, as one former president might tell you, is an incredibly yuge number of years. While a conviction is not a sure thing, and a sympathetic judge could go for the lower end of the sentencing guidelines, Trump, who is 76 years old, would obviously die in prison if he were to get the maximum time behind bars. Which that same former president we referenced earlier would definitely dub SAD!

If youre wondering: Only four states in America allow conjugal visits with ones spouse, and New York is one of them.

As Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg said on Tuesday, the governments case against Trump is not just about one payment. In addition to the $130,000 paid to Stormy Daniels in 2016, the DAs office cited multiple instances of Trump engaging in catch and kill schemes to bury damaging stories about him that were subsequently concealed through false business entries. Those included $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had an affair with Trump, and $30,000 to a New York doorman whod claimed to have knowledge of a child Trump had out of wedlock.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 34 charges.

Remember when Fox News got mad at Barack Obama for wearing a tan suit in the Oval Office?

The best lawyering money can buy

Elsewhere!

Tennessee Republicans Are Literally Trying to Purge Democrats from the Legislature (VF)

North Carolina Democrat Plans to Switch Parties, Allowing Republicans to Ban Abortion (Jezebel)

New York City Hates Your Guts: MTG Drowned Out at Trump Rally (Intelligencer)

We cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct: Alvin Bragg addresses media after Trump arraignment (Politico)

Poll: Majority of Americans approve of Trump indictment (CNN)

Rupert Murdoch and Ann Lesley Smith Call Off Their Engagement (VF)

Fox News says Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Maria Bartiromo set to testify at defamation trial (Reuters)

Succession: How Bad Was Kerrys ATN Audition, Really? We Asked Chris Hayes (VF)

Read the rest here:
Donald Trump Is Now FacingWait for It136 Years in Prison - Vanity Fair

The subject of a third major political party in the United States brings out generally predictable reactions: cynicism in cynics, fantasy in fantasists, partisanship in partisans. But it is worth remembering that there already has been a very successful third party: the Republican Party, which skyrocketed to power very shortly after its founding in 1854, with the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, winning the White House in 1860. By contrast, the Libertarian Party, founded in 1971, has topped out at 3.3 percent in presidential electionsand that was in 2016, when the partys ticket comprised two moderate Republican former governors (Gary Johnson and William Weld) running against two corrupt and contemptible New York Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The Libertarians have not had much success in state legislatures or town councils or school boards. The Greens and the other exotic minor parties are for hobbyists, the political equivalents of people who build miniature ships in bottles or collect stamps.

The Republican Party emerged from the wreckage of the Whig Party because the Republicans believed in something and the Whigs did not: When it came to the most important issue of the dayslaverythe Republicans had a firm position, if a painfully moderate one, while the Whigs could not quite figure out what they should think about it. The Republicans were not a radical abolitionist party but a conservative anti-slavery party that ended up being the political home of radical abolitionists because the abolitionists had nowhere else to go. Lincolns position on slavery was, in fact, much narrower than many of those of us who admire him might have wanted from him at the time: He did not propose to abolish slavery but only to prevent its spread in the hopes that it would die out on its own; a constitutionalist might concur with Lincolns assertion in his first inaugural address that as president he did not have the power to interfere with slavery in the southern states, but Frederick Douglass was not wrong to fault him for going beyond that to add that he would not be inclined to use such power if he had it. The word politician has a disreputable odor on it, but Lincoln was a gifted and wily politician, a politician of the first order, and it was such a politician that the convulsing republic needed. A saint would have simply denounced slavery as an unbearable moral evilwhich, of course, it wasbut it took a politician to work against that evil while also working to ensure that the United States would remain the United States, enduring even through the treachery of the slave power and the brutality of the Civil War. It was Lincolns saintliness that failed him and us, setting the course toward a Reconstruction that was too conciliatory and insufficiently reformist.

A compromise position is not necessarily a position that lacks moral clarityit may be, and often is, a position that recognizes the limitations of the current political situation and that does not indulge the adolescent tendency to pine for the impossible. At the same time, a position that is uncompromising or even extreme often is one that lacks genuine clarity, moral or political.

The Republican Party in our time is a confused and debased thing. Trump and Trumpism have made that worse, but the decadence of the GOP did not begin in 2016. Faced with the great moral question of their day, the Republicans of Lincolns time offered moral firmness tempered by realism; faced with the great moral questions of our timeabortion, Russia, the attempted coup detat of 2021Republicans offer moral hysteria instead of moral firmness, delusion rather than realism. (It does not help that on two out of three of those big issues, a great many Republicans are on the wrong side.) But even on abortion, Republicans are now unsteady. In the pre-Dobbs era, Republicans could organize themselves around the outrage that was Roe vs. Wade, as naked a piece of judicial usurpation of the lawmaking power as modern American history has to offer. But with Roe vacated, Republicans have been made to give up the thing they are good atoppositionand instead try to do the one thing that they have shown themselves more or less incapable of for 30 years or moregoverning.

More here:
Meet the Whigs - The Dispatch

This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Kate Linebaugh: Early this morning, outside the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, a crowd gathered. There were reporters, photographers, protesters.

Speaker 2: Can you guys stand back?

Kate Linebaugh: For the first time, a former US president was about to be arrested on criminal charges. Flanked by security, Donald Trump stepped out of his SUV.

Speaker 3: There is former President Trump waving.

Kate Linebaugh: He headed into the Manhattan District Attorney's office.

Speaker 4: So at this moment, at 1:24 PM Eastern Time, Donald J. Trump is under arrest.

Speaker 5: Yes, he is.

Kate Linebaugh: Trump was indicted by a Grand Jury last week. But in court today, the criminal charges against him finally became public, 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The former president's plea, not guilty.Welcome to The Journal, our show about money, business, and power. I'm Kate Linebaugh. It's Tuesday, April 4th. Coming up on the show, Indictment Number 71543-23, The People of the State of New York against Donald J. Trump.To understand the charges against Trump, we turn to someone who's lived and breathed this story for a very long time.

Joe Palazzolo: My name is Joe Palazzolo. I work on The Journal's investigations team.

Kate Linebaugh: And you're the reporter who broke the Stormy Daniels story?

Joe Palazzolo: One of the reporters, yes.

Kate Linebaugh: Okay, good. It's important to be precise. You are one of the reporters who broke the Stormy Daniels story.

Joe Palazzolo: That's right. Thank you.

Kate Linebaugh: Stormy Daniels is key to today's news. Daniels is an adult film actress. She first came on Joe's radar in 2016. Back then, Trump was running for president, and Joe and his colleagues heard that two women were alleging they'd had affairs with Trump and were going to go public. The first was Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, and the second was Daniels.

Joe Palazzolo: And we knew that she had talked to some media and abruptly cutoff conversations. So we suspected that there was something funny going on, so we dug in.

Kate Linebaugh: And what did you find? What is the Stormy Daniels story?

Joe Palazzolo: The Stormy Daniels's story begins in 2006 at a celebrity golf tournament. According to Stormy Daniels, she met Donald Trump there and they had a sexual encounter. And then a decade later, when Donald Trump was running for president the first time, Stormy Daniels was trying to sell her story. Donald Trump's allies got wind of it and ultimately his lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, paid her $130,000 to keep silent about the alleged sexual encounter.

Kate Linebaugh: Trump has denied having sexual encounters with both Daniels and McDougal, the Playboy model. What did it feel like to uncover this?

Joe Palazzolo: I mean, it was like a line in my head that I had to keep saying over and over, "The president's lawyer paid a porn star," just so I could get comfortable with the idea. And I guess I'm still not to this day because it's so sort of salacious and wild. I mean, the reason that we were interested in it wasn't because it involved a porn star, it was the money. The fact that there was a payment made to essentially keep someone quiet, to keep someone from saying something publicly that might impact Trump's campaign.

Kate Linebaugh: Joe and his colleagues published their story in January, 2018.

Speaker 7: Quite a story today in The Wall Street Journal. And I quote, Trump lawyer arranged $130,000 payment for adult film star's silence.

Speaker 8: What the Wall Street Journal's reporting this morning is at the private lawyer for Trump, Michael Cohen at the Trump Organization, set up a Delaware based private company and used a pseudonym to pay her essentially $130,000 in hush money.

Kate Linebaugh: The story got people's attention, including the attention of federal prosecutors. The US Attorney's office in Manhattan started investigating. They weren't focused on the alleged affair, they were focused on the money. The $130,000 that Michael Cohen paid out of his own pocket to Stormy Daniels. To federal prosecutors, it looked like a violation of campaign finance laws.

Joe Palazzolo: So the payoff to Stormy Daniels is the legal equivalent, according to prosecutors, of Michael Cohen basically just handing Trump's campaign $130,000. So if Cohen handed Trump $130,000 for his campaign, Trump would have to report that. But it's far, far more than federal law allows from an individual. And so in that sense, it was an illegal campaign contribution.

Kate Linebaugh: Okay. You're saying legally it is seen as a campaign finance violation. How so?

Joe Palazzolo: They were allegedly done in coordination with the campaign, specifically Donald Trump. And they were made for the purposes of influencing an election. That's according to prosecutors.

Kate Linebaugh: Federal prosecutors were also looking into a potential coverup. After Cohen paid Daniels, Trump reimbursed him. But prosecutors argued that the Trump organization disguised that reimbursement. They made it look like Cohen was being paid for legal work. In 2018, federal prosecutors charged Cohen.

Speaker 8: President Trump's former longtime attorney and fixer Michael Cohen pleading guilty to eight counts of campaign finance violation, tax fraud, and bank fraud.

Speaker 9: Cohen, a man who once said he would take a bullet for Donald Trump, stood before a federal judge and admitted he paid off two women for the principle purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential election.

Joe Palazzolo: Basically, he said Donald Trump directed him to pay Stormy Daniels. And again, there was just this moment in 2018 when he's in court and he stands up and he says that a candidate for office, being Donald Trump, told him to do this. So he's saying the president told him to commit a crime, to commit multiple crimes.

Kate Linebaugh: And how did Trump react to this?

Joe Palazzolo: His line is that he didn't do anything wrong. This was a legal agreement and my lawyer did it. And he's acknowledged that he reimbursed Cohen that much is known. But he has not said When he learned about the Stormy Daniels deal, when he learned she was shopping the story, when he learned about the payment. Michael Cohen says that he knew about it from day one and blessed it and instructed him to make it.

Kate Linebaugh: So Cohen was convicted and sentenced to prison in 2018 and it's only now that his boss is facing charges. What's behind that lag?

Joe Palazzolo: It's a really good question. When he pleaded guilty, Donald Trump was still president. And the Justice Department has long opined that a sitting president can't be indicted. So that covers through 2020. And then the US Attorney's office could have reopened the case after Trump left office, but it didn't. And instead the Manhattan District Attorney's office, so state prosecutors, picked up the case and they looked at the hush money payment for a long time. They looked at it so many times that it became known as the zombie case, and only this year was their Grand Jury impaneled to investigate it under Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg.

Speaker 10: The Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg will begin presenting evidence to a Grand Jury surrounding allegations that Donald Trump paid hush money to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Kate Linebaugh: Last week that Grand Jury indicted Trump, but the charges remained secret until today. That's next.

Alvin Bragg: Good afternoon. Thank you you for joining us here today.

Kate Linebaugh: That's Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg speaking to reporters after Trump's arraignment today.

Alvin Bragg: Earlier this afternoon, Donald Trump was arraigned on a New York Supreme Court indictment, returned by a Manhattan Grand Jury on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Under New York State law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. That is exactly what this case is about.

Kate Linebaugh: Bragg's office released the indictment and a so-called statement of facts. Joe has been digging into them.

Joe Palazzolo: A statement of facts, it's the story. It's this story that you're telling and it helps provide context for the charges. And so the charges are kind of bare bones and the statement of facts is what Bragg's office has used to explain why in fact these charges are crimes. And the story that they're trying to tell is that Trump was part of this broad scheme with his allies to suppress negative news about him through a legal means in the run up to the 2016 presidential election. And as evidence, they have the Stormy Daniels payment, they have the payment to Karen McDougal.

Kate Linebaugh: And they point to a third payment, to a doorman at Trump Tower. According to prosecutors in 2015, this doorman alleged that Trump had a child out of wedlock. The doorman tried to sell the story to the National Enquirer, and prosecutors say that the National Enquirer bought the story as part of an arrangement with Trump and Cohen and then buried it. According to the statement of facts, the tabloid eventually concluded the doorman's story wasn't true. But Joe says it was the Stormy Daniels payoff that led to those 34 criminal charges and 34 counts seems like a lot.

Joe Palazzolo: Yeah, yeah. I mean it does. And they really add up. But just to step back a little bit, the plan, according to Michael Cohen and the statement of facts, the plan was to reimburse Michael Cohen in monthly increments of $35,000. And the indictment, like you said, 34 seems like a lot, but it's not a lot when you consider all the different records that were sort of created and allegedly falsified to make sure that no one knew the true purpose of this reimbursement plan. So you have the checks, the check stubs, how those are recorded, there's the invoices, how those are recorded. So when you combine all those, you come up with 34 instances of falsified records.

Kate Linebaugh: Did you learn anything today about when Trump knew about these payments?

Joe Palazzolo: No. I mean the statement of facts, again, it alleges kind of the same communications and meetings that we already knew about that we had already reported.

Kate Linebaugh: These are felony charges, but falsifying business records can also be a misdemeanor. How did prosecutors get to this felony level?

Joe Palazzolo: So just run of the mill accounting fraud is just a misdemeanor, but you can elevate it to a felony if the prosecutors show that records were falsified to conceal or to commit another crime. So in this case, Bragg's office is saying the records were falsified and they were falsified to conceal the payment to Stormy Daniels, which itself was a violation of campaign finance law.

Kate Linebaugh: Trump didn't make any statements as he left the court, but his lawyers did. They said the charges were quote, boiler plate and that it was a sad day for the country. So what happens from here?

Joe Palazzolo: Well, the first thing that's going to happen is that Trump's attorneys are going to vigorously litigate. And that means they're going to ask the judge overseeing the case to dismiss it. They're going to file motions. And the District Attorney's office is going to have to answer that. They're going to have to respond and defend these charges.

Kate Linebaugh: Already in the weeks leading up to the indictment, Trump has been attacking the case.

Joe Palazzolo: He's called the case a witch hunt. He's said it's politically motivated. Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney, is a Democrat. He's also said there's no way he can get a fair trial in New York, which of course is his native city. But many here no longer embrace him, if they ever did.

Kate Linebaugh: Do you have a sense of the kind of defense Trump's team is planning to make?

Joe Palazzolo: So his lawyers have previewed and Trump himself on social media have kind of previewed some of the arguments they plan to make. The most technical one, I guess is kind of a statute of limitations argument. So the statute of limitations is the time in which prosecutors can bring charges. They have an expiration date, and his lawyers say that these charges are long expired. Now on the other side, the DA's office is likely to argue that when Trump became president and he moved out of New York, the statute paused. So there's still a lot of time left for them to make this case.

Kate Linebaugh: And if it isn't dismissed and can go ahead, how long could it take to go to trial?

Joe Palazzolo: So if the case survives the expected motion to dismiss, you could have a situation where Trump is put on trial basically at the height of his presidential campaign.

Kate Linebaugh: So you have a former president campaigning to be reelected as president while also on trial for criminal charges.

Joe Palazzolo: Yeah, yeah, exactly. We keep saying things like historic and unprecedented, but everything from this point forward is going to be that.

Kate Linebaugh: If Trump were to be found guilty, what could that mean for him? Would he go to prison?

Joe Palazzolo: He could go to jail. The charges against him don't have any mandatory jail sentence though. So he may not, if he's convicted. And it's not really going to impact his candidacy. The US Constitution doesn't say anything about candidates who are convicted of felonies. It doesn't bar them from running for office.

Kate Linebaugh: Could there be other cases coming against Trump?

Joe Palazzolo: Yeah. So this is history. I mean, we're witnessing history here. But of the ongoing investigations of Donald Trump, this seems qualitatively the least of them. There are other cases. There's an investigation of Georgia of election interference. There's been reporting that Grand Jury is going to start hearing that soon. And then there are two federal investigations under the same special counsel, one of which is looking at the alleged mishandling of classified documents. And the other, which is looking at January 6th and Trump's efforts to overturn the election. So any of the three of those cases could potentially lead to charges.

Kate Linebaugh: Trump has denied wrongdoing in all these cases. He plans to give a speech from Mar-a-Lago later tonight.That's all for today, Tuesday, April 4th. The Journal is a co-production of Gimlet and The Wall Street Journal. Additional reporting in this episode by Rebecca Ballhaus, Jennifer Calfas, Ben Chapman, James Fanelli, Alyssa Lukpat, and Corinne Ramey.Thanks for listening. See you tomorrow.

Read the original:
Donald Trump Is Charged on 34 Felony Counts - The Journal. - WSJ ... - The Wall Street Journal

Where Google says people have the strongest feelings about the indicted Donald Trump

Former U.S. President Donald Trump (R) talks with one of his attorneys inside the courtroom for his arraignment proceeding at the Manhattan criminal court April 4, 2023 in New York City. (Photo by Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images)

Donald Trump may bash the media but he really loves being the subject of discussion, so it seems everyone has an opinion about him.

Despite all that information of various reliability, there's also confusion about Trump at a time Americans are so politically divided.

Many Americans don't understand why others love Donald Trump or hate him, and they've turned to a source used by both sides. They used Google searches to find answers.

The news that a New York grand jury indicted Trump broke on March 30.

In those 11 days, most Trump supporters blamed Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg. They called his investigation into alleged hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels, in order to beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election which was then a month away, politically motivated. They also said Trump wont get a fair trial in Manhattan.

Thats roughly half the country. Statistics from the other half dont seem to understand that.

Those people took to Google and asked,

Yes, that question has been trending since Trumps indictment.

According to Google Trends, that exact question skyrocketed by 1259.2% in the U.S. Massive, to say the least.

The state where people seem to be most confused, where the question was asked the most, was Missouri. Following the Show-Me state in asking were Ohio, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Virginia.

A different phrase is popular with people who hate the former president, the only one impeached twice and now indicted on 34 felony counts:

That phrase similarly skyrocketed since Trumps indictment put him back at the top of the news cycle.

According to Google Trends, that search spiked by 1131.6%.

Google Trends used that phrase to determine where people seem to hate Trump the most.

Those states are Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

The most observant readers probably noticed Massachusetts and Ohio near the top of both lists. That means people in those states are most likely to doubt Trumps innocence.

This analysis of Google Trends was first reported by averagebeing.com.

See more here:
Where Google says people have the strongest feelings about the indicted Donald Trump - KEYE TV CBS Austin

Opinion: I am not naive enough to believe that a pardon would in any way begin the process of healing or mend our broken fences. But it's still the right thing to do.

AP Explains: Trump pleads not guilty to 34 charges

A stone-faced Donald Trump made a momentous court appearance Tuesday as the only ex-president to be charged with a crime as he was confronted with a 34-count felony indictment. (April 4)

AP

Back in the day, our nations founders had this crazy idea to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility .

I say crazy because nearly 2 centuries later the union is nowhere near perfect, justice for all has yet to be established and virtually no aspect of our domestic situation is tranquil.

These days, one of the major reasons for this turmoil is former President Donald Trump, a man who has never been particularly keen on tranquility.

Just the opposite.

Chaos is his game.

That may be one of the reasons hes in trouble, most recently having been indicted by the Manhattan district attorneys office with 34 counts of falsifying business records.

He also faces possible indictment out of Atlanta for allegedly attempting to subvert the 2020 election results in Georgia.

As well as more potential indictments stemming from a Department of Justice investigation into the classified documents Trump took to Mar-a-Lago, as well as any connection he may have had to the Jan. 6., 2021, insurrection.

The general publics reaction to Trumps indictment falls into two categories. People either believe it is proof that no one is above the law, or proof of a politically motivated witch hunt.

Should any of the cases against Trump proceed to trial, where a verdict is reached, not a single persons opinion about this will change.

Not one.

Should Trump be found guilty, there would be an appeal, or perhaps many appeals.

And no matter how those cases are resolved, Id guess he will never spend any time in jail because, basically, we have yet to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility .

Given all that, President Joe Biden should pull a Gerald Ford and pardon Donald Trump. And, yes, I know, a president can't pardon someone for a state crime, only for federal offenses. But Biden can eliminate federal complaints. He can set a tone. He can be, in a way Trump never was, presidential.

In 1974, after former President Richard Nixon resigned over his involvement in the Watergate scandal, for which he would have faced criminal prosecution, Ford announced that he had decided to grant a full, free and absolute pardon to Nixon.

The pardon was not well received. A majority of Americans wanted Nixon prosecuted, and Fords decision may have cost him the subsequent presidential election.

Ford never wavered, however.

He appeared before a congressional committee and told them, I was absolutely convinced then as I am now that if we had had anindictment, a trial, a conviction, and anything else that transpired after this that the attention of the President, the Congress and the American people would have been diverted from the problems that we have to solve.

A playmate and indictment: Arizona's connection to Trump's woes

One of those who disagreed with Ford at the time was Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy.

In 2001, however, while presenting Ford with a Profile in Courage award, Kennedy said, Unlike many of us at the time, President Ford recognized that the nation had to move forward, and could not do so if there was a continuing effort to prosecute former President Nixon.His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us.

Every president grants pardons.

Barack Obama issued 212. George W. Bush did 189. Trump, during his time, granted 143.

They are often controversial. More proof of our messy system of justice.

I am not nave enough to believe that granting a pardon to Trump would in any way begin the process of healing or put the tragedy behind us.

But its still the right thing to do.

Ford told the House committee, Our nation is under the severest of challenges now to employ its full energies and efforts in the pursuit of a sound and growing economy at home and a stable and peaceful world around us. We would needlessly be diverted from meeting those challenges if we as a people were to remain sharply divided over whether to indict, bring to trial, and punish a former President .

Yeah, what he said.

Reach Montini ated.montini@arizonarepublic.com.

For more opinions content, pleasesubscribe.

Go here to read the rest:
Joe Biden should pardon Donald Trump, spare us from indictment ... - The Arizona Republic