The Trump Trial: Unveiling the Absurdity Behind the ‘Hush Money’ Headlines

Loading

by Jeff Childers

The Associated Press reported a world-changing story this morning headlined, “Prosecutors to make history with opening statements in hush money case against Trump.” And so, it begins.

Calumnous corporate media is roundly referring to this case as the “hush money” trial, which is confusing almost everybody, since none of the counts pleaded against the President were on account of any kind of payoff. Trump never bribed anybody or “paid off” anybody. In the transactions involved in the case, Trump is ‘accused’ of legally buying — through a lawyer — common law copyrights (story rights) and non-disclosure contracts.

Even if true, both purchases are utterly unremarkable. Similar transactions happen every single day all over the country, if not the entire world.

Cretinous reporters call it “hush money” though, because they are sprinting far afield toward the reason Trump allegedly bought the stories from three women, to “stop them” from selling those stories to the tabloids. But Trump didn’t stop them, or hush them up, he had to pay them. The women could care less who paid them, since their motive was to make money, and they were richly successful.

None of corporate media’s halfwitted reporters are the least bit concerned whether any of those salacious stories Trump bought were actually true or made-up. Since the ‘Stormy Daniels’ (Stephanie Clifford) story broke years ago, journalists been unable (or unwilling) to confirm Stephanie’s account of the alleged 2006 relationship, and Trump has consistently denied the affair. For whatever it’s worth, Stephanie broke her NDA, and appears to have sold the story to media anyway, collecting handsomely from all parties

Even though nitwit District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s morbidly obese case includes thirty-four criminal counts, the case is just about whether Trump’s notations on 11 checks written to his lawyer were properly characterized as legal expenses. That is all this criminal prosecution of a former President and current candidate is about.

Curiously, or even uniquely, the jury of Manhattanites includes a sales professional, a software engineer, a security engineer, a teacher, a speech therapist, an investment banker, a retired wealth manager, and multiple lawyers. Lawyers are not usually picked for juries. The concern is that a juror-lawyer (in this case, lawyers) would dominate the jury pool, since all the other jurors would defer to the lawyer’s opinion about everything.

Especially fast-talking Manhattan lawyers.

The untelevised trial begins this morning with opening statements to the jury. They call it an opening statement because lawyers aren’t supposed to make any argument. Arguments often slip through anyway, but the court usually does its best to keep them out. Instead of arguing the case, lawyers for each side are only supposed to describe for the jury what facts will be presented during the trial. A traditional prosecutor’s opening might include things like, “you’ll hear from Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who will testify that Trump told him to ‘sweep these inconvenient stories under his toupee.’”

Then Trump’s lawyers make their opening statement and might say something like, “The evidence will show Michael Cohen has been convicted twice of perjury and also believes that the Moon is really a hollow alien airship.”

I don’t need to remind you guys, but this historic trial is utterly unprecedented. Woke activists shopped the case to any number of prosecutors, including Bragg, who initially turned it down as being too farfetched. But Bragg later changed his mind, for some reason.

Regardless, America’s Justice System is making history this week. Bad history. Stay tuned.

Read more

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I don’t hear Trump laughing.

Could this case be a bigger joke?

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg

The trial is a joke. This will backfire like the others.

What about Congress hush money fund? Do they declare that as election contribution?

Great point. There is zero merit to this case.