Rich wrote a great piece earlier this week about the striking similarities between former President Trump’s situation — he is accused by Manhattan’s elected progressive Democratic DA Alvin Bragg of covering up sexual hijinks whose revelation might have damaged Trump’s successful 2016 White House bid — and that of former President Bill Clinton. The latter’s successful 1992 White House bid employed “a conspiracy to keep women who alleged affairs with Clinton quiet,” as Rich translates into Bragg lingo. Ironically, Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, from whom Bragg claims the 2016 election was stolen by Trump’s cover-up scheme, was an active participant in her husband’s 1992 cover-up scheme.
Looks like the Trump–Clinton parallels are expanding.
Far from mending his ways after extramarital flings nearly torpedoed his campaign, Clinton continued his hound-dog ways in the White House. These infamously included liaisons with a young intern, Monica Lewinsky. As he came under scrutiny, the president insisted to aides, regarding Lewinsky, “There’s nothing going on between us.”
Later asked in grand jury testimony whether he had lied to his aides, Clinton torturously rationalized, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is…. If ‘is’ means ‘is and never has been,’ that is not – that’s one thing. If it means ‘there is none,’ that was a completely true statement.” Flaunting the linguistic, er, flexibility that birthed the adjective “Clintonesque,” the president elaborated that if he were being asked “a question in the present tense,” then he could truthfully say he was not having sex with the intern – the “present tense” apparently meaning the moment the question was being asked.
It was hard to miss the similarities at the Trump trial this afternoon, where the jury heard cross-examination testimony from Keith Davidson, the lawyer who represented (among others) porn star Stormy Daniels in extracting — oh, sorry, Davidson is offended by the suggestion that he’s in the “extraction” business — in, um, negotiating a hush money deal with Trump lawyer Michael Cohen — and, again my apologies: turns out Davidson also takes umbrage at the term “hush money” … he prefers valuable “consideration.”
Got it?
Davidson was grilled about one of the many seamy aspects of his legal practice, writing things that aren’t true. After securing the consideration — $130,000, of which he took a $10,000 cut — in exchange for silencing the Stormy, her story broke anyway. Concerned, Davidson and his client collaborated on a 2018 public statement in which Stormy maintained that no fling with Trump had ever happened. In the statement, the porn star — sorry, the adult-film actress — asserted that she had never had a “sexual and/or romantic affair with Donald Trump.”
On cross, Davidson took issue with a Trump lawyer’s assessment that this was a lie. Technically, Davidson countered, the statement could be true if one were to “hone [sic] in on the definition of ‘romantic,’ ‘sexual, and ‘romantic.’” After all, he added, “I don’t think anyone has ever alleged that any interaction between she [sic] and Mr. Trump was ‘romantic.’”
Uh . . . right.
In any event, the trial has now moved on from Davidson’s roster of shakedowns — sorry again, I mean, of lawful non-disclosure restrictions in exchange for valuable consideration. A slew of celebrity hush money deals came to light, including some involving celebrity politicians. The apparent relevance is that these arrangements are legal and have not, heretofore, resulted in indictments.
Beyond that, the notable testimony from Davidson involved the crushing disappointment of Michael Cohen – yes, that Michael Cohen – that Trump did not name him Attorney General of the United States, or at least White House Chief-of-Staff. “Jesus Christ, can you believe I’m not going to Washington,” Cohen griped to Davidson. (That’s the one I line can quote from the wannabe attorney general without lots of “[expletives deleted].”)
The cognitive dissonance I noted in this morning continues to be the hallmark of the Trump defense. On the one hand, the former president’s lawyers want the jury to know that all these sordid financial arrangements, which Trump had nothing whatsoever to do with no siree, were the doing of a bitter, desperate Cohen. On the other hand, the jury must also understand that there is nothing at all sordid about non-disclosure agreements, which are fully legal and common in civil settlements negotiated by working lawyers like Cohen and Davidson – and as for Trump, paying, y’know, consideration just comes with the territory of being rich and famous.
Well, Bragg’s case causes everyone to ask, “What, exactly, is the crime?” So, I guess, why shouldn’t Trump’s counter-case leave us asking, “What, exactly, is the defense?”