Yes, the Trump trial affects his chances.
As the jury prepares for closing arguments, a majority of Americans have already found him "guilty as charged."
I’ve been watching the hush money trial and always bristling when Trump defense lawyers have hauled out the “Trump-paid-the-hush-money-to protect-Melania” trope.
That claim was bolstered in opening arguments of Trump lawyer Todd Blanche and his declaration that “Trump is a husband and a family man,” as if the thrice-married philanderer of the Access Hollywood tapes and “grab ‘em by the pussy” fame was above having an affair and then paying off the woman to win
the presidency.
Throwing Melania under the bus
But the first day of the former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s testimony blew the lid off the “Melania” assertion. He described discussing the hush money payment arrangements with Trump and its implications for Melania. During their talk, Cohen wondered aloud if his then-boss and thought-to-be friend worried about her finding out about the payments, and by extension the affair. “Aren’t you worried about your wife, what she will think?” Cohen asked.
What Trump did not say
Trump’s reply was not something like, “Yes, I do worry. And that’s precisely why I’m authorizing this $130,000 payment.” Instead, Trump responded nonchalantly: “Don’t worry. How long do you think I’d be on the market for?” Then Trump answered his own question: “Not long.”
Between the Cohen testimony and that of adult film actress Stormy Daniels – both of whom had earlier been discounted as witnesses but no longer so, due to their measured (Cohen) and savvy (Daniels) testimonies – the election winds may be shifting, if ever so gradually. And that would be good for American women who for years have been tormented by Donald Trump.
Melania and us
In a way, Trump’s tortured relationship with women begins with Melania. His cold-shouldered “not for long” prediction he could find someone else, or better, shows a detached arrogance that’s tainted his approach to women over the years, and now. Trump’s philandering, three marriages, and multiple assaults on women suggest an absence of feelings for their welfare and security.
It also demonstrates a lack of self-awareness that’s never good for a husband, president, or would-be president. And Trump’s lies to himself and women mirror his relationship with the Court, jury, and Trump’s attorneys who in opening statements proclaimed the affair never happened, thus presenting an impossibly heavy burden to assert in court.
Trump’s delusion – a.k.a. lies
About that lack of self-awareness…
Let’s face it. Melania, who is 24 years younger than Trump, would probably have an easier time moving on to another marriage than would her then 60-year-old, out of shape, narcissistic playboy husband.
Unfair? OK, so some of the best of us let ourselves go a little as we age. But we often recognize it by going on diets, keeping the skinny clothes in the closet as a reminder and incentive, and getting our steps in.
But Donald’s philandering had the ring of someone who still believed he looked young and hot, whether a look in the mirror, step on the scale, or ability to fit into trimmer clothes justified that optimistic self-assessment or not.
No doubt about it. Although good-looking in the 70s, 80s, and 90s (tops) when he was a rich man-about-town, Trump’s best-looking days were over. By the early 2000s, Trump had put on a lot of weight – developing the beginnings of a couple of double chins and building up an ample derriere connected to a pair of trunk-like thunder thighs.
Suits as mom jeans
Wearing the equivalent of “mom jeans” that are his bulky, unfitted suits, Trump still could appeal to women, yes. But more frequently than not in an avuncular, older rich man sort of way that could no longer guarantee attraction to women with other options. Women would more often see him as someone who could preferably get them into show business, as opposed to not preferably, into bed.
So perhaps it was not surprising – beginning even in the 70s and lasting up to his first run for president – that Trump had begun forcing himself on women in ways that were repulsive to them, but warranted to him “because as a star they let you do it,” per the Access Hollywood tapes.
In all, just since 2016 at least 18 women have come forward with credible accounts of Trump sexually attacking them while on airplanes, waiting for elevators, coming out of the ladies room at the U.S. Open tennis tournament, sitting on an adjacent bar stool, standing in a brunch line, trying to impress an Apprentice contestant, barging into women’s beauty contest changing rooms, coming on to a photographer’s assistant at Mar-a-Lago, creeping out applicants on job interviews, and, famously, attacking a woman in a changing room at Bergdorf Goodman’s where writer E. Jean. Carroll met her fate (18 sept abcnews.com).
Hits on People editor
The unwanted advances included that of Natasha Stoynoff, a People magazine writer/editor who had come to Mar-a-Lago in late 2005 to do a story on Donald and Melania’s first year anniversary. But during a break in an interview, Trump pushed her against a wall, thrust his face against hers, and tried kissing her – the moment interrupted when a butler hurriedly entered the room. Her first-hand report published in an October 2016 People issue garnered headlines, but went unheeded by women voters that November. The butler, under Trump’s employ, denied the incident had ever occurred. Stoynoff testified at E. Jean Carroll’s libel trial
against Trump.
Throughout their various accounts, the assaulted women described Trump as coming on to them – kissing, groping, etc. – often suddenly when all they did was shake a hand, make polite small talk, make brief eye contact or make no contact at all – sending no overt signals of any wanted physical connection.
Prelude to dinner
It’s part of a pattern described by Stormy Daniels in her account of an anodyne conversation with Trump in his hotel room before he came onto her. Ostensibly as a prelude to going out to dinner, they talked about her job, with Trump asking questions about pay structure, unions, hours, etc. before she excused herself to go
to the bathroom.
As she emerged, however, Daniels was greeted by The Apprentice celebrity who had stripped down to his boxers and tee shirt and was lying on the bed waiting for her. And when she moved toward the door, there was something about his large, looming presence that told her it might be easier to stay, do the deed, and then leave (9 may 2024 nbcnews.com).
Ick factor
In her deposition, Daniels testified she was physically repulsed by Trump, citing his girth and old skin as reasons. A more self-aware man would have read the signals earlier, like when she kept the conversation centered on work and career goals. She did not reciprocate by embracing him when he greeted her in his silky Hugh Hefner style pajamas. In fact, she shamed him into immediately changing into street clothes with a snide Hefner remark.
Certainly, Trump could have been disabused that he was god’s gift to women by Daniels’s tepid responses to him. But maybe not, as Daniels testified that Trump constantly interrupted her during their conversations in his hotel room – a sure sign women have picked up on down through the ages that self-centered men who invite young women up to their hotel room are probably not interested in talk.
With Daniels on the witness stand, Trump attorney Susan Necheles attacked the witness relentlessly, playing up her porn star status as a reason to discount
everything she said.
“You have a lot of experience making up phony stories about sex appear real,” said Trump’s barrister.
But Daniels’s skillful reply turned the tables on Necheles’ insinuation her adult film experience made her testimony unreliable, while also reinforcing the essence of her statements:
“Wow…that’s not how I would put it. The sex in the films is very much real – just like what happened to me in that room.”
In another hapless attempt to corner Daniels, Necheles again came up empty-handed.
NECHELES: “You made up that story about having sex with Donald Trump – right?”
DANIELS: “If that story were untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better” ( 9 may usnews.com).
“Mistrial!” fizzles
Perhaps afraid that probing Daniels much further might backfire in yielding more embarrassing details or their failing to object would raise their chances for a mistrial, the Trump team consequently bombed in a hearing before the judge.
Prosecutors successfully argued that the Trump’s defense opened themselves up for Daniels’s testimony because they declared in opening statements the affair never happened. Judge Merchan explained to lawyers who probably should have known or did know that making such a sweeping assertion enabled – indeed, required – the prosecution to introduce testimony about the encounter to prove it happened. He also called out on their no-objections tactic and used that, too, in denying the mistrial request.
Predictions v. Data
Is the hush money trial making a difference? Two weeks ago, legal pundits and conventional wisdom purveyors were predicting “no.”
In wet-blanket fashion, they cited the Manhattan Court’s policy of no television or audio recorded proceedings, leaving it up to sketch artists and reporters inside the courtroom, out on the streets, and inside the broadcast studio to provide Americans with minute-by-minute coverage.
The doom-sayers also believed the eight-year-old case simply rehashed material people already knew about, discounting the mountains of new material and the interesting cast of characters that would present it in newly fresh, captivating ways.
So, there is conventional wisdom, and then there’s data, and the data shows Americans are paying attention, and it may already be affecting their choices
on Nov. 5.
New polling released Wednesday morning shows the trial is making a difference. For whatever reason – maybe it’s bringing to light Trump’s dangers to women both in terms of Trump’s unacceptable, boorish behavior toward them – a majority of Americans believe Trump is guilty, even before the jury begins its deliberations. Writ large, that could turn the tables on the race. If Trump is found guilty, Trump’s fortunes fade and Biden’s rise.
Majority of Americans: “Already Guilty”
The May 14 Yahoo/You Gov poll:
Question: Is Trump guilty in the Hush Money Trial?
YES
Now 52%
April 2024 48%
March 2023 45%
NO
Now 22%
April 2024 23%
March 2023 26%
As mentioned more generally, the same poll shows Biden up by 7 percent over Trump if the New York hotelier is found guilty. A guilty finding would raise voters’ preferences to 46 percent for Biden v. 39 percent, Trump.
Trump’s anti-women chemistry
Those findings take on even greater valence when added to voters’ fears related to women’s reproductive rights. As Evangelical groups are pushing for a national abortion ban should Trump become president (apnews.com 8 april 2024), voters trust Biden by large margins to protect women’s rights not only in the states that currently safeguard them, but by pushing for laws that would bring back Roe v. Wade protections and encode them federally (8 july bbc.com).
To The Resistant Grandmother (TRG), the new findings mark the first time polls show a new energy around accountability for Trump’s aggressiveness toward women.
Thanks to Michael Cohen’s testimony, it’s become clear that just as Trump in 2016 expressed no interest in protecting Melania, by extension it may be inferred he possesses no interest in protecting American women. And thanks to the smart and resourceful Stormy Daniels, we see how lies form the core of Trump’s mode of operating and personality. To TRG, that suggests all women, like Stormy Daniels, must stand up to him to survive.
– trg
Who I write for…
Thank you so much for reading! Please leave a comment…