First things first: We don’t want to hear one word about Donald Trump’s “conspiracy” to hide potentially damaging information to aid his presidential campaign unless we’re going to talk about 1) the Hillary Clinton campaign paying an ex-spy to put together a completely fictional dossier of opposition research, and 2) the government and social media working in tandem to bury the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” Compared to those, paying hush money to Stormy Daniels is nothing.
The Atlantic has a piece out today trying to convince us that, even though the legal merits of the case against Trump are shaky, paying hush money to help your campaign is “actually quite bad.”
Separate from the legal merits of the Manhattan case against Trump, the underlying conduct at issue (paying hush money to improve Trump's chances in the 2016 election) is … actually quite bad. For @TheAtlantic https://t.co/MpRHgxlnnN
— Quinta Jurecic (@qjurecic) April 5, 2023
The payoffs underline Trump’s unfitness for office and inability to conceptualize anything outside of himself. They're not worse than encouraging insurrection, but they are disturbing, and we shouldn't lose sight of that https://t.co/MpRHgxlnnN
— Quinta Jurecic (@qjurecic) April 5, 2023
We shouldn’t lose sight of how disturbing it was. Yeah, we honestly didn’t care.
Quinta Jurecic writes:
It is inarguably true that the 2016 hush-money payments do not cut to the heart of the crises facing American democracy in the same way that the several other ongoing investigations into Trump do.
…
This is, by now, a familiar portrait: a candidate, and then a president, obsessed with gaining and holding on to power at all costs, without any care for or comprehension of his obligations to the public, nor any commitment to play by the rules that bind everyone else. Such conduct speaks directly to Trump’s unfitness for office and inability to conceptualize anything outside of himself. I would not, personally, rank it as worse than seeking to overturn the results of a lawful election or attempting a coup. But it is disturbing all the same.
Recommended
Most of the lengthy piece actually breaks down how weak Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s care really is. But we should still care.
Of course, that opening phrase is a tacit admission that this case has no legal merit. https://t.co/EzobohP1V0
— Brad Slager: Just Watching Walls Moving Out… (@MartiniShark) April 5, 2023
“Separate from the legal merits” qualifiers are not a good sign for Bragg. https://t.co/awUGWCu2vr
— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) April 5, 2023
What is interesting is that the alleged falsification of records to conceal “damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.” …all happened after the 2016 election — from February through December 2017. https://t.co/QwAQhc9X58
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) April 5, 2023
You think "separate from the legal merits" is a good qualifier?
— Brees To Zion (@BreesToZion) April 5, 2023
“Separate from the legal merits.” So you’re saying it’s not a legal matter? Case closed.
— Northsider2U (@CHI_guy08) April 5, 2023
Like this? pic.twitter.com/f9ONdaNOnO
— awkwardrunner (@awkwardrunner2) April 5, 2023
Yeah you can have the whole country in a bind about fake Russian collusion….no problem pic.twitter.com/2KXUcXiT67
— The Breeze (@pgavigan77) April 5, 2023
Sorry but “actually quite bad” doesn’t equate to criminal. Democrats will eventually regret charging Trump, if they aren’t already!
— mikedisc (@mikedisc2) April 5, 2023
It’s pretty telling that The Atlantic feels the need, after Bragg’s press conference, to explain how the whole circus is “actually quite bad.” Not just bad, but actually quite bad.
***
Related:
Super-journo Andrea Mitchell says Trump might only be slamming Alvin Bragg because… (just guess) https://t.co/V4Wbe9n9nL
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 5, 2023
Join the conversation as a VIP Member