My old buddy and fellow curmudgeon, Mark Herrmann, ponders whether there is any tactical benefit to the antics on display at the two current civil trials against Donald Trump. This is not the way most clients behave, or are instructed to behave by their lawyers, if they have any desire to obtain the best possible outcome.
Lawyers know that judges matter, so lawyers handle judges with kid gloves. Lawyers laugh at judges’ jokes. Lawyers tell their witnesses to obey the judge’s instructions: “Don’t fight with the judge. Do whatever the judge says. If the judge asks you a question, don’t evade; answer it directly. The jury will be watching; you cannot win a fight with the judge.”
So what has Donald Trump chosen to do in the two civil cases — Letitia James’s fraud case and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case — that are ongoing in New York? He’s chosen to antagonize the judges.
There are some unique aspects to cases involving Trump, beyond the obvious that the facts and law are against him (pounds table). The first is that he’s engaged in two somewhat parallel endeavors simultaneously, litigation and candidacy. While they do not necessarily require him to sacrifice one for the other, he’s used litigation to his advantage in his candidacy to present himself as the weak and pathetic victim of the government, to castigate the government for being evil and to fund raise in order to pay the lawyers who never get paid beyond their initial retainer.
But why not try to win, or at the very least achieve the best possible outcome? Is it because he knows that he’s going to crash and burn, those nasty facts and law getting in the way.
But what about the stunts he’s performing in the courtroom. If you did it, would you get away with it? Would a judge, any judge, be as tolerant of your refusal to abide the judge’s admonitions or would you get your yap duct-taped right before they slipped the shock collar ’round your neck?
In the ordinary case, of course, the client is a regular guy: Joe Bag o’ Donuts. Poor Joe has no chance in a spat with the judge. In Trump’s case, the situation is different: As always, the judge is an authority figure, wearing the robe and presiding over the proceedings. But in Trump’s case, the client, too, is an authority figure — the former president of the United States.
Is it possible that Trump can get away with his shenanigans?
The conventional wisdom says that Trump is about to get hammered for his multiple tactical mistakes.
Then again, the conventional wisdom has never before seen a case in which a former president was being tried. And the conventional wisdom said that a candidate who was caught on tape boasting about grabbing women by the genitals would never be elected to office.
Maybe the conventional wisdom is wrong.
There are two lessons (possibly more) that are being taught as a result of Trump’s shenanigans. The first is that defying judges is a cool, fun and effective thing to do. Otherwise, why would Trump do it, because he’s a stable genius? The second is that Trump gets to do things that others, mere mortals, do not. Neither of these lessons serve either the interests of the legal system or clients, most of whom do not have millions of other people’s dollars to throw into the courthouse toilet.
Mark is betting that the consequence of Trump’s tactics will ultimately prove extremely detrimental. No doubt the lawyers will be blamed, because blaming others for his failures is his superpower, but is he right or has Trump already written off the losses in his quest to retake the White House. Is conventional wisdom wrong and Trump smarter than the average bear?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply, within reason.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Is conventional wisdom wrong and Trump smarter than the average bear?”
I have no idea how smart former president Trump actually is (or was in his younger days). Is a bear considered smart though?
It depends on the bear.
A more apt comparison might have been reindeer. Every single one is stupid.
Cultural references sometimes don’t translate well.
Hey There, It’s Yogi Bear! is a 1964 American animated musical comedy film.
As I was -24 years old when it was released it’s probably also a generational divide.
I’m granting that Trump is/was a pretty good businessman. However, he never “groomed” himself for politics like Bill Clinton or the Bushes for instance. I don’t think he went into politics at his age and with his nature expecting to win — but as many say and see, because of his desire to be on stage. Given his natural unsuitability to politics, and the conventional restraints on a candidate and requisite traditional behavior, he went bonkers, as probably most people would when confronted with the scripted scenes, the faux emotional displays, the unreliability of nearly everyone around one, etc. Thus Trump’s most consistent trait as he tries his hand at being a “politician” is outrageousness. Supporters of him from arm’s-length to MAGA to evangelicals and all kinds in between see this as a manner of honesty. As I do. I don’t say I “support” Trump in any ordinary sense when one thinks of political support. But I think I’m reading him pretty well as cultural phenomenon.
A lot of people keep over-thinking Trump, looking for the clever tactical underpinnings to his conduct. The simple truth is that he’s just as big of a psychopathic nutjob as he appears. It’s not a screen. There is no deeper tactical purpose.
Agree completely. For me the joy of Trump is watching him crash full speed into the smooth, smug, well suited and coiffed, “of course I will love you in the morning” lying through their teeth to the unwashed, psychopathic nutjobs who now run the store.
And I’m an optimist.
When I was 13, after a particularly pleasant night at summer camp, the young lady I was with had her friend hand me the lyrics to that song. It struck a chord.
13?!?!
You stud muffin, you.
Different times.
The sad thing is that many others will emulate his behavior, and we can expect to see further breakdown in societal norms. The “social contract” has been broken, and this narcissistic bully is leading the way. Sooner or later (sooner, one hopes) he will get his come-uppance, but the damage he is inflicting on America will live on for quite a while after. It is said that justice delayed is justice denied, but due process does not mandate too much process. His actions will have consequences, and we should be thankful that we have at least some even-tempered jurists who are not rising to the bait, and who in the end will lower the boom. If the public does not realize that we are descending into a lawless world, we are all doomed to live in an orange world.
It all seems to be more of the same from Darth Cheeto, which he uses to maximum effect for his deranged supporters. He smeers his feces all over everything and then whips his sycophants into a frenzy by complaing about the smell.
Is Bill Ackman looking into the bag o donuts paragraph and following line?
Did you not get the memo? The Law does not apply to Trump.
Another step in the devolution of respect for authority. If Trump can do it, why can’t I?
Also, pandering to the cult.
The only one he will love tomorrow will be D J Trump. See The Spiral Staircase… more than yesterday but not as much as tomorrow.
Who was defrauded? The banks? Did the state complain when he paid more taxes on buildings whose values were inflated?
Yes, he seems like an egotistical blowhard… but these legal issues seem part of a larger attempt at preventing him from running for President at almost any cost…
Being removed from the ballot in 2 states for a crime that he was not charged with? (I’m Canadian, so excuse my ignorance on the details of the 14th amendment).
Back to his behaviour… If his fraud conviction is a foregone conclusion, why meekly surrender?
In the press and court of popular opinion, the fact that he has 91 indictments against him is all they need to paint him as Guilty! How else is he going to get more votes out of this process?
He will never attract the left, but many people in the middle may be sympathetic if they think he is being charged to prevent him from running. Making it look like a kangaroo court seems like the best way…
We’ve done this to death–the law regarding the civil case in NY does not require a victim.
I’m pretty sure many people have made fraudulent declarations or have used other means to ‘adjust’ the value of their assets. My accountant said “Pigs get fat. hogs get slaughtered”.
What about the 14th Amendment grounds used to remove the Orange man from the ballot?
Why not declare that the possible Trump administration in 2025 will be Totalitarian (avoiding the other N*** word) and declare war on him before the election? I could almost see that happening…
The reason you’re confused is because you don’t understand the nature of modern political processes. You think that elections are legitimate processes whereby the leader of a state or country is chosen by the people, a trial is a search for truth executed by diligent and honest lawyers and judges, etc. These outdated beliefs cause confusion when you see the participants in these processes veering wildly outside the bounds of reasonable behavior. You wait in vain for them to be reigned in; to be held accountable. They seem to be on the edge of disaster again and again, but they always skate free at the last minute, like the hero in a movie.
The reality is that modern politics is a television show. Elections, trials, and other apparently real processes are just acts in the show. Trump is the star. Judges, lawyers, cabinet members and opposing politicians are supporting actors who set him up to deliver his punch lines. The purpose of the show is to entertain and distract us, and to help us accept the uncomfortable reality that, no matter how hard we vote, the government never does what we want it to, and always does things that we don’t want it to.
The legal analysis is simple: he gets hammered. The only question is the weight of the sledge.
The impact is a social psych quiz question. Valuing a candidate’s abilities was once a simple process: good, bad; competent, not; sane, crazy. That wasn’t very long ago. It wasn’t a hard question, or even a matter of deep discussion until him. He clearly falls on the latter of each question. I await some politician, whether a candidate for the office or not, to say, “this guy can’t be President of the United States.” It’s plain to me, but it just don’t happen.
But people cling to him, regardless that he’s an incompetent human. I don’t think any of his supporters would allow him to manage their money. Would anyone think he wouldn’t steal it? Why would they want him to have the highest office?
I have no answers.
The facts and the law are not against him. Biased judge and hand picked juries loaded with democrat donors are against him.
They’re all space aliens who’ve come to earth to destroy Trump. Soros owns the UNIVERSE!!!
Or the facts and law are against him.