Donald Trump today becomes the first former U.S. president to stand trial for fraudulently and feloniously falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 hush-money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels. Politifact offers a guide. This may be the only one of his trials to conclude and reach a verdict before the November election. The stakes are high.
If he’s acquitted, it will reinforce his claims that his legal trials are a “witch hunt” and might boost his chances of re-election, though most legal analysts say the three other trials involve more serious charges. If he’s convicted of a felony or felonies, polls suggest a critical number of voters will abandon him.
Disappointingly, political partisans abandon past principles in hopes the parties and candidates they support will gain an advantage from the case.
Republicans and conservatives vilified President Bill Clinton for his extramarital sexual relationships with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky. They demanded his impeachment. Yet they are now mimicking Trump’s defense attorneys and arguing, in the words of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal editorial board, that prosecutor Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump “is a legal stretch and should never have been brought.”
Here are links to a few of those anti-Clinton WSJ editorials.
Yes, Indict Clinton! January 5, 2001.
The WSJ editorial board mocked Democrats for changing their position on Clinton’s behavior, the same thing it is doing now. Oh Never Mind? Jan. 8, 1999.
Paul Gigot has been on the WSJ editorial board since the 1990s, and chairman of it since 2001, so he should be asked about his unprincipled, tribal, intellectually unjustifiable inconsistency.
This act of hyper-partisanship by the WSJ is especially disappointing because progressive Americans had begun to greatly respect the Journal’s independence from Trump. See my Substack piece, Conservative WSJ: Trump Is His Own Worst Enemy.
More than a decade ago, Republicans mocked and expressed outrage over Senator John Edwards (D-NC), a 2008 presidential candidate, for trying to hide his relationship with a pregnant mistress, Riehl Hunter. Edwards in 2012 was acquitted of one charge of corruption, campaign finance fraud, and conspiracy. There was a hung jury or mistrial on the other five charges. The case did, however, destroy Edwards’ political career. (Click for NYT story.)
Now Republicans cite the Edwards’ case in Trump’s defense.
The WSJ editorial board has from time to time placed principle above tribalism. It was harshly critical of Trump during the 2020 campaign, and in the 2023-24 primary season, leading to observations that if Trump loses the traditionally Republican-Wall Street business establishment represented by the WSJ, he has probably lost the election. WSJ Criticizes Trump, Represents Conservative Independents.
The WSJ editorial board demonstrated refreshing political independence for a while, but now — perhaps under orders from the Murdochs? — seems to be falling in line behind Trump. It blames Democrat prosecutors for overreach, for persecuting Trump, and for causing Republican primary voters to rally around him rather than draw the line on any of his “unpresidential” behaviors. This is a preposterous claim, as if the base of the cult-like GOP wasn’t so enamored of Trump that in all circumstances they were determined to see him re-nominated.
The Journal’s support of Trump in the sex scandal cases (E. Jean Carroll’s sexual assault and defamation cases) is ironic given how harshly critical it was of Bill Clinton in the late 1990s and early 2000s when he faced charges similar to Trump. Except Clinton wasn’t accused of falsifying documents or launching a cover-up that was crucial to winning an election. Clinton’s “bimbo eruptions” were widely known before the 1992 election, and were widely suspected before the 1996 election. Republicans back then claimed to believe that a president’s personal character was critically important. Their charges had little impact on Bill Clinton’s political popularity. And now they argue that Trump’s personal character is not politically relevant.
Bill Clinton’s apparent lying under oath to cover up his affair with Lewinsky, and a charge of sexual harassment from Jones, occurred in his second term and led to his impeachment by the U.S. House, but no conviction by the Senate. The sensational legal charges ultimately led to what many felt was a fair and proportionate verdict. Clinton lost his Arkansas law license for five years, paid a fine, and made a $850,000 settlement to Jones without admitting guilt. He also faced disbarment by the U.S. Supreme Court but chose to resign from the court’s practice. (Source: Fact Check By CBS News.)
The biggest victim in the Clinton scandals was Monica Lewinsky, who was run out of the country, moved to England, and has struggled to build a solid career.
On the other side of the partisan divide, longtime Democratic lawyer and operative Lanny Davis, now 78, chief counsel to President Bill Clinton during sex scandals and author of a 2008 book on how gotcha politics is destroying America, is one of Trump’s chief legal accusers. He is the attorney for Michael Cohen, the Trump aide who made the hush money payments to Daniels. Davis should be asked about his change of perspective.
Teaching History's Slender Threads, Including 'What Ifs', Almosts, Alternatives and Turning Points 