The Sex Life of a Rich Asshole

Nothing to brag about

I really wasn’t planning on writing about the trial currently taking place in Manhattan where a certain wealthy individual stands accused of falsifying his business records as part of an election interference scheme.

I knew (know) too much coverage would be about an allegation between that individual and an adult movie actress more than a decade ago. The last time I checked sexual acts between adults are not in the purview of the State of New York, whose statutes on fraud are the basis of this prosecution.

The payoff to the woman meant she’d have to testify, since the defendant would not admit to having sex with her. This was a risky move for the prosecution, because too much testimony not concerning the paperwork and chain of command in committing these fraudulent acts could be the basis for a mistrial or even an appellate court reversal of a guilty verdict. They needed to walk right up to the line about the alleged sexual encounter without directly impugning the character of the defendant. 

Even so, Judge Mechan felt obligated to object to a portion of the woman’s testimony under direct examination, and criticized the defense for not raising more objections as details about the encounter were elicited. 

Subsequently the defense filed a motion for a mistrial based on too much testimony about the sexual encounter. Then they turned around and blew any chance they had on appeal to challenge that the jury was prejudiced by her testimony on that issue.

When it came time for cross examination, observers were surprised to see the defense crossing the line, delving into the actresses’ profession, her merchandising, and her experience during the sexual act. Remember, the defense told the jury intercourse never happened in opening statements.

The defense attorney tried to use the actresses’ career, which she agreed included more that 200 films, as a reason not to trust her testimony.

• “You have a lot of experience in making phony stories about sex appear real:”

• “That’s not how I would put it; the sex in those stories was very much real, much like what happened to me in that room.”

• “You have a lot of experience memorizing those fictional stories and repeating them…”

• “The scripts, not the sex. Pretty sure we all know how to do that.”(Laughter in the courtroom)

• “And now there is a story you are telling about President Trump?”

• “If that story was untrue, I would’ve written it to be a lot better. I didn’t have to write this one.”

The nature of the questioning was undoubtedly coming directly from the defendant, hoping to raise doubts about the veracity of her testimony, and in keeping with his history of punching down on detractors.  

It’s safe to say the situation mushroomed during that cross examination. No sane lawyer would have opened this kind of pandora’s box for their opposition. 

By now I hope you’ve figured out this essay is about Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump. I figured it would have a better impact if I left out the names. (Who knows? But it was fun.)

The most satisfying part of this story was watching a woman put Donald Trump in his place. Here’s Emma Brockes at The Guardian

• As with so many episodes involving Trump, this is a spectacular reversal of cultural norms. Women like Daniels tend not to prosper in court, where unruliness that might be considered rakish in a man is more likely to be read in women as a byword for trash. None of that quite applies here. One has always understood about Daniels that, at some deep level, she has Trump’s number and knows how to hit him where it hurts. 

• If the narrative he constructed around the Carroll accusation was the classic too-ugly-to-rape defence, this won’t work with Daniels – 30 years his junior and a confident sexual operator who appears hellbent on depicting Trump as a pathetic little man. While they were having sex, she said on Tuesday, she recalled, “trying to think of anything other than what was happening”.

In the end it doesn't matter if the jury believes they actually had sex or not, but whether they believe the defendant paid money to have the story covered up and evidence of the paper trail demonstrating how they did it.

(Stormy Makes a Comparison)

***

Thursday’s Noteworthy News Links

***

This Time, They Booed Her -Marjorie Taylor Greene tries it, and fails hard. By Jay Kuo

• As a piece in Politico today noted, that leaves Johnson in a precarious position should he wish to keep his job after November’s election. Should the GOP somehow retain control of the House, which most observers already say is unlikely, it will probably be by a very slim margin once again, and nearly certainly less than the 11 who signaled they are ready for new leadership. 

• That sets up an odd situation for Johnson. He is actually more likely to hold power as Minority Leader, should the Democrats retake the House, than as Speaker, should the Republicans prevail. If he knew what was best for him, he would understand by now that the MAGA tiger cannot be ridden, and he should move sharply away from that wing and use this present victory over Greene to further isolate and defang the far right within his conference.

• Former Speaker McCarthy didn’t understand that. He had brought Greene into the fold, thinking that the necessities of governing would tame her. That didn’t happen, and Johnson would be wise to put as much distance now as he can between himself and the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene.

***

The enshittification of dating apps by Lyz in Men Yell at Me

• So much of our cultural innovation relies on letting AI and the algorithm solve our problems. We can hack our love lifes, optimize our health. But algorithms will never supersede the problems of our culture. They simply contain them. 

• Stepping outside the algorithms is a way reclaiming our time and self-worth. 

• Dating apps are a symptom of a deeper cultural problem in which a person’s romantic status is seen to say something meaningful about their worth as a human being. This makes people feel desperate — which has allowed the search for romance to become gamified, commodified, and enshittified

***

What Trump promised oil CEOs as he asked them to steer $1 billion to his campaign
Via The Washington Post

• Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.

• Giving $1 billion would be a “deal,” Trump said, because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him, according to the people.

• Trump’s remarkably blunt and transactional pitch reveals how the former president is targeting the oil industry to finance his reelection bid. At the same time, he has turned to the industry to help shape his environmental agenda for a second term, including the rollbacks of some of Biden’s signature achievements on clean energy and electric vehicles.