Thank you very much for explaining --I appreciate your response very much. I understand your thoughts, and do realize that your audience is undoubtedly quite sophisticated. But realizing that, I wrote because I believe that the framing makes a difference in how people think and talk about these things (viz., Frank Luntz, and the damage he's succeeded in doing in this regard). Maybe I'm overly idealistic, but I think every little bit of proper framing helps. Anyhow, how about " the Manhattan election interference case"? As for "the GA RICO case", at least that carries an undertone of mob activity. "Hush money case" sounds a little like the sort of thing that lots of folks (men in particular) just snicker at -- maybe even wistfully.
Peter, I totally agree with your comments (including your reference to Luntz, a master at mischaracterization to bend the political narrative, "Death Taxes" instead of estate tax for example. The NY case is about election interference brought about through payments to silence a person who could have done great harm to TFG's campaign. And while we are at it, let's always talk about women's reproductive health care, not about "pro-choice" or abortion rights.
Thanks, Alan. You're absolutely right about estate taxes and women's health care, too. Luntz has done great harm and been extremely successful. Those lessons must be taken very much to heart!
That's absolutely right. "Hush money" actually has an appealing tone to it. Like a private little sexy secret you'd rather keep on the down low. What's the big deal?
Mr. Kurtz, I again find it curious that you insist on calling it a "hush money case". Is that really what you think is most significant about this case? I get that a hush money case for a politician is not a good look, or at least that you recall the days when that was true. But even Justice Merchan, in his D&O yesterday, called it what it is: "The charges arise from allegations that Defendant attempted to
conceal an illegal scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election." I for one find your framing odd, and quite disappointing. Could you explain your thinking, beyond saying that you recall those golden days of yesteryear?
I don't really disagree with you, there are just some practical considerations that color it for me, though I doubt you'll find them particularly persuasive.
One is that I'm keenly aware of our audience. It's not a mass audience. They, like you, have have no doubt what this case is about. I'm not under any illusion that I'm writing to unsophisticated folks who aren't steeped in this stuff. It's what makes this job fun.
Second, there are at present THREE election interference cases. "Hush money" is an easy obvious shorthand to distinguish this one from the other two, in the same way I use "Georgia RICO" (which you might also object to) to distinguish it from the other two cases.
It's a judgment call though, and I'm open to feedback on it.
I'm going with the "shorthand" explanation, as whenever this case is referenced in my particular comments, I invariably use "hush money case" as the portmanteau for the Manhattan trial.
And, no, such usage does not diminish the seriousness of the criminal case re: deliberately hiding/misrepresenting campaign contributions, but quite honestly, "hush money" conveys the sheer sleaziness and vulgar connotations of the entire sordid episode, and perfectly encapsulates tRumpian poverty of ethics and morality.
Thanks for your response, but I still agree with Peter. How this case is defined and described is very important. "Hush money" diminishes its significance.
Arizona survivor Lou Conter was a QM mate when the attack on Pearl Harbor began, but by the end of the war he was a pilot. He later flew combat missions in Korea and retired as a LCDR in the US Navy.
didn't several of the Senators who voted against one of the trump impeachments say they were afraid for their families if they voted to impeach? What kind of world IS this?
Re the fraud case: the damage award is beyond mushy. I think my beloved Engoron, pardon the expression, was just fucking with Trump. So $450m+ always sounded crazy.
But is extremely likely to stick is the finding that Trump engaged in fraud. Which IMO is much more important than any damages award.
Re the bond, I’d love if there was some way other than a leak to find out where the bonding company’s money came from. And now that I think about it, I wonder why Jared doesn’t have $175m from MBS to spend on his father-in-law…
As for the owner bonding company owner, I can’t see him having the money himself nor, if he has the money putting all of it up.
Similarly Matt Levine’s theory that buying a meme stock is how one shows one’s support for Trump as opposed to contributing directly to, specially if he’s not going actually get the money. So, you know, it’s a weird person who’d contribute by buying a meme stock.
Thank you very much for explaining --I appreciate your response very much. I understand your thoughts, and do realize that your audience is undoubtedly quite sophisticated. But realizing that, I wrote because I believe that the framing makes a difference in how people think and talk about these things (viz., Frank Luntz, and the damage he's succeeded in doing in this regard). Maybe I'm overly idealistic, but I think every little bit of proper framing helps. Anyhow, how about " the Manhattan election interference case"? As for "the GA RICO case", at least that carries an undertone of mob activity. "Hush money case" sounds a little like the sort of thing that lots of folks (men in particular) just snicker at -- maybe even wistfully.
Peter, I totally agree with your comments (including your reference to Luntz, a master at mischaracterization to bend the political narrative, "Death Taxes" instead of estate tax for example. The NY case is about election interference brought about through payments to silence a person who could have done great harm to TFG's campaign. And while we are at it, let's always talk about women's reproductive health care, not about "pro-choice" or abortion rights.
Thanks, Alan. You're absolutely right about estate taxes and women's health care, too. Luntz has done great harm and been extremely successful. Those lessons must be taken very much to heart!
That's absolutely right. "Hush money" actually has an appealing tone to it. Like a private little sexy secret you'd rather keep on the down low. What's the big deal?
Mr. Kurtz, I again find it curious that you insist on calling it a "hush money case". Is that really what you think is most significant about this case? I get that a hush money case for a politician is not a good look, or at least that you recall the days when that was true. But even Justice Merchan, in his D&O yesterday, called it what it is: "The charges arise from allegations that Defendant attempted to
conceal an illegal scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election." I for one find your framing odd, and quite disappointing. Could you explain your thinking, beyond saying that you recall those golden days of yesteryear?
I don't really disagree with you, there are just some practical considerations that color it for me, though I doubt you'll find them particularly persuasive.
One is that I'm keenly aware of our audience. It's not a mass audience. They, like you, have have no doubt what this case is about. I'm not under any illusion that I'm writing to unsophisticated folks who aren't steeped in this stuff. It's what makes this job fun.
Second, there are at present THREE election interference cases. "Hush money" is an easy obvious shorthand to distinguish this one from the other two, in the same way I use "Georgia RICO" (which you might also object to) to distinguish it from the other two cases.
It's a judgment call though, and I'm open to feedback on it.
I'm going with the "shorthand" explanation, as whenever this case is referenced in my particular comments, I invariably use "hush money case" as the portmanteau for the Manhattan trial.
And, no, such usage does not diminish the seriousness of the criminal case re: deliberately hiding/misrepresenting campaign contributions, but quite honestly, "hush money" conveys the sheer sleaziness and vulgar connotations of the entire sordid episode, and perfectly encapsulates tRumpian poverty of ethics and morality.
FWIW, I agree that the soft characterization of the case as "hush money" undermines the sense of its importance.
Thanks for your response, but I still agree with Peter. How this case is defined and described is very important. "Hush money" diminishes its significance.
So poor ol' Trump had to shell out 175 mill.
Grab a hankey.
Arizona survivor Lou Conter was a QM mate when the attack on Pearl Harbor began, but by the end of the war he was a pilot. He later flew combat missions in Korea and retired as a LCDR in the US Navy.
didn't several of the Senators who voted against one of the trump impeachments say they were afraid for their families if they voted to impeach? What kind of world IS this?
It's still just lip flapping with these judges. Meaningless.
So, the defendant tried to conceal attempts to influence
the "16" election, by paying hush money to Stormy Daniels and catch & kill story
with National Inquirer.
In other words, "Hush up, Stormy. Here's your payoff to
help me get elected, 'cause
that Access Hollywood and
the other broad are making
me look bad."
Dig a little deeper; this is the
"Chosen One"? An adulterer!
Thank you David for calling
it like it is. Open your eyes
a little wider people. This is
the ROT of Donald Trump.
As usual, I have thoughts…
Re the fraud case: the damage award is beyond mushy. I think my beloved Engoron, pardon the expression, was just fucking with Trump. So $450m+ always sounded crazy.
But is extremely likely to stick is the finding that Trump engaged in fraud. Which IMO is much more important than any damages award.
Re the bond, I’d love if there was some way other than a leak to find out where the bonding company’s money came from. And now that I think about it, I wonder why Jared doesn’t have $175m from MBS to spend on his father-in-law…
As for the owner bonding company owner, I can’t see him having the money himself nor, if he has the money putting all of it up.
Similarly Matt Levine’s theory that buying a meme stock is how one shows one’s support for Trump as opposed to contributing directly to, specially if he’s not going actually get the money. So, you know, it’s a weird person who’d contribute by buying a meme stock.