John E. Jones III is the president of Dickinson College and a retired federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush. David E. Clementson is a political communications scholar on the University of Georgia and a specialist in political deception. Senior political editor Naomi Schalit interviewed the 2 in regards to the latest developments in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial, and the discussion ranged from the judge's handling of the case (“skill,” Jones says) to Stormy Daniels' allegedly lewd testimony (“Nobody really seems to care,” says Clementson).
What particularly stood out to you ultimately week's court hearing?
John E. Jones III: What strikes me is that despite the circus it could turn into, I actually have to offer something Judge Juan Mercan Recognition for his skillful handling of the case. Things are clearly moving faster than many predicted. That's the trial judge's job, to maintain the parties moving without rushing them. Rushing through them is against justice and I believe he found the proper balance in what he did.
David E. Clementson: I may also talk in regards to the judge. From a political communications perspective, I believe the judge makes it easier for Trump to win the presidency. And Trump responds by doing his best to get the judge to throw him in prison.
I say this for 3 reasons. First, the judge is detaining Trump in New York City, the media capital of the world. Most politicians would do anything to carry a press conference in New York City on daily basis. If Trump were left to his own devices, he would hold more rallies in places like Waukesha, Wisconsin, without drawing attention and making no difference. Instead, he holds almost day by day press conferences outside the Manhattan courtroom.
AP Photo/Seth Wenig
Second, Trump sits at a table all day throughout the trial with a pen and paper in front of him. He closes his eyes, he has time to think. Trump is likely to be less susceptible to gaffes and capable of craft statements that sound more presidential than if he had the liberty to run around, fly off the cuff, and get himself into more trouble.
Third, Trump is doing the judge's gag order a favor. The judge tells Trump what he can and might't speak about, which happens to coincide with compelling talking points. The judge forbids Trump from talking about witnesses at trial or before the jury, and the general public doesn't occur to care about them either.
Yet Trump still insists on complaining about things voters don't care about.
The judge said Trump could speak about his campaign. The judge essentially tells Trump to follow a winning message.
And Trump effectively says, “No, I’d rather go to prison.”
Imagine if Trump did because the judge tells him and used his day by day press conference before an attentive audience within the media capital of the world to make rigorously worded remarks about inflation, illegal immigration and crime – all winning campaign themes.
Is Judge Merchan or another judge in a situation like this only fascinated about the narrow legal questions, or will these items that Professor Clementson mentions keep him up at night?
Jones: I've led some really high-profile cases which have gotten numerous attention. And I can let you know: As soon because the trial begins, your head because the trial judge is within the trial and you might have to dam out the background noise. A courtroom is a courtroom is a courtroom.
The noise outside the courtroom can be interesting. I'm sure the judge notices this, but he's managing the case within the courtroom the best way he must. I don't think Judge Merchan had any alternative but to issue a gag order for Trump. In a criminal trial, you can’t allow a defendant to make the type of statements that Trump made about witnesses and the jury. It is just antithetical to our justice system for a defendant to do such a thing.
The interesting thing in regards to the silence order is that the judge wrote something last week that I picked up on as a former judge and hasn't been talked about much. He said – to imminent witness Michael Cohen, who was Trump's former lawyer and fixer – that the silence order “It is not to be used as a sword instead of a shield by potential witnesses.” The judge is in a real mess because Michael Cohen won't keep his mouth shut; he’s baiting Donald Trump. In fact, on this a part of the gag order, Judge Merchan said that if Cohen continued to attack Trump, the judge wouldn’t provide that protection.
And that's exactly what Judge Merchan did this week. He didn't think Trump was being held in contempt due to allegations that Trump had directly questioned Michael Cohen's credibility, regardless that confidentiality rules say you’ll be able to't try this with a witness. So what he did, in effect, was he removed the shield from Michael Cohen.
I'm wondering: Based in your discipline of political communication, do you see that things that occur within the courtroom – including Stormy Daniels' testimony – are damaging to Trump, not necessarily in front of a jury, but in public opinion?
Clementson: We have a sex scandal that is definitely boring for the general public. This just seems remarkable because we’ve a porn star testifying in court that he had illicit sex with a former president of the United States – before he became president – and nobody really seems to care.
The details don't seem so glaring. One of the largest details she confessed was that he wore boxers. She said he showed her an image of his wife throughout the encounter. And Trump denies having sex along with her. The lack of tastelessness just seems remarkable to me.
Trump's defense attorney keeps hammering Stormy Daniels with things like, “You said you had dinner, but you didn't eat.” So was it really dinner?” to make it work? None of this really is sensible.
We are within the fourth week of the trial. What do you think that taking a look at it up to now?
Jones: I believe numerous people want to depart the courtroom and take a shower, based on numerous the testimony that was presented, particularly in the ultimate days of the trial. I believe it's absolutely remarkable within the annals of politics.
Clementson: The biggest thing for me isn't the small print of what goes on within the courtroom. It's Trump's press conferences that he holds outside the courtroom for this audience of reporters in New York City. These remind me of the on a regular basis Press conferences Trump gave around the identical time 4 years agoduring COVID on the White House.
He would address the world, and viewership was comparable to the Super Bowl. Still, he largely took advantage of the opportunities to turn into combative with the press; He didn't show much composure and focused on little things that didn't necessarily interest the general public.
So I believe there's an actual parallel to Trump having the chance in front of the assembled media to talk to everyone in the midst of a scandal that has put him in a corner. COVID was a scandal that got him right into a corner he couldn't get out of, as was this trial.
That's why he reacts from the angle of political communication strategy along with his almost day by day press conferences. Instead of showing composure, foresight, composure, and specializing in compelling talking points, he squanders the chance, betrays his message, and becomes combative in a way that even his following probably doesn't find particularly endearing.
image credit : theconversation.com