On Friday’s front page of The New York Times was a giant headline with one word in all capital letters: “GUILTY.” True, but the article that followed was so speculative that I worried the paper would spontaneously combust in my hand.
After detailing the Manhattan trial’s verdict, the article suddenly veered into insanity, declaring that Donald Trump’s “treasonous actions delight his supporters as they forcibly destroy the nation’s norms” and going on to claim that “the man who refused to accept defeat in the 2020 election is now already trying to deny the legitimacy of his own conviction and assert the primacy of his own raw political power over the nation’s rule of law.”
This blanket condemnation no doubt pleased the Trump haters who make up the majority of the paper’s staff and readership, and will likely earn it a future Pulitzer nomination, but the same facts could have been conveyed more clearly and succinctly by saying that Trump is appealing the ruling, is still running for president, and has a very good chance of winning.
But when the Grey Lady is spinning a narrative and trying to push a political agenda, simple facts simply don’t cut it.
The agenda is Joe Biden’s reelection, and that means spreading the narrative that Trump is a disruptor who will “bulldoze the nation’s norms.”
It’s a fear-mongering ploy.
That’s not to deny that the former president was a demanding, mercurial man who sometimes went too far, but he was no novice when it came to breaking norms.
Six legal attacks
Democrats are the world champions: Their prosecutors and lawyers have filed six (yes, six!) criminal and civil cases against Trump since he left office.
All of this came after he was impeached twice while he was president, in an unprecedented pattern of political and legal attacks unparalleled in American history.
A president using the power of government to bankrupt and imprison his opponent is the ultimate subversion of norms, yet that is exactly what Biden and the Democrats have done and are still doing.
New York was a particularly embarrassing case, where two civil fraud and defamation lawsuits set a pattern of trying to destroy Trump. Like the criminal cases, both cases were skewed by partisan judges.
The Times deliberately failed to see this crucial truth: by becoming a propaganda machine for a political party, it violated its own norms and standards.
Meanwhile, when I spoke with him for about 25 minutes on Friday morning, the so-called “Chief Bulldozer” seemed relatively calm and personable — I say relatively because if you don’t waver after a jury has said “guilty” 34 times, you’re probably dead.
“How are you? Did you sleep?” I asked, and Trump replied: “I’m fine, I’m fine.”
“I slept well. It can’t be helped,” he replied matter-of-factly. “I haven’t done anything wrong.”
We spoke by phone about two hours before he appeared at Trump Tower to make a statement about the incident.
He laughed a few times and previewed some of the things he would say later, including that the legal fees at the heart of this case were actually just legal fees paid to Michael Cohen, although because of the ridiculous gag order that is still in place, he never mentioned Cohen’s name to me or in public.
“It wasn’t submitted as something related to construction like concrete block or drywall,” he said.
Even when he criticized Judge Juan Marchan’s pro-prosecution stance, it sounded more like a platitude than outrage: “His interests are so great that he won’t even let us bring in an election law expert,” Trump complained.
“If he’s indicted, he’ll rise in the polls.”
“If the trial had taken place in Staten Island, the situation would have been completely different,” he said, noting that the lawyers had requested a change of venue.
Many legal experts believe Marchan made numerous reversible errors, and Trump argued that if his planned appeal is denied “there will no longer be a system of law.”
Asked about the impact on his campaign, he first spoke about the astonishing $35 million his team raised within seven hours of the verdict, the most he’s ever raised in a single day and, coincidentally, roughly $1 million per felony count.
“This is actually unique,” Trump said with a laugh. “If you’re indicted, your approval rating goes up in the polls. If you’re convicted, it goes up again.”
He was right and, broadly speaking, the result was, to use his favorite phrase, a “rigged election,” which gave immediate effect to the campaign.
But it remains to be seen how the polls ultimately settle. Before his conviction, he was leading in most battleground states, often by within the margin of error.
Though he instantly boosted Biden by six points in an overnight poll, he agreed that big news takes time to sink in for voters.
As Republican consultant Ed Rollins points out, the slow brewing of major shifts in public opinion continues in the digital age.
When I asked Trump what he thought was the most important political arrow in his quiver going forward, he didn’t hesitate to say:
“The biggest problem we have is Biden, the worst president in the history of our country.”
He listed major flaws in the White House, considered them extraordinary, and expressed surprise that they had not been remedied.
“I want open borders, high taxes and men to be able to play girls’ sports,” he said. “Who’s going to fight for that?”
“The whole thing is a mystery,” he added. “They want to destroy our country. Why?”
“I think they want inflation, even though it’s bad for most people. They could stop opening borders immediately, so why wouldn’t they? Who would want that?”
“They’re fighting MAGA, which stands for Make America Great Again. That’s crazy. Why fight against that?”
He touched on the two upcoming debates with Biden, then lowered his expectations for the outcome. “They’re going to hype the president up,” he said of the president’s entourage. “He’ll be fine. Whatever they gave him in the State of the Union, they’re going to do it again. And he’ll get through it, and they’ll say he was great.”
A few weeks ago, I was part of a small group that met privately with Trump, during which he mixed humorous stories about himself and others with thoughtful answers to our questions.
This incident occurred after a tough day in court, and I thought his ability to remain relaxed and positive under such circumstances was remarkable.
On Friday morning he didn’t seem all that relaxed, but his tone and composure again struck me as remarkable, given that the verdict had only been handed down less than 24 hours ago.
When I told him this, he was quiet for a moment, then replied, “What happened to me has never happened to anyone before, but I am moving forward. Some people call me a warrior, and I consider myself a warrior.”
That is exactly what they are: warriors of our time.
