Yes, this really happened. No, we are not making this up. Stormy Daniels, who has apparently decided that she wants to compete with E. Jean Carroll for the role of Donald Trump’s Ghost of Christmas “Hard Pass,” somehow got cross-examined into talking about the paranormal. Which, on one level, we don’t find surprising: rather like the ghost in Stormy Daniels’ house, most of the incidents described in her testimony are clear figments of her imagination. Or perhaps in the imaginations of the prosecutors who coached her, given that she admitted to rehearsing her testimony with their help.
However, knowing that Daniels admitted she was coached by the prosecution, we find it very hard to believe that things got quite this silly. Granted, it’s not as if Daniels couldn’t address the alleged haunting – in previous interviews, she famously described the ghost-which-was-really-a-possum in as a “non-human thing with tentacles” (which, if nothing else, makes us wonder whether her career has a future in Japan) – but one has to wonder why, given quotes like this, the prosecutors let her take the stand.
It’s not as if their case would have fallen apart without her: that “honor” belongs to debarred lawyer Michael Cohen, whose testimony proved, at best, suggestive but inconclusive. Daniels, on the other hand, was only the beneficiary of the alleged “hush money” payments; she wasn’t privy to any incriminating conversations about the motive behind those payments. If President Trump were on trial for soliciting her “services,” that’d be one thing, but he’s not. He’s on trial for the legal arcana behind how she was paid. What’s more, Daniels arguably perjured herself on the stand, when she claimed that she had felt threatened by Trump during their tryst, an allegation which was refuted by… Stormy Daniels in an interview with Bill Maher in 2018. As President Trump himself might say, they’re not sending their best.
Which brings us to the actual question we have after watching not just this debacle, but the numerous other issues which have beset practically every case against President Trump: is this a joke?
No, seriously, is Ashton Kutcher going to pop out and tell us we’ve been punk’d at the end of this? Because increasingly, we’re beginning to think there’s no other possible explanation for the utterly bizarre, and easily avoided problems that seem to be cropping up with the Left’s legal cases against President Trump. To be honest, the whole thing reminds us of Herman Cain’s 2012 campaign for president, in which the candidate’s gaffes – such as literally quoting a song from the “Pokemon” movie and drawing his tax plan from the video game Sim City – were so perfectly, eerily absurd that they looked more like performance art than actual politics. So, too, have the Left’s legal cases against Trump begun to resemble the world’s most intricate Andy Kaufman skit.
The Atlanta case against Trump? Nearly derailed by the fact that DA Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade were engaged in…let’s call it an unlawful act of congress. What’s more, the funds which paid for Wade’s salary are now under investigation by the House of Representatives. Wade has tried to claim that his affair with Willis was “as American as apple pie,” which if your only frame of reference is the movie “American Pie,” we understand, but otherwise is nonsensical.
Special Prosecutor Jack Smith? Not only is the case currently mired in appeals, and possibly due to be gutted by the United States Supreme Court in two separate cases, but now Smith has been forced to admit to misleading a judge and tampering with the evidence. This from a man who used to work at the Hague. If only Elle Woods showed up on Trump’s defense team, we’d have the greatest parody of the American legal system ever witnessed.
…Except, of course, for the New York case, whose first (unhelpful) witness was literally named David Pecker; whose star witness was literally disbarred for his lack of legal ethics; and whose most memorable witness was a porn star who (as we already established) claimed to live in a haunted house. We would say that if a New York jury still finds Trump guilty after this freak show of a trial, then justice is truly dead in the state, but in truth, the case shouldn’t even get to the jury in the first place. President Trump’s lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss and acquit him, which Judge Juan Merchan – if he is a judge at all and not simply a partisan hack – should grant, given that the prosecutors themselves seem to have no idea what the crime is, and given that even DA Alvin Bragg wouldn’t have prosecuted this case, if not for a public pressure campaign orchestrated by former NY prosecutor Mark Pomerantz (yes, somehow, Alvin Bragg isn’t as bad as it gets).
So, is this a joke? Yes. Is it an intentional joke? Sadly, probably not. If anything, it seems that the degree to which a Leftist prosecutor experiences Trump Derangement Syndrome inevitably becomes inversely proportional to their actual competence. This, itself, would be funny, if not for the fact that this series of glorified legal pranks has seriously called into question the impartiality of the American justice system, itself. Justice is blind, yes, but – unlike these cases -- justice is not dumb. However, we, at least, would appreciate it if the prosecutors involved stopped acting as if the American people are dumb. Because to believe any of this, you’d have to be.
