Newsletter: How to cut through the breathless TV coverage of Trump’s hush money trial

Good morning. I’m Paul Thornton, and it is Saturday, May 25, 2024. Here’s what we’ve been doing in Opinion.

Donald Trump’s hush money/election interference trial (our readers have thoughts on what it should be called) in New York has wrapped, awaiting only closing arguments before finally heading to the jury. I say “finally,” because while a roughly monthlong process isn’t lengthy by high-profile criminal trial standards (recall the O.J. Simpson courtroom drama lasted nearly nine months), the breathless, moment-by-moment, cable-TV coverage made it feel like we were actually watching the paint dry on all those courtroom sketches.

There was the coverage of Stormy Daniels’ testimony that focused as much on the tawdry details she shared of her alleged hotel-room encounter with Trump as it did on why, exactly, the prosecution would want to put her on the stand in a case about fraudulent business records. (Answer: So the jury could take the “measure of the woman who propelled the crisis and about whom they had heard so much.”)

There was also the focus on former Trump fixer Michael Cohen’s “demeanor” during his days of testimony and cross-examination, which gave TV watchers more puerile courtroom drama (Trump was sleeping! Or he was faking it to throw shade!) than the centrality of Cohen’s role in this case. (Answer: “If the cornerstone of the defense is what will no doubt be a savage cross-examination of Cohen, the foundation of the government’s case is its corroboration of his testimony.”)

The excerpts above are from pieces on the trial by Harry Litman, a U.S. Justice Department veteran and our legal affairs columnist. I note Litman’s work on the Trump prosecution — and he has been commenting plenty on it — to make the point that while much of the coverage may have left the public with a superficial understanding of the case it’s still important to follow the trial rather than just ignore it out of Trump fatigue or frustration with the media’s Trump obsession.

And in my view, Litman’s commentary has consistently cut through the attention-grabbing details and explained the process that could result in either Trump’s acquittal or the first-ever criminal conviction of a former U.S. president. Understanding those details in real time lends legitimacy to whatever the jury decides, and widespread acceptance of the verdict will be crucial to maintaining order as we head toward the 2024 election.

With Trump’s defense having rested its case on Tuesday, what does Litman think the likeliest outcome will be? In his latest column, he writes: “With the standing caveat that it takes only one juror to block a unanimous guilty verdict — and that the law puts the greatest burden on prosecutors — the case as it has come in puts the district attorney’s office in the driver’s seat going into next week’s closing arguments.”

So, advantage prosecution. But if you’ve been reading Litman’s columns, you’d know it could go the other way too, despite the preponderance of evidence arguing for Trump’s guilt. And you’ll accept the jury’s verdict, no matter how pleased or angry it makes you.

“Going vegan is manly” — there’s an idea I can get behind, as readers of last Saturday’s newsletter on lab-grown meat might have guessed. “Many men also pride themselves on being protectors — especially protectors of their family and home,” Mark Hawthorne writes in his op-ed on rethinking ideas on masculinity and diet. “Since veganism means abstaining from the exploitation and consumption of animals, vegans participate in the protection of countless vulnerable species and the environment.”

Looks like there’s a new mountain lion in Griffith Park. Let’s try not to kill him. If the puma recently seen in grainy footage prowling through Griffith Park has actually taken up full-time residence there, he’ll face the same threats — rat poison and car traffic, among others — that ultimately doomed the beloved P-22. Times editorial board member Carla Hall hopes that some of the recent changes we’ve made to help urban wildlife will help this cat and others survive.

The world needs to put two-state facts on the ground and give Palestinians hope. Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab says people in Gaza are being slaughtered by the thousands and nearly all political avenues for peace have been cut off. The only way to restore hope among the people, he writes, is for global powers to take concrete steps that make the establishment of a Palestinian state possible: Deploy an international force to protect and separate Israelis and Palestinians, invest in rebuilding infrastructure and take further action that will allow a future state to sustain itself.

Thirty years ago, Grace Paley foresaw today’s clash over antisemitism. In her 1991 story “Three Days and a Question,” the Jewish American author, who died 17 years ago, tells of a scene in New York that highlighted the tension within the Jewish community over what constitutes antisemitism. “In recent months, as clashes over the war in Gaza have fractured American campuses — including my own at UCLA — I’ve been thinking frequently” about Paley’s work, writes professor Michael Rothberg.

More from this week in opinion

From our columnists

• Jackie Calmes: Will voters get the message that our judicial system is on the 2024 ballot too?
• Robin Abcarian: This is what it took to expose Sean “Diddy” Combs’ abuse of his girlfriend

From the op-ed desk

• Most older Americans who need hearing aids don’t use them. Here’s how to change that
• California will force Malibu and other towns to add housing. Here’s why that’s not nearly enough

From the editorial board

• Israeli and Palestinian leaders once shared a peace prize. Now they may share war crimes charges
• Four years after George Floyd and now we have the backlash

Letters to the editor

• Don’t buy California’s $20-billion delta tunnel price tag
• To Biden’s liberal critics: I hope you’re happy with President Trump
• Hamas’ barbarity and the rules of war we expect Israel to obey