Sunrise — 5:05, 5:10, 5:15, 5:18, 5:23.

"This was never about justice — this is about plastering 'convicted felon' all over the airwaves. The only thing that Donald Trump is guilty of is being in the courtroom of a political sham trial."

Said J.D. Vance, quoted in "Trump’s Conviction Binds the G.O.P. Even Closer to Him/Prominent Republicans, including congressional leaders, ex-rivals and potential running mates, basked in the energy, and fund-raising, of an outraged base" (NYT).

Also: "Whether they were congressional leaders, potential running mates or onetime rivals, prominent Republicans’ [made a] speedy alignment behind Mr. Trump, with little dissent or discussion.... 'People now see Donald Trump as a symbol of something,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on Fox News on Friday. 'He’s more than just an individual. He’s a symbol of fighting back against this government corruption, the deep state, the bureaucracy and all the rest.'... Those few who offered even muted words of respect for 'the legal process' earned immediate rebukes.

"A Trump supporter who’s outraged by the verdict is not going to be moved for calm by any Democratic president or Republican president who does not back Donald Trump."

"Even if Biden were not his political opponent, if you’re so outraged by the verdict that you’re ready to take to the street, a Democratic president is not going to reach you. That’s the sad reality of being president today."

Said Jennifer Palmieri, "a former communications director for Hillary Clinton," quoted in "At a Moment of National Trauma, Biden Feels Compelled to Stay on the Sidelines/While presidents typically play a pastoral role after court cases that tear at the national fabric, the incumbent was effectively conflicted out" (NYT).

I think if Biden were at all presentable and capable of reassuring and calming the country, appropriate words could be written for him for him to step up and deliver.

Also, who's "ready to take to the street"? We're not seeing that. And if we were, it would be more important for the President of the United States to show some leadership.

The Trump press conference.

"[T]he conviction of a former president is novel only in the American context."

"Many global heads of state of democratic countries (France, Japan, Israel, etc.) have gone to prison.... The incongruity of the Manhattan case as the venue for Trump’s legal humiliation is that it did not represent his worst crimes, or close to it. The case was always marginal, the kind of charge you would never bring against a regular first-time offender. It was the sort of charge you’d concoct if the target is a bad guy and you want to nail him for something. This, too, is not without precedent. Al Capone’s conviction for tax evasion is the paradigmatic example.... The legal ramifications of this weakness will play out in some indeterminate, possibly terrible fashion.... Life isn’t fair, nor is the legal system...."

Writes Jonathan Chait, in "Trump’s Conviction Means Less Than You Might Think/A lot depends on what happens next" (NY Magazine).

Possibly terrible.... It's obviously terrible. It's only a question of which form of terribleness lies ahead.

So Chait is openly saying the the legal system isn't fair and Trump was convicted for being "a bad guy." You want us non-haters to just accept that, as if it's a form of world-weary sophistication? No, you will have to bear the weight of the consequences of persecuting a political opponent. You should not get off easy. 

"‘I just didn’t recognise him!’ TikToker interviews Baz Luhrmann without knowing who he is – and they talk group sex."

The Guardian reports.

Ha ha ha. Why should she recognize him? Baz Luhrmann is quite famous, but he's not a famous face, and even when someone has a famous face, would you recognize that face if it turned up randomly on the street? You wouldn't know if you didn't. And how many times have you had to say, "Was that [name of celebrity]?" Ever been in the middle of a conversation with someone and had the sneaking suspicion that he thinks you're supposed to know he's somebody? Like Luhrmann in that video, most celebrities, I believe, would refrain from saying the dreaded words "Don't you know who I am?"

Anyway, it's a hilarious conversation. Luhrmann says something about marriage that the TikTokker, Georgia Godworth, paraphrases as “It’s a loose contract where you can fuck other people occasionally.” Luhrmann continues the conversation thoughtfully and politely. Watch the whole thing.

"So if your wife flies a flag you don't like and you can't work it out, your choices are to let her continue flying the flag and stay married or get divorced..."

"... or move out in some other capacity. And if your wife's language is flags and she's angry, and so she's decides to fly this distress flag that had been used by the George Floyd protestors by the stop the steal protestors, basically by protestors across the ideological spectrum. And you're like, Hey, but sweetheart, they're going to think that you are associating yourself with Stop the Steal. And then she goes into some sort of rant about how dare you accuse her of that. And that flag's staying up because you know what? They called me, they followed me in front of my home and their car and called me the C word. And then she like goes to bed and refuses to take down the flag.... What are you supposed to do?... This is like a feminist rant for me.... [T]his is private conduct by a private individual who is married to a Supreme Court justice. Why isn't she entitled to that?.... Think he should recuse because we can't prove that he wasn't involved?"

Says Sarah Isgur in the new episode of the "Advisory Opinions" podcast.

David French insists that he wouldn't allow a flag he didn't agree with to fly in front of his house, and the two go back and forth about how a man would physically accomplish the removal of the flag his wife insisted on flying.

For reference, here's what Alito wrote:

"That 12 Americans could sit in judgment of the former and potentially future president is a remarkable display of the democratic principles that Americans prize at work."

The Editorial Board of The New York Times declares, gesturing at the dubious notion that Donald Trump was treated the same as anyone else.

"[T]he greatest good to come out of this sordid case is the proof that the rule of law binds everyone, even former presidents."

Proof? Binds everyone, perhaps, but not in the same way. 

I agree that the case was sordid, but which way was it sordid? The NYT has taken a position on what is the "greatest good" to come out of this case. Tell me also: What is the greatest evil?

"In a complaint filed Wednesday... Justen Lipeles... alleges that [Madonna concert] attendees were subjected to 'pornography without warning'..."

"... including 'topless women on stage simulating sex acts' in an uncomfortable, sweltering environment. He claims that Madonna demanded the air conditioning be turned off and he became physically ill in the heat. Lipeles also cites Madonna's tardiness.... 'Forcing consumers to wait hours in hot, uncomfortable arenas and subjecting them to pornography without warning is demonstrative of Madonna's flippant disrespect for her fans'...."

From "Madonna hit with new lawsuit alleging unwanted exposure to sexual content and emotional distress/California concert attendee Justen Lipeles is the latest to sue the pop star over her 'Celebration' tour" (Entertainment Weekly).

It was hot and she was late are not interesting complaints. The key phrase here is "pornography without warning." I remember seeing "Marat/Sade" in New York in the 1960s when I was a teenager and feeling quite surprised to see the lead actor become completely naked at one point. Somehow I dealt with it. Should I have been warned? It was supposed to be shocking, not that it was "pornography without warning." It was about revolution and madness, not sex.

Maybe some people would like advance consent to anything sexual, including a theatrical performance. Isn't it enough to know it's Madonna? Who goes to a Madonna concert then complains about topless women on stage simulating sex acts?

Sunrise — 5:02.

The Trump verdict is in.

Waiting...

From WaPo: "Trump was looking cheerful and relaxed, sharing smiles and laughs with his lawyers, as they prepared to leave for the day. As soon as the judge announced that instead we had a verdict, his demeanor changes dramatically. He crossed his arms and knitted his brows. He continued to whisper with attorney Todd Blanche, but no longer cheerfully."

ADDED: An acquittal will do Biden a favor. This story will fade into obscurity.

UPDATE from NYT: "One juror appeared to glance at Trump. The others didn’t."

UPDATE 2 FROM NYT:

Trump is guilty on first eight counts

Counts 9 through 11 are guilty

 UPDATE 3 FROM NYT: 

Trump is unresponsive, sitting slack at the defense table.

ADDED: There goes my hope that this could fade into obscurity. I'm steeling myself for the onslaught of spinning. Too much anxiety and no hope of anything like a normal presidential election. Is this what we, the People, deserve?

AND: Trump speaks. NYT reports it like this: 

“This was a disgrace,” Trump says. “This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt.”

Trump is significantly less animated than he has been as he rattles off the familiar lines that have characterized his remarks in the hallway for much of the trial. He seems more sober.

He closes by saying, “We will fight for our Constitution. This is long from over.” Then, looking more somber than I have seen him at any point in the last several months, he walks away from the cameras and does not answer questions.

Video here.

AND: My transcription: "It's okay. I'm fighting for our country. I'm fighting for our Constitution.... This was done by the Biden administration, in order to wound or hurt a political opponent. And I think it's just a disgrace. And we'll keep fighting. We'll fight to the end. And we'll win. Because our country's gone to hell. We don't have the same country anymore. We have a divided mess. We're a nation in decline, serious decline. Millions and millions of people pouring into our country right now — from prisons and from mental institutions — terrorists — and they're taking over our country. We have a country that's in big trouble. But this was a rigged decision, right from day one, with a conflicted judge who should have never been allowed to try this case — never. And we will fight for our Constitution. This is far from over."

ALSO: Strange how he slotted in the immigration issue. It seemed as though he started in on his rally speech beginning with "our country's gone to hell" and then he could have gone through a list, but he only got to one item — I presume it's his #1 issue — illegal immigration

ODDLY: The NYT coverage has an embedded Biden tweet that has a "donate" button:

"Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s 'threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means ofcoercion' against a third party 'to achieve the suppression' of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment...."

"Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that. As superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, Vullo allegedly pressured regulated entities to help her stifle the NRA’s pro-gun advocacy by threatening enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups. Those allegations, if true, state a First Amendment claim."

Writes Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a unanimous Supreme Court, in National Rifle Association v. Maria Vullo, issued this morning.

Justice Gorsuch adds a very concise concurrence:

"The prosecution theory is essentially a Russian nesting doll of criminal violations..."

"... under New York law, falsifying business records is a felony only if the records were falsified in furtherance of another crime. Prosecutors have said that other crime was violating a state law against unlawfully promoting or preventing an election. But the 'unlawful' reference in the state code has to refer to a distinct, different crime. In Trump’s case, prosecutors have offered three types of crimes that would make the state election-meddling charge come into play: federal election law crimes, tax crimes or false business records. The jury must be unanimous when it comes to determining whether Trump is guilty or not guilty of each specific falsifying business records count, and whether he did so in an effort to unlawfully impact an election, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan said. He added, however, that the panel did not have to be unanimous about which of those three types of crimes could serve as the underlying violation that brings the state election charge into play."

Writes Devlin Barrett, in "Jurors must be unanimous to convict Trump, can disagree on underlying crimes/While jurors deliberated in the first trial of a former U.S. president, Donald Trump railed online against one feature of the charges he faces" (WaPo).

Trump's on-line railing said the judge didn't require "a unanimous decision." And you can see why he said that. The WaPo article makes the unfairness clear enough. It doesn't come out and say Trump is right, but it refrains from saying he's wrong. I don't think he's wrong. It's hard to believe something so complicated was piled together. I'd love to hear the jury trying to sort this out. I'm picturing them puzzled to the point of exasperation. If one juror were able to explain the instruction correctly, I would expect responses like "You've got to be kidding" and "What did you even just say?"

I've got a bit of a theme going now, so I'm going to have to talk about what Jerry Seinfeld said.

And I'm choosing the A.V. Club article, because it's got an excellent headline, "Jerry Seinfeld still talking, even though Pop-Tarts movie came out like a month ago/Seinfeld was waxing nostalgic for 'cultural hierarchy' and 'dominant masculinity' for some incomprehensible reason."

I like the generosity of crediting Jerry with reason, and I feel challenged to comprehend what the A.V. Club writer, William Hughes, purports not to comprehend. And it better not just be that Jerry Seinfeld, a comedian, was joking. That would be boring. Let's read. Jerry went on Bari Weiss's podcast and...

Seinfeld agreed, in the interview, with Weiss’ assertion that part of the guiding philosophy of the ’60s-set Unfrosted—which contains, among other things, a scene that is literally Mad Men fan fiction, complete with Jon Hamm and John Slattery reprising their parts—was a return to that age of “style.” “I miss a dominant masculinity,” Seinfeld said, being careful, admittedly, to note that he doesn’t consider himself part of the list of “real men” he admires. (Including JFK, Muhammad Ali, Sean Connery, and, apparently, Howard Cosell.) “Yeah, I get the toxic thing,” he said with deliberate dismissiveness. “But I still like a real man.”

"[P]erhaps one-third of today’s young Americans will never marry, with couples living together not replacing marriages."

"More people, [says sociologist Brad Wilcox], are simply detached and on their own. Some women in America have publicly proclaimed that they are distancing themselves from men, abstaining from sex or going 'boy sober.'... One window into gender tensions is a viral meme on TikTok in which women discuss whether they would rather encounter a bear in the woods or a man. Many go with the bear. Young people are not only marrying less and partnering less; they’re also having less sex.... To me, the fundamental problem is the struggle of men to adapt to a world in which brawn matters less than brains, education and emotional intelligence.... I fear that I’m a romantic in a world that is becoming less romantic."

Writes Nicholas Kristof, in "Less Marriage, Less Sex, Less Agreement" (NYT).

Excerpting that quote, I was stunned by the last sentence — where the word "romantic" appears twice — because my post from an hour ago — the one about gendered architecture — features a quote with a distinctive use of that word from an essay called "The Gender of Genius," by Hilde Heynen. I'll re-excerpt from Heynen's essay:

According to Christine Battersby, the way we understand the term genius is rooted in 19th-century Romanticism, which admired originality and creativity in the individual. The Romantic notion of genius referred to men of great intellectual and artistic capacities, who were in touch with their feminine side – for great art requires sensitivity, emotionality and love. The great artist, for the Romantics, was thus a feminine male.... The gradual disappearance of women during the long march towards the top is in part explained by our romantic notion of the architect as artist and genius. As Naomi Stead has noticed, the figure of Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark in The Fountainhead, the ‘arrogant and virile hero architect, casts a long shadow over any discussion of authorship in the discipline’, infusing it with a mystique heralding the creativity of the individual artist-designer

Kristof's usage of "romantic" is so different, but it's an intriguing difference. Kristof is worried that men and women won't enter into romance with each other, and he associates maleness with "brawn" and seems to think men are impaired when it comes to the life of the mind. Heynen is talking about 19th-century Romanticism and an idea that the greatest minds are male.

Would you rather encounter a bear in the woods or 19th-century Romantic genius?

@susankehoe1 This bear likes my company. So he climbs on the deck and sits nearby. I truly believe he likes my company. Please don’t say otherwise🙏 #foryou #bear #love #wildlife #viral #woods #funny #laugh #smile #spirituality #bear #animals #enjoy #hangout #mountains #camp #country ♬ original sound - Susan Kehoe

"Young voters overwhelmingly believe that almost all politicians are corrupt and that the country will end up worse off than when they were born..."

"... according to new polling from Democratic firm Blueprint obtained exclusively by Semafor.... A whopping 65% agreed either strongly or somewhat that 'nearly all politicians are corrupt, and make money from their political power' — only 7% disagreed. 'I think these statements blow me away, the scale of these numbers with young voters,' Evan Roth Smith, Blueprint’s lead pollster, told Semafor. 'Young voters do not look at our politics and see any good guys. They see a dying empire led by bad people.'... 54% — a number that included a solid mix of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents — believed the country is going downhill...."

From "'A dying empire led by bad people': Poll finds young voters despairing over US politics" (Semafor).