"I enjoy reading Deadline Legal. Your coverage of this trial commonly refers to it (like many other media) as the 'Hush Money' matter.
But, your space is dedicated to legal overviews, so I do wonder why the charges of election interference and business record falsification (in aid of the alleged election interference) are trivialized in Deadline: Legal to a 'hush money' issue so easily. I ask because if former President Trump were found guilty, then his criminal doings may effectively have been the steal by the ex-president of the 2016 presidential election.
We'll never know for sure, but that's why this is such an important trial, it's not really a 'hush money' case. I guess the question is, why doesn't your column want to be a bit more on the nose in this important respect?"
— Phil Jackson, Toronto
Hi Phil,
You're correct that the "hush money" label risks trivializing the election subversion aspect. And I don't feel any particular attachment to the phrase. But it's partly a question of what's the exact alternative, to say nothing of changing a phrase that's already in the public consciousness (with the understanding that it's there, in part, because of the media framing). And while style choices like these aren't necessarily up to individual writers in large media organizations, it's worth unpacking the alternatives, if only to help understand what the case is really about and how those alternatives likewise fall short.
Let's start with the charges: falsifying business records. We could call it the falsifying business records case, but that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue or, more importantly, capture the essence of the matter. So if we look for other shorthands, the question is how do we concisely capture that essence without sacrificing accuracy or clarity?
This case poses a difficult task in that regard. Trump isn't charged with election interference like he is in the Washington, D.C., or Georgia cases (and while we're chatting semantics, I find "interference" to be weak as compared to a more active word like "subversion"). If you look at the Manhattan indictment, it has charged Trump over actions that he allegedly committed in 2017 — after the 2016 election. So it's more like he's charged with covering up election interference. We could call it the "election interference cover-up case," which I don't hate but is a little long-winded. Perhaps the "election cover-up case"?
All of that's to say there are different ways to shorthand People v. Trump, each with its own shortcomings. Maybe there's something to be said for not giving cases such nicknames at all, especially when the charges leave the characterizations open to debate. O.J. Simpson's recent death reminded the world of his closely watched murder trial. That's an easy one to describe because Simpson was tried on (and acquitted of) murder charges. With Trump, the issue stems partly from business-records crimes not being immediately familiar to the public in the way that murder is, combined with the phrase not fully describing the case. But I understand and appreciate the "hush money" criticism and hope this answer at least gives a window into my thinking on the subject.
