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).

"Understanding racialized space in architecture."

WATCH: The *very real* mayor of West Hollywood attempts to explain—to an increasingly hopeless @BenKawaller—the epidemic of “racialized” and “gendered architecture” in his city.

Get more of “Ben Meets America!”—West Hollywood edition: https://t.co/yGvWguqS4x pic.twitter.com/4Npwfh0DUf

— The Free Press (@TheFP) May 29, 2024

We see the mayor of West Hollywood trying to explain how architecture — which he pronounces "architexture" — has to do with race and gender.

He's got a tough argument explaining the connection to race, but come on, architecture is obviously gendered! I'm thinking of skyscrapers and phallic symbols, but here's something I found at The Architectural Review: "The gender of genius," by Hilde Heynen. Excerpt:

Appropriating this video to make assertions about what "what leftism does to you" is deeply sick.

This is what leftism does to you. It destroys the mind, body, and soul. pic.twitter.com/rBHZzp1EeR

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 29, 2024

1. The woman in the video does not say anything about her politics or purport to explain herself in terms of politics.

2. It's a tragic case, and you shouldn't be cheaply triumphing or laughing.

3. If you think the old version of this woman shows a natural beauty she once possessed, then you don't know much about beauty filters and makeup.

4. She was trying to be pretty in the old days, and then she decided to try to be something more like what she felt inside and not like what she had to torment herself thinking society wanted from her. The new look, however, expresses that torment. So she remains, now permanently, in thrall to society’s expectations.

"Crazy thing that we still do as human beings. And the problem is, I don't see a way out of it because terrorists are real."

"Criminals are real bad. People are real. This is the world we're living in. Unless you take mushrooms, we gotta get mushrooms legal for the entire country, the whole country and just force them down. Everybody's throat, force people to do mushrooms do it for everyone else."

Said Joe Rogan, an hour into his 3-hour podcast with Duncan Trussell.

The "crazy thing" under discussion was war and "any kind of violence — like stabbing your neighbor."

The question whether the category "any kind of violence" includes forcing drugs down "everybody's throat" was not noticed by Rogan or Trussell. Obviously, the answer is yes. Note the incoherence: If "mushrooms" were the cure to violence, someone who's had the cure would not recommend violence.

I wanted to add a note about the decades old idea of putting LSD in the water supply and googled "plan to put lsd in the water." I was thinking about hippies, but my screen filled up with items about the CIA. I'll just link to this BBC article from 2010: "Pont-Saint-Esprit poisoning: Did the CIA spread LSD?"

Sunrise — 5:15, 5:17, 5:21, 5:26.

What gender gap?

"Most hair-raising of all, is the boymom a nightmare of toxic narcissism and internalized misogyny who sees her son as a crypto-romantic interest..."

"... and other girls and women—even her own daughters—as her nemeses?... [O]ne wrote of the moment that 'you realize [you’re] gonna have to share the love of your life (my baby boy) with another female one day'..."

Writes Jessica Winter, in "The Trials and Tribulations of the Boymom/A new book encapsulates the zero-sum thinking that affects much of contemporary parenting discourse" (The New Yorker).

About that book — 'BoyMom: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity' [commission earned]... we're told the author Ruth Whippman "gave birth to her youngest in 2017, the year that Donald Trump took office and the first avalanche of #MeToo revelations broke":

"The judge has now arrived at the reason prosecutors charged Trump with falsifying business records as a felony: Because, they say..."

"... he covered up a second crime, violating the state election law that forbids a conspiracy to aid a person’s election by unlawful means. The judge didn’t call specific attention to the layered nature of the two crimes — but this is where things get complicated. Some of the jurors are taking notes."

From the NYT's live reporting of Justice Merchan's reading his instructions to the jury.

The layered nature.... layered or circular? Is a misdemeanor transformed into a felony by counting the same "unlawful means" twice? 

The same NYT reporter, a couple minutes later, writes: "Justice Merchan is now explaining to the jurors what I’ve taken to thinking of as the 'false records sandwich' prosecution theory. Under this theory, jurors could find that Trump falsified records… to hide an election conspiracy that used the unlawful means…of other falsified records." 

ALSO: "[The judge] says that, to find Trump guilty of the first charge, jurors would have to find that Trump, personally or acting in concert with others, made or caused a false entry in business records.... They would also have to find that Trump caused that false record with intent to defraud — that is, with the goal of keeping it secret — and that he either intended to commit another crime or aid the commission of another crime." What is the other crime? 

"’The fact is whether he’s acquitted, whether it’s hung jury, whatever it is, he is guilty, and we all know it,' the actor said..."

"... after the news conference, as a rowdy group of Trump supporters confronted him and yelled insults before he left. 'I’ve never seen a guy get out of so many things, and we all know this. Everybody in the world knows this.' Asked if he thought Mr. Trump should be in jail, Mr. De Niro replied: 'I sure do. Absolutely.' The foray by a Biden surrogate into commentary about Mr. Trump’s guilt... was a stark departure from the president’s directive to avoid discussing his rival’s felony charges. Mr. Biden has said next to nothing on the subject, to avoid feeding the false Trump-inspired narrative that he ordered prosecutors to bring criminal charges against his predecessor. The moment illustrated how difficult it may be for the Biden campaign to navigate its response to a potential verdict, with outside allies far more willing than his disciplined operation in Wilmington, Del., to lob frontal attacks at Mr. Trump over his legal peril...."

From "Robert De Niro, as Biden Surrogate, Says Trump ‘Absolutely’ Should Go to Jail/Seeking to troll Donald Trump outside his Manhattan trial, the Biden campaign held a news conference with the actor and two former Capitol Police officers. Mr. De Niro veered off script" (NYT).

"He has found snakes, and even a freshwater eel, in his pool, but the water is clear enough that he can spot animals before there’s trouble."

From "Come On Over, I Just Installed a Pond/Backyards that feature natural pools trade chlorine for plants, don’t need to be closed for winter and may feature kois with names like Cutie" (NYT).

I'm skeptical!  The "he" who "can spot animals before there’s trouble" is a man whose business is installing "natural" pools.

By the way, I love the subreddit, r/FindTheSniper, which features photographs where it's hard to see the snake (or other wildlife). I'm now convinced that I've walked by many snakes.

Anyway, let's say you do spot the snake before there’s "trouble," what do you do? I think you back off, and in the end, cede the pond territory to the wild things. Who is in the business of removing "natural" ponds (and their creepy denizens)?