All posts by Dr. ESP

In the National Interest II

Random Thoughts

Based on the success of my first novel In the National  Interest, I wondered if there was room for a new fictional genre, implausible conspiracy theories in which the motive and participants were unimaginable.  However, as with my account of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, making the implausible possible depended on the use of the public record to back up the story.  In the National Interest, the counter-intuitive narrative that Kennedy’s death was engineered, not by enemies, but a close advisor at the request of the president himself.  The details are laid out in a contemporaneous journal maintained by one of the individuals tasked with planning and carrying out the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Following last Thursday conviction of Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business documents to coverup a sexual encounter with an adult film actress right before the 2016 presidential election, I wondered if this format that worked once, might work again.  The premise was simple.  Was there something not quite kosher about the relative ease with which the jury so quickly came to a unanimous verdict on all counts?  If so, had someone who put a thumb on the scale kept a journal of the process he or she used?  And who might that be, especially if it was someone least expected to want to see the ex-president go down?

NOTE:  The following is an abridged version of a fictional account of the behind the scenes conspiracy to ensure Donald Trump would be convicted using the public record including transcripts of the trial.

My first clue something was afoot came when, the evening after Donald Trump’s conviction, CNN anchor Kaitlin Collins asked lead defense attorney Todd Blanche whether he or his client was responsible for the defense strategy.  In response Blanche told Collins he and Trump made decisions as a team, adding the following justification which was contrary to everything I had ever heard about the attorney/client relationship in a criminal trial.

It was both of us.  If there’s a lawyer that comes in and says that they’re in charge of their defense strategy, they’re not doing a service to their client.

Todd Blanche is no Rudy Giuliani or Jenna Ellis, both of whom have lost their licenses to practice law for malpractice in the service of Trump.  He had experience as a prosecutor and was well thought of in New York legal circles.  Moreover, he had resigned as a partner in one of Wall Street’s most prestigious firms, moved to Florida, bought a home near Mar-a-Lago and started his own firm where Donald Trump would become his primary client.  According to the New York Times, Blanche’s former colleagues during his tenure as prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York are baffled by “a striking career move–forfeiting a lucrative law firm partnership to represent a man notorious for cycling through lawyers and ignoring their bills.”

The New York trial is only one of three in which Blanche Law (his new firm) is representing Trump including the Mar-a-Lago documents and the federal January 6 cases.  In these cases, Blanche and his team have focused on ensuring neither goes to trial before the November 5, 2024 election.  One can only imagine why a lawyer who had to deal with Trump’s in-court and out-of-court behavior in a case he had the best chance of winning would want to risk becoming known as a three time loser if the Supreme Court and Aileen Cannon ever let the either two go to trial.  UNLESS, having played in Trump’s legal sandbox for years before the current spate of indictments–he also represented Paul Manafort–he decides, in the national interest, maybe I should help take down this narcissistic psychopath.

If so, he then had to ask, how could I do this?  To see the answer, all you have to do follow the New York falsified business records trial.  Consider the following lists of behaviors and arguments which certainly contributed the jury’s guilty verdict.

  1. Involve Trump in decisions related to his defense knowing he will “direct” you to focus on messaging rather than the evidence and the law.
  2. Let Trump think that Juror #2’s presence on the panel, because he included Truth Social as one of his news sources, made a hung jury a slam dunk.  On that assumption, Trump was convinced he could now use the trial for political messaging without fear of a conviction.
  3. Unleash Trump to attack the judge, judge’s staff, witnesses and jury knowing it would result in a gag order his client would violate, irritating the judge.  All the while, standing stoically beside him to cover his complicity in Trump’s self-destructive behavior.
  4. In your opening statement, tell the jury Trump did not have sex with Stormy Daniels.  The jury would know it was a lie, and therefore could not trust anything else Blanche said.
  5. When Trump, for some reason, does not demand that his defense team challenge the accounts offered by David Pecker and Hope Hicks, let him have his way.  Was Trump afraid they, especially Pecker, had even more dirt on him?
  6. Obviously, vendetta-seeking Trump wanted to use the trial to destroy Stormy Daniels?  Instead, Blanche and his co-counsel Susan Necheles decided to slut-shame her, making her more of a sympathetic witness than she deserved to be.
  7. Trump’s motive for dealing with Michael Cohen was the same.  How could Blanche make this backfire?  First, bore the jury to sleep with hours of cross-examination that achieved nothing except to have Cohen simply confirm everything he had admitted during direct questioning.  Second, set up a “gotcha” moment which, maybe just maybe, Blanche suspected the prosecution could undercut with a time-synced video of Trump and his “bag man” Keith Shiller.
  8. Trump tells the defense team they have to call Robert Costello to bury Cohen, based on Costello fiery testimony before House Republicans accusing the Biden Administration (without evidence) of weaponizing the Department of Justice.  Blanche knows it will be a disaster based on the emails and text messages provided by the DA’s office during discovery.  But he gives Trump his wish anyway.
  9. In his final summation, Blanche continues to tell the jury the payments are for legitimate legal services, something he knows is not true and nobody on the jury will believe.
  10. Still unsure if he has convinced the jurors that Trump should be found guilty, Blanche hammers the final nail into his client’s coffin.  In his closing he says, “You cannot send someone to prison, you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen.”  Blanche knew this inappropriate behavior, referencing sentencing when the juror has no role in that process, would infuriate Judge Merchan.  And Merchan would give the jury curative instructions which would telegraph his displeasure.

One or two unintentional mistakes by a legal team are understandable during a seven week trial.  But ten suggests a strategy.  And there are only two explanations.  Knowing they could not win on the evidence, Blanche risked his reputation so Trump’s appeal lawyers could point to these “errors” and suggest Blanche and his team were guilty of malpractice.  Or, having become frustrated with Trump’s trying to play lawyer, Blanche decided, “I’ll show this know-it-all SOB just how stupid he is.  And I dare him to accuse us of misrepresenting him.”

Where is Occam and his razor when we really need them.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The Truth and Consequences

Media

Like many anxious Americans, I spent much of this past week flipping between MSNBC and CNN looking for the best coverage of the Trump falsified business records/hush money/election interference trial.  MSNBC provided the best analysis with its stable of experienced former prosecutors and defense lawyers including Lisa Rubin, Neal Katyal, Harry Littman, Joyce Vance and Barbara McQuade.  However, the quality of their coverage depended on a full house of distinguished attorneys and journalists, who not only knew the law, but knew how Donald Trump responds to it.  Andrew Weissman, lead investigator for special counsel Robert Mueller.  New York Times investigative reporter Susanne Craig, who shared a Pulitzer Prize, with two colleagues, for their coverage of Trump’s finances including the fact he paid a total of $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and paid none in 10 of the 15 previous years.  Tristan Snell, a former New York state assistant attorney general, who lead the successful prosecution of Trump University which resulted in a $25 million settlement to the enrollees he defrauded.

The MSNBC coup d’état was snagging Lachlan Cartwright, the assistant editor at the National Enquirer during the period publisher David Pecker and editor Dylan Howard, in his words, “…transformed the grocery store tabloid into a criminal enterprise.”  He wrote a detailed memoir of his time at the National Enquirer in an April 2024 New York Times Magazine article “What I Saw Working at the National Enquirer during Donald Trump’s Rise.”  On Friday’s edition of “Deadline White House with Nicolle Wallace,” Cartwright revealed he was the source who provided information for the November 4, 2016 Wall Street Journal article, “National Enquirer Shielded Donald Trump from Playboy Model’s Affair Allegation,” which first exposed the “catch and kill” conspiracy.

Where CNN excelled was in the most up-to-date blogging of testimony from the overflow room at the courthouse.  (NOTE TO MSNBC HR:  Hire faster typists.) Moreover, CNN anchors, before analyzing the testimony, read the blogs as they came in, which proved indispensable for SiriusXM listeners who could not see the running dialogue on a sidebar.

For my regular followers, do not worry.  I am not planning to become a full time media critic.  As always, my goal is to find the story that everyone missed or got wrong.  In this case, it was the propensity of reporters and pundits on all of the media outlets to downplay the importance of this trial.  I realized how ludicrous this was when MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos described how he thought trial judge Juan Merchan might calculate appropriate punishment for the crimes committed.  He tried to explain how this was different from most false business records cases because the crime is usually tied to some monetary benefit (e.g. inflating value of an asset or tax evasion).  At which point, he said something that struck a nerve.  I do not have the transcript so I can only paraphrase.  Cevallos suggested there were no victims other than the voters because no individuals lost money as result of the conspiracy.  And the consequences of the January 6 trial and the classified records trial are more apparent and serious.

Sorry Danny.  You can only reach that conclusion, if you do not look hard enough.  I would argue this crime was the most consequential of any of the charges against Trump.   Why? The violent insurrection failed and Joe Biden was sworn in as president two weeks later.  He may have pressured Georgia election officials to change the vote count, but, in the end, he failed to get the state’s electoral votes.  The on-going investigation of the documents case may reveal more serious crimes based on who may or may not have been given access, but Trump is certainly under constant scrutiny to ensure he can do no further damage.

In this case, despite being found guilty, the conspiracy worked.  He became president of the United States.  He appointed three individuals to life-time appointments to the Supreme Court who perjured themselves before the Senate Judiciary Committee when asked about the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade.  Danny, do you think nobody has suffered monetarily from the Dobbs decision?  Or there is no financial element to the Court’s consistent judgments in favor of business over labor.

And how about the non-monetary consequences?  Do you think it makes no difference when individuals are denied a constitutional right when the Court dilutes minority voting power based on Supreme Court decisions nullifying the Voting Rights Act and refuses to acknowledge racial gerrymandering?

What about the hardship for families and friends of the 250,000 individuals who died of COVID during Trump’s last year in office when, in March 2020, Donald Trump told Americans there was nothing to worry about despite telling Bob Woodrow the opposite in two months earlier?  And how about the financial stress of those still suffering from long-COVID because of a man whose criminal behavior may have made the difference in the outcome of the 2016 election?

Are there no consequences when he gave away millions of dollars in federal revenue through tax cuts he lied would pay for themselves?  Instead, he added eight trillion dollars to the national debt.  Again Danny, do you really think there are no monetary consequences to the higher interest rates resulting from that gift to the “one percent” and major corporations?

Danny, I could go on and on about the monetary and non-monetary damages caused by this convicted felon, but hopefully you now see the whole picture.  This was the MOST consequential of all the charges against Trump when it comes to impact. 

Though I doubt it will make a difference, the public can send letters to Judge Merchan which will be part of the sentencing input.  I will be submitting a version of this blog for his consideration and urge others, especially if you have evidence that you have suffered from having a truly illegitimate president in the Oval Office.  Address your correspondence to: 

The Honorable Juan M. Merchan
Supreme Court of the State of New York
100 Centre Street
New York, NY  10013

NOTE: You know who got it right?  That liar, cheat and thief Michael Cohen.  In his first interview following the guilty verdict, Cohen urged listeners “not to handicap this trial against the others as if it was a horse race.”  His point, each of Donald Trump’s crimes have serious consequences. 

All you have to do is look.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

A De Niro Moment

Politics

Joe Biden’s campaign has been taking some heat for sponsoring Tuesday’s appearance outside the scene of Donald Trump’s trial by Robert De Niro and police officers who were assaulted by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021.  Yesterday morning, Anand Giridharadas, publisher of the online news service The.Ink, came to the campaign’s and actor’s defense.  He explained how the Donald Trump’s daily comments about his trial was what he called “making meaning” of the proceeding, creating a pre-verdict narrative of prosecution and victimhood.  Giridharadas then pivoted to Democrats’ frustration about their failure to get their message across to voters which he blamed on the campaign’s lack of a clear narrative.

Who better than an actor to engage an audience with a Marvel Universe-like script where the future is at stake due to the efforts of a political Thanos who will do anything to vanquish his enemies and consolidate power under his control.  On Tuesday, De Niro delivered the prologue to that screenplay, describing Trump as a two-bit wannabe dictator who will bully his way to power, if we let him.

We New Yorkers used to tolerate him when he was just another crappy real estate hustler masquerading as a big shot. I love this city. I don’t want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city but the country, and, eventually, he could destroy the world.

There is evidence the De Niro’s presence had the desired effect.  The event was covered by entertain news outlets such as “TMZ” and “Hollywood Tonight” which normally do not feature Biden campaign events.  Moreover, it put Trump on the defensive.  In the middle of closing arguments in his election interference trial, Trump found time to post the following on Truth Social.

I never knew how small, both mentally and physically, Wacko Former Actor Robert De Niro was. Today, De Niro, who suffers from an incurable case of TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, commonly known in the medical community as TDS, was met, outside the Courthouse, with a force far greater than the Radical Left – MAGA. 

His response, as hoped, reminded non-MAGA conservatives that all he cares about is himself and a movement that is no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan.  However, one scene does not translate into a compelling narrative.  It has to be reinforced.  And yet, the campaign does not take advantage of the wealth of material Trump gifts them.  Consider the following example.

On the same day De Niro, et. al., appeared outside the Manhattan courthouse Trump took to Truth Social to endorse MAGA candidate John McGuire, who is challenging House Freedom Caucus chair Bob Good in the GOP primary for Representative Good’s seat.

Bob Good is BAD FOR VIRGINIA, AND BAD FOR THE USA. He turned his back on our incredible movement, and was constantly attacking and fighting me until recently, when he gave a warm and ‘loving’ Endorsement – But really, it was too late.

What was Good’s crime?  He endorsed Ron DeSantis for the Republican nomination for president. However, a la Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell and every other spineless member of the Trump cult, Good genuflected before the MAGA god including an appearance with the blue suit, red tie brigade two weeks earlier at Trump’s trial.

Although I ultimately decided not to throw my hat in the ring for election to the House of Representatives from Florida’s 4th District, I still wake up most mornings thinking about the message I would post.  Here is the my imagined response to Trump’s conviction.

Last night, our incumbent congressman Aaron Bean posted the following on Twitter/X.

STATEMENT ON TRUMP VERDICT: The unprecedented and retaliatory verdict out of New York today was a travesty of justice, plain and simple. This was not a declaration of guilt or indicative of the evidence or the case presented. This was an attempt to derail the election of President Trump in November, and it will not work! We will fight this, and President Trump will have the ultimate verdict in November!

Since the day of Trump’s first indictment, he and sycophants like Aaron have been telling you that Donald Trump is the only thing between you and the deep state which has you next on their list.  Let me ask you a couple of questions.  How many of you have been indicted for having a marital affair?  How many of you have had your homes raided by the FBI?  How many of you have had armed IRS agents raid your home?  I’m pretty sure the answer is ZERO.  And allow me to suggest why.  Because none of you falsified business records to cover up payments to the person with whom you violated your marriage vows.  Because none of you are illegally holding on to classified documents.  Because there are no armed IRS agents out in the field.  If I am your congressman, if there ever was an instance in which the “deep state,” regardless of who was in the White House, violated your rights to privacy and protections under the Constitution, I would make sure there was an investigation and if there was wrongdoing, I would make sure the responsible individuals were held accountable.  However, for 240 years, from 1776 to 2016, no congressman needed to make that pledge because the topic never came up before. But Trump wants you to be scared of something that has never happened before.

Do you honestly believe Donald Trump thinks he needs commission of an actual crime to come after someone?  Based on Trump’s choice to endorse Bob Good’s challenger, even after Good skipped a session of Congress to help Trump circumvent Judge Merchan’s gag order, you now know it is Donald Trump and Aaron Bean who are more likely to turn on you, than it is for the FBI, IRS or any other imaginary enemy in the “deep state.”  Good turned his back on the MAGA movement only if believe Ron DeSantis never ran for governor or president as the post-Trump leader of the MAGA movement.  Which you know is not true.  Therefore, the only thing Good turned his back on was Trump.  For him, that is an unforgiveable crime.

For things I have written about Trump, I assume I am on his retribution list.  If you support the MAGA platform or currently plan to vote for Trump in November, you probably assume you are NOT.  But guess what.  So did Bob Good.

Every Democratic candidate for office this election cycle needs to realize, as marketing guru Donny Deutsch reminded us this morning, the Trump brand took a big hit yesterday.  He is now branded as a convicted felon.  Twelve ordinary citizens proved he is no longer invincible.  And he now holds a place of honor in the “Loser Hall of Fame.”  He has been exposed as a business fraud.  He was held liable in civil court for sexual assault and defamation.  After he became the titular head of the MAGA dominated GOP in November 2016, they have lost majorities in the House, Senate several state legislatures as well as governorships.  And now he has proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of 34 felonies.

Reinforce that message every day, a la Robert De Niro, to “make meaning” of Trump’s behavior and words.

For What It’s Worth.
Dr. ESP

The Fixer

Culture, Politics

For three hours, yesterday morning, Donald Trump’s defense attorney Todd Blanche argued that Michael Cohen, a self-admitted liar, tax evader and thief is not the reformed citizen the district attorney of New York wants the jury to believe.  Joshua Steinglass, who presented the People’s closing argument, rebutted this assumption when he reminded the jurors:

He had a legal title, but he wasn’t in the Trump Organization legal department. He didn’t answer to the general counsel, he answered to the defendant directly, He got the jobs no one else wanted. The jobs that the defendant wanted to keep quiet.

We didn’t choose Michael Cohen to be our witness. We didn’t pick him up at the witness store. The defendant chose Michael Cohen as his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on his behalf.

What Steinglass could have said, but probably chose not to because an immediate defense objection would likely be sustained by Judge Juan Merchan, was evidence throughout the trial that Cohen had been replaced as Trump’s “Mini-Me” by none other than (drum roll) Todd Blanche. Consider the following when Blanche took a page from his client’s playbook, projecting his own behavior on Cohen.  At the end of his closing statement, Blanche ticked off the many times Cohen had lied.  Then he suggested Cohen was still lying, loudly accusing Cohen, syllable by syllable, of “per-ju-ry.”

However, Blanche’s role as the latest in a long line of Trump fixers was evident from day one of the trial.  In his opening statement, Blanche claimed Trump never had a sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels.  Yet, provided no evidence to substantiate this highly suspicious assertion.  Trump no longer needed Cohen or Hope Hicks to “deny, deny, deny!”  He now had Todd Blanche.

Again, with no evidence, Blanche argued that the payments to Cohen were for legal services, despite the fact the transaction was listed in a footnote to Trump’s 2017 financial disclosure statement as follows.

In the interest of transparency, while not required to be disclosed as “reportable liabilities” on Part 8, in 2016 expenses were incurred by one of Donald J. Trump’s attorneys, Michael Cohen. Mr. Cohen sought reimbursement of those expenses and Mr. Trump fully reimbursed Mr. Cohen in 2017. The category of value would be $100,001 – $250,000 and the interest rate would be zero.

We now know, based on Trump Organization’s CFO Allen Weisselberg’s handwritten notes, this “transparent” statement was false since the value of the transaction was actually $420,000, not in the range listed in the footnote.

More direct evidence came from the defendant himself.  In a May 3, 2018 tweet, Trump wrote:

Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement (my emphasis), a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA.

Blanche later proved his client demanded more of his fixer than simply lying.  He also had to cheat in service to his client.  And cheat he did during the trial.  His first defense witness was a paralegal who had constructed an Excel spreadsheet of phone records between Cohen and attorney Robert Costello even though the actual phone records were available.  Blanche used the reconstructed data to claim there had been over 75 calls between Cohen and Costello.  However, during cross-examination the paralegal admitted he did not differentiate between calls in which the two actually conversed versus those that went directly to voicemail, resulting in double-counting the number of actual conversations.

But best evidence of Blanche’s willingness to do anything for his client came in his closing statement when he told the jury, “You cannot send someone to prison, you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen.”  During the next break, Judge Merchan reprimanded Blanche for a clear violation of the rules which forbid attorneys from addressing potential sentencing.

You know that making a comment like that is highly inappropriate. It is simply not allowed. Period. It’s hard for me to imagine that was accidental in any way,

When the jury re-entered the courtroom, Merchan provided the following curative instruction.

In the defense summation, Mr. (Todd) Blanche asked in substance that you not send the defendant to prison. That comment was improper and you must disregard it. In your deliberations, you may not discuss, consider or even speculate as to matters related to sentence or punishment.

Merchan considered this violation so egregious, he added an addendum to the standard jury charge this morning reminding jurors they “may not speculate about matters related to sentence or punishment,” that being the the purview of the judge.

There is a quote about legal strategy attributed to Carl Sandburg. “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”  That may still be true in most cases.  However, if your client is Donald Trump, Sandburg might add, “If that is not enough, lie and cheat.  That is what your client demands of his fixer.”

Michael Cohen served as Trump’s fixer for 10 years.  But not in Judge Merchan’s courtroom.  That title now belongs to Todd Blanche. The only remaining question is whether Blanche will one day be on a witness stand being vilified by a future Trump fixer for things he did in service of Mr. Trump.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Celebrity Apprentice 2024

Media

Just when you thought there was no room for another classic television series reboot, Americans were “treated” to a revival of the Celebrity Apprentice.  Hosted by New York supreme court judge Juan Merchan, the format called for a series of Donald Trump associates to compete to see who best emulated the show’s namesake and original apprentice, who perfected his business and political skills at the altar of former Al Capone and Joe McCarthy attorney Roy Cohn.  Instead of Trump family members and Trump Organization executives, the judges consisted of a panel of 12 anonymous New Yorkers.

The following is a recap of the presentations made by each of the losing contestants.

  • American Media, Inc. president David Pecker.  Mr. Pecker wanted the judges to know how much he owed his own behavior to Trump’s tutelage, referring to him as “my mentor.”  Where else would he learn to create fake magazine covers than the man you adorned his office with manufactured Time “Man of the Year” awards?
  • Campaign and White House staffer Hope Hicks.  Ms. Hicks demonstrated how she had effectively mastered the “Trump Backtrack.”  Once Hicks realized she had bolstered the prosecution’s case by tying the Stormy Daniels payment to the 2016 election, she made a point to describe how Trump asked that newspapers that featured release of the Access Hollywood tape be banned from his Trump Tower residence, as if that would shield Melania from the on-coming firestorm.
  • Adult film star Stormy Daniels.  Trump’s lawyers, referencing Ms. Daniels’ “Make America Horny Again” strip club tour, books and anti-Trump merchandise, accused her of using the alleged affair to make money.  To which, she pulled the Trump “both sides do it” argument out of her hat.  When defense lawyer Susan Necheles asked Daniels about “an online store where you sell merchandise,” she replied, “Not unlike Mr. Trump.”
  • Defense witness and attorney Robert Costello. Mr. Costello chose one of Trump’s favorite distractions to make his case.  Throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks.  First, he demonstrated distain for the process.  Then he cherry-picked evidence, especially emails.  Under direct questioning, he felt no need to elaborate, claiming, “The emails speak for themselves.”  Finally, he likely committed perjury, testifying that his sole interest was to help Cohen navigate his legal problems. However, when other emails totally undermined his previous testimony, he adopted the Trump/Emily Litella defense, “Never mind.”

As we always knew, none of these also-rans had a chance against Trump Organization attorney and fixer Michael Cohen.  He had an insurmountable advantage, ten years with the Donald to hone his Trump-like bag of tricks which included.

  • Lying.
  • Tax evasion.
  • Bullying and threatening Trump adversaries.

However, the creme de la creme was revealed during cross-examination when Mr. Cohen admitted he had underpaid a contractor (Red Finch IT Consulting) and pocketed the difference because he felt entitled to it.  What could possibly be more Trumpian than that?  And but for the fact Cohen flipped on Trump, you can imagine the latter telling his protégé, “I’m proud of you boy.  Thanks for being the son I never had.”

POSTSCRIPT:  Minor League Justice

Watching cable news coverage of the trial took me back to my childhood.  I received my first transistor radio for my 10th birthday.  At bedtime, I would listen to baseball games featuring our hometown AAA Richmond Virginians, a Yankees farm team.  Due to budget constraints, the announcers did not attend away games.  Instead, they called the game based on teletype updates.  Crowd noise and the crack of a ball against a bat were added to the illusion the broadcast team was actually in attendance.

Coverage of the Trump trial was a throwback to those days.  Although the technology was more sophisticated, the underlying process remained the same.  Someone in the overflow room would transcribe the testimony, post it to the news anchors who then did their best to take the viewer “inside the courtroom.”

To complete this illusion, all MSNBC and CNN needed was background noise consisting of the defendant’s rustling papers, snoring and an occasional fart.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP