By Stephen Macaulay

While some people are getting all excited about how things are going in the Trump hush-money trial in Manhattan, figuring that soon the former president will be wearing an outfit that matches his hair, this is perhaps one of those cases of mass sociogenic illness, where a group of people have the same collective delusion.

Consider the testimony given by David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, the tabloid that has done more for alien and Elvis sightings than any dozen other outlets.

Pecker stated, “I said I would run positive stories about Trump, and I would publish negative stories about his opponent.”

Aren’t we in Casablanca territory here, with Captain Renault’s “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here”?

Many of the people who visualize Trump being transported to Riker’s Island have now-fading Hamilton posters on their walls. They see the so-called “catch-and-kill” approach—buy a story and then not use it—as being somehow in itself completely unnatural. While this is not to say that it wasn’t used by Team Trump for reasons that may be proven to be felonious, there is nothing intrinsically nefarious about the practice.  It is a means by which one can get an edge over one’s competitors by preventing them from having access to whatever the story may be.

Clearly the National Enquirer was pretty good at this: Can you think of the name of one of its competitors?

Going back to those who are generally humming the lyrics “I am not throwing away my shot/Hey you I’m just like my country/I’m young scrappy and hungry” as they go for a champagne brunch at the local bistro: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote what has become known as “The Federalist Papers,” which were published in three New York newspapers — The Independent Journal, the New York Packet, and The Daily Advertiser — on behalf of the yet-to-be-ratified Constitution.

In other words, they worked to run positive stories about the Constitution while running negative stories about the Articles of Confederation.

That’s just how it is — and how it long has been. It is dangerously naïve to think otherwise.

The case is far from being a fait accompli. While it may seem likely that Trump was personally involved in signing off on the falsifying of business records for purposes of covering up some untoward behavior — after all, he is famously known for micromanaging the activities of The Trump Organization, the inverse of how he operated within the federal government — “likely” isn’t “certainly.”

Making uninformed conclusions about thing like Pecker’s testimony is nothing more than clutching at straws—which may end up being fulsome folly.