I'm not going to dwell on the latest twists and turns in the long, convoluted story of Donald Trump, former President of the U. S. and current candidate for that same office.
My attention is not on the trial so much as the necessity of the trial. People seeking the highest elected office in the country should refrain from the kinds of behavior that necessitate paying hush money -- or at least, having done so, they'd better play it straight and not try to hide that they've handed over a large sum of money that could be counted as a campaign expense.
Just as the discovery of a large trove of classified documents in Mr. Trump's possession appears to have prompted President Biden and former Vice President Pence to check their garages and attics for similar papers -- and they found a few, and turned them over without fuss -- I would like to hope the current crop of candidates are pondering their dalliances (or sighing in relief at the lack thereof) and whatever they may have done to try to keep them out of the public eye.
But I would prefer that the vast majority of office-holders and candidates have conducted their lives with no more than the usual set of speeding tickets, overlooked items, and no genuinely lurid fooling around. My biggest objection to the present set of circumstances is not the trial or its outcome, or the other pending litigation; it's that people running for the job ought to have refrained from the kinds of behavior that would land them in criminal court (or civil court, for that matter, and it might be interesting to review the personal legal histories of past Presidents as a standard of comparison). I don't care if the person running for office is a suit-wearing combination of Jesus, Gandhi and Thomas Jefferson: if they can't keep their nose clean, they shouldn't be running for office, period -- and their political parties shouldn't let them.
Outrageous, you say? Too high a standard? And yet you have managed it. The majority of my readers will have never faced any criminal charges greater than a misdemeanor; personally, I even managed to get crosswise with the IRS and clear it up without being charged with an offense. Avoiding criminal activity isn't that much to ask, especially of any citizen above the poverty line. If a candidate for office stole bread to feed his starving children, we'd all have to parse the situation -- but it hasn't happened yet and it is unlikely to in the future.
Mr. Trump's last two trials have hinged on tawdry behavior, stuff you wouldn't tolerate from a family member or a guy running for dogcatcher. Having millions or billions of dollars and loads of cheering followers shouldn't excuse it. "Oh, "They're out to get him?" Then he shouldn't have done the kinds of things he could be "got" for. Not banging porn stars and having to hide that you're paying them to keep shut up about it, not sexually assaulting women: this isn't the kind of thing that a guy getting an office tower or casino built could just fall into over a misplaced decimal or comma.
And that's my opinion. I expect the usual screeching, emotional nonsense and thinly-veiled threats in response.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
6 comments:
No argument. I completely agree.
But the bottom line is unchanged: Which one has done better for the country?
That's the lousy sod to vote for, God help us.
Ed: there's where we part company. My bottom line is "Which one threatens worse for the country?" Mr. Trump was a disaster last time when things got rough, and he's promising to make a huge and possibly unrecoverable mess if he gets in again.
Mr. Biden is dull. Stodgy. But if he wins, we can count on having another Presidential election four years later. I'm not at all sure that would be the case with Mr. Trump.
There’s tawdry behavior and there’s stupid tawdry behavior. If Trump had paid the hush money out of his own pocket there would be no charges and no court case. The issue was getting someone else to pay because he couldn’t keep it in his pants, and then lying about it.
Anon: no, the issue was concealing what amounted to an illegal campaign contribution. That's what elevated falsifying business records from a misdemeanor to a felony.
But what triggered the mess was tawdry behavior. No tawdry behavior, no hush money to pay and therefore no need to hide it lest it hurt his chances at the ballot box. I want a dull Cincinnatus running for President, and if I can't get any selfless executives, I can at least demand they lead dull, headline-avoiding lives of probity and marital fidelity.
What bothers me is the use of suborned testimony in the various Trump cases. One upon a time, that was sufficiently looked down upon that decent lawyers would refuse to use such information. Now it seems a feature, not a bug.
Don M: I see you don't know the meaning of "suborned" and/or you've been watching what too much Fox News and the little commentary networks to their right.
Well, that's a choice a person can make, but I'd advise against it.
Post a Comment