Berl Falbaum
Dear Reader:
I hope you will permit me to express some personal feelings following the most recent indictment of the former president, Donald Trump.
Those who have followed my ramblings through the years in this newspaper and others and in a 500-page book on Trump, know that most—nay, all—of what I have written about him has been critical, extremely critical.
Thus, periodically, Trumpites would suggest that I was happy about all the charges leveled at the former president. They could not be more wrong.
I have been nothing but saddened about the political pain that the country has lived through. The wounds are deep and even should he “disappear” somehow, they will take many years to heal.
Specifically, I am saddened that a former president whose role includes not only being a political leader, but also who sets the moral tone for the country:
--Was impeached twice as president.
--Has 78 felony charges leveled against him in three indictments.
-- May face another indictment in Georgia before the end of the month
--Was found guilty of sexual assault in a civil case and even, in a deposition, observed that it was “fortunate” women welcomed such assaults.
Yes, I am pleased that our institutions are working to hold him accountable but the above record is no reason to cheer or celebrate. Each charge against him only brought more sadness and depression in that they unveiled how morally corrupt this man was (is) while occupying the Oval Office and having the unofficial title of the leader of the free world.
Most of all, I am saddened that we have evolved into a political culture which lets a man like Trump thrive, a man who does not have a moral, ethical, or law-abiding cell in his body.
How did this happen? There was a time when he would not have survived a campaign for the proverbial “dog catcher.” Just think back, if you will, we held major candidates accountable for misspelling “potato” (Quayle, 1992), for using the word “brainwash,” (Romney, 1967), for having a consensual extramarital affair, (Hart, 1987-88), for yelling “yeaaaaa,” (Dean, 2004), and, on a more serious note, Nixon was forced to resign after Watergate (1974) and his vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned during a financial scandal a year earlier. Except for Agnew, these were all presidential candidates. Of course, hundreds, if not thousands of politicians at local and state levels, have been held accountable (many went to prison) for offenses that pale compared to those committed by Trump. (An aside: To this day, I never understood the controversy over Quayle, Romney, or Dean).
I am also saddened that more than two-thirds of Republicans continue to support the man; that he appears to have a strangle hold on becoming the GOP presidential candidate, and that national polls reveal that he is running neck-and-neck with Joe Biden.
At about 2:30 a.m., the morning after Trump won in November 2016, I wrote that his victory revealed a cancer that we did not know we had. I expressed the hope that the political cancerous malignancy would not metastasize. But, sadly, metastasize it did. How much we have yet to find out. A full diagnosis will come from the election and the courts.
Just reading the cover of the indictment -- the “United States of America” v. Donald J. Trump, defendant” (a former president) brings depression. No, there is no joy in Mudville.
While I am at it, I think it is important to clear up some “misinformation” about the indictment that is all too prevalent in the media.
First, the focus has been on the “Jack Smith indictment.” Smith, the special counsel, did not indict Trump. He made a recommendation to his boss, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland who signed off on Smith’s decision. Smith is not an “independent” prosecutor who has indictment powers.
Indeed, Garland received quite a bit of heat for appointing Smith in the first place. He was charged with trying to put distance between himself and a decision should Trump be indicted. But there has been nary a word about Garland in this indictment.
Next, this is not a case about abridging freedom of speech. As the indictment states clearly, Trump has a right to challenge election results; he even has a constitutional right to lie. He is being indicted for his conduct.
For instance, Trump has a right to say, “I wish so-and-so were dead.”
But he has no constitutional protection to pressure someone to “kill so-and-so.”
The former president was indicted for conspiring by numerous illegal means to overturn the election.
Such actions are not protected by the First Amendment. Inexplicably, even The New York Times gave the freedom of speech defense extensive coverage, publishing the argument as its major story on page one.
We don’t know how all of this will play out.
But one thing is certain: We will continue to be consumed by the ugliness of Trump and Trumpism in the election and by court proceedings for years to come.
Did I say I was saddened by all of this?
—————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.
