Donald Trump is complaining that he feels all these witch hunting legal trials should be scheduled after the election as it might unfairly influence the election. They might well influence the election, but I am disappointed that an innocent man is not anxious to clear his name. Perhaps he realizes he is guilty and might be found out.
We of course realize Trump has found that delaying trials has always worked to his advantage. Sometimes the plaintiff runs out of money or time. On a few occasions he has had to pay, but his lawyers are able to find some strategy to avoid jail time. This time he might be able to pardon himself if can hold out long enough. Putin is rooting for him.
This time seems different. He is no longer the president. Many incriminating facts have become public. It may seem a lot of facts are slanted, but a trial is supposed to deal with that.
It has so far been a case of when indicted Trump is able to turn to his supporters and get donations and rises in the polls. This may well be illusionary. Their support is partly they are entertained and love someone kicking back. As one cartoon put it "I know he lies, but he hates the same people I do." Of course big money comes from those who hate paying taxes and feel their money goes to undeserving people. There are social issues that override economic concerns with a prejudicial base.
Did he spread misinformation? Did he stir up the crowd? Did he steer money for his own benefit? Did he follow Russian preferences? Did he actually try to influence other politicians? Does he enjoy power so much and feels he deserves it?
The Brazilian Supreme Electoral Court has officially banned Jair Bolsonaro from running for electoral office until 2030. It seems pretty mild for a man who encouraged an insurrection, but also fair. In the meantime Trump is still spouting lies that millions accept or in many cases pretend to accept because it suits their interests.
It is agreed that justice should not be subject to emotionalism. Facts need to be examined carefully and jurors need to be selected carefully. All intrusions of prejudice have to be avoided. We don't want any doubts of fairness. Don't the voters deserve to know the truth?
After all in said and done, the voters have a stake in the timing of the trial. Some prefer to believe the lies, others aren't sure and many don't care. Justice can be elusive, but unless the truth is available justice is not available and good decisions are difficult.
If when the truth is offered it is rejected by voters who have other priorities then they deserve what they are going to get and it won't entirely be what they think. But the facts have to come out in time for the voters to have their own judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment