Is the Trump Derangement Syndrome valid?

 If you are progressive or even politically neutral it is very difficult to avoid really serious criticism of Donald Trump and his gang.  They shrug and dismiss it all as merely "Trump Derangement Syndrome" meaning the critics are all deluded.  Their supporters nod in agreement.  On my side of the table this is outrageous.

 It is implied that any criticism is irrelevant.  Democracy doesn't work that way.  We don't want a king or dictator to make all our decisions. 

Rather than using carefully thought out policy ideas Trump seems to prefer mocking people and ideas that stand in his way.  Lying is a tool to make his points.  Being provocative seems to appeal to a segment of his audience who find him entertaining and serious policy debates boring, if not offensive.

After his victory in 2016 he said he loved the "poorly educated" and now we learn he wants to close the Education Department.  To my progressive nature it seems obvious education is the key to progress.  Most poor people realize they would be better off if they had more education, however there are also many who resent educated people who seem to boss them.

Rather than debate policy issues he prefers to mock in an attempt to de-humanize.  He has nicknames for some of his strongest opponents---Kamala Harris (Laffin Kamala), Joe Biden (Sleepy Joe), Elaine Chao (Coco Chow), Liz Cheney (Low IQ Warhawk), Hilary Clinton (Crooked Hilary) and Jack Smith (Deranged Jack Smith).  Outsiders might find these derogatory addresses are a poor way to develop trust. His supporters look forward to what innovative insults he comes up with.  Breaking the law has no consequences for Trump, but his precedents bode ill for our future.

Catering to prejudices with such remarks as "shithole countries"  and "very fine people on both sides".

Many of his actual policies are harmful.  Climate change is real and guaranteed to get worse, but Trump has aligned himself with the fossil fuel financial interests.  He feels the very rich are hard done by and it would be better if they paid less in taxes and so what if the poor lose tools to improve their lives.   He expresses support for international abusers of democracy (some who kill their opposition).

I am sure that most of the people in my choir can think of many (many) examples how the voters have been abused and that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a pathetic defense of his actions.  Thank you, however few you might be to let me rant.  Maybe Hilary Clinton was not wrong.

More on what I consider essential--education  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/11/education-and-our-future.html

Untouchable How They Get away with it

Why do some people avoid repercussions for their criminal behavior?  How do they do it?  The rest of us live by rules which we may occasionally break, but usually pay a price for.  

This book is really about Donald Trump, but Honig uses many examples of people who have gotten away with something.  It was written before the most recent indictments, but anticipated them.  Honig's prosecutor experience is well used, not for just for legalisms, but also the psychology.

Jeffrey Epstein was very wealthy and very connected with Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Prince Andrew.  With lawyers Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr he was able to have charges dramatically reduced.

One way mobsters controlled their subordinates was to hire their lawyers.  Intimidation would be a tool.  Cassidy Hutchinson had to break from her Trump lawyer (after testifying three times in his presence), in order to testify against him.

Trump threatens opposition and often follows through.  After the Ukrainian attempt at bribery, Trump was able to demote Alexander Vindman, his uninvolved twin brother and the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.  Another notable victim was Liz Cheney.  Threats reversed testimony in the prominent cases of Kevin McCarthy and Michael Flynn.

Mobsters use intimidation to control witnesses.  Some of it is blatant and behind the scenes.  Some of it is more public such as when they pack the courtroom with gangsters. 

Trump has used pardons (and the promises of pardons) to stop it or prevent criminal testimony.  Some examples include Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort and Steve Bannon.  As he is no longer president the promise of future pardons when re-elected carry some weight.   Honig pointed out that President George H.W. Bush pardoned five insiders who had been indicted with regard to the Iran Contra case, thus preventing a potentially politically damaging trial from happening.

Executive privilege had been used as far back as George Washington who felt the need to block the public from sensitive information.  At the time of the Nixon scandal his team claimed executive privilege regarding some sensitive tapes.  For the first time the Supreme Court acknowledged executive privilege as legitimate, but also declared they could not block the tapes which scared Nixon so much he resigned before a trial could be held.  Trump took advantage of interpretations and was able to block communication between staff and Congress.  We can only guess what incriminating information was buried. 

The Mueller report actually depicted a case against Trump being helped by the Russians, but Honig feels Robert Mueller was handicapped and was too easy in letting William Barr distort the findings.  Still many of Trump defenders mock the whole procedure.

Honig feels that Merrick Garland has been too soft and that delays will likely end up tied up with the election schedule.  Also for many people the delay seems political.  My view is justice delayed is justice denied.  Check:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2023/07/justice-delayed-is-justice-denied.html

Dealing with reality Honig last line hits home; "Imperfect justice is preferable to no justice at all."  It will always be infuriating that such as Trump might well get away with it.  He speaks with credibility, but like the rest of us, admits Trump might still get away with it.

Trump's hard core supporters believe any illegalities Trump may have done are justified by all the good he did.  One cannot be indicted for mismanagement, but his supporters should bear his other many faults in mind:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/10/the-non-indictable-sins-of-trump.html