A new essay in the Economist explores that question, while stating: ” Revelations and convictions will eventually force America to face” that simple question.
In my last post I advocated attempts by pro anti Trumpers to develop civil discussion. But if we are to have a civil discussion we should begin with that question and what it means to people. Trump has shown many signs he has no regard for the rule of law when it gets in his way. And it hasn’t seemed to faze many of his backers.
Some of that I understand because most often Trump doesn’t break the law but finds ways to work around it. For example, now he is holding up the possibility of a pardon for Paul Manafort, which he legally can do but shows a contempt for the law itself and all the work of prosecutors and juries to decide the case. And equally bad it provides signs to anyone in legal struggles that reflect on Trump that he has the power to save them.
The revelations and convictions of the past week suggest that we are getting beyond the endless speculation to hard facts. I firmly believe the “real Trump” is about to be proven to be a crook and a phony. I just heard this morning that Allen Weisselberg, the CFO of the Trump organization for decades is getting an immunity deal, which follows one given to David Pecker, the executive in control of the National Enquirer and long time Trump friend.
You don’t get an immunity deal if you don’t have much evidence to offer on bigger fish. Both men should have much to reveal about how Donald Trump and his family have operated, so I suggest we suspend my idea of trying to find a platform for discussing Trump until it has been decided how big of a crook we are talking about.