My last column, was about media speculation that the 45th president of the United States might be indicted. On March 30, 2023, for the first time, a former United States president was indicted. Immediately, almost instantaneously, there were reactions.
The Great Divide
Even before the indictment, just mentioning the possibility in my column elicited reactions. The four comments on the article are indicative of the great divide—not just in the county but in the country.
The first read, “So well done, Carole! You’ve given eloquent voice to the fears of so many of us. Thank you for speaking out on our behalf.”
The second read, “Disappointed the Berkshire Edge would publish such a hatred filled column.”
The third read, “After reading this, it is reasonable to suspect that if a dead body were found in Hillary’s car, Owens and her ilk, would ask Trump why he did it. TDS is still raging …”
The fourth: “For all those suffering with TDS, which seems to have reached pandemic proportions in the beautiful Berkshires … [a link to a video followed.]” If you click on the link, among other things, the man on the video said, “Trump was a cartoon version of the real fascist who is on his way.”
Finally, the fifth ready: “I read your best, most powerful work this morning … We need to reject this poison … Otherwise our civilization will not survive.”
Democracy allows for even so yawning a gap in perception. We are entitled to our opinions. Defendant Trump may shout his innocence. It is like canned laughter, part of the soundtrack of trials. Everyone does it; it is a right. Just as it is the right of others to stand by Trump and cast aspersions on the elements of the case—a vigorous defense is another right. In this country, we have the freedom to be as obnoxious, ill-mannered, and wrongheaded as often as we please and as loudly as we please.
However, there is speech that does harm. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts once found it necessary to rebuke Donald Trump. Trump called a decision bad and blamed it on “Obama judges.” Intending to assert judicial integrity, Roberts said, “We do not have Obama judges and Trump judges.”
Unabashed, Trump went on, “This is a great and disgraceful miscarriage of justice. The people of the United States were cheated, and our Country disgraced.”
Roberts later explained that style of speech weakens our institutions. It is harmful. Well, buckle-up; we are about to be treated to a raft of harmful speech for the exact purpose of weakening our judicial system.
Trump goes beyond the rights afforded us. Casting aspersions on the district attorney is a bit tacky. A stronger defendant would remain silent and plead his case in court, but some are not that strong. Trump speaks to vanquish his opponents. Sadly his opponents are our laws and traditions. Smearing our judicial system, attacking its workers by name, and calling for interference in judicial proceedings harm all of us. That speech rises to the level of a crime. We cannot use our right to speech to threaten others, violently impede the judicial process, or incite others to do violence.
There is a relationship between speech and actions: seeing a commercial and purchasing a product; hearing a campaign ad and voting for a candidate; shouting hate speech and committing violence.
A commentator said, “We have become a country where we can only guarantee our children a one-way-ticket on the school bus.” If that is not what we want, we must join Justice Roberts and many others in restraining this defendant’s speech.
Sadly, this melodramatic and harmful style of speech is spreading. Before elected representatives can take their seats, they must swear an oath “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Governor DeSantis threatened to interfere with extradition, thereby escalate tensions, impede the law, and potentially upend our judicial system. He was challenging, not defending, our Constitution. Other elected officials have called the indictment by a grand jury un-American. At no time should the speech of an elected official undermine or weaken our Constitution.
Some think it is right that the case of the payoff and the porn star is the first case heard. To them it is the foundation case—the crime that made him POTUS, the one without which none of the others were possible. Others think we should have brought a bigger, better case against a former president. To do that, we would need a bigger, better man—the law charges what the man did.
Forty-three years ago, in 1980, there was news about Trump and the New York City ice skating rink. He said the same thing then: “I alone can fix it.” Folks with mics and cameras chased him for a quote and reported the quote as if it made sense. According to news reports, Trump did not pay the construction company, and in “2007, the New York City comptroller’s review found that Trump’s operation had underreported its revenue from the rink by $106,608, thus shortchanging the city.”
Then or now, the women, the extravagance, the payoffs, the grift, the side hustles, and the unpaid bills were all the same. Even the words—equal parts lies and vulgarity—were the same. TV news made him a star because Trump was good for ratings. Ratings were good for the price of ad buys. Ad buys were good for the bottom line. At the end of the day, TV news may be an oxymoron.
What will happen next? Just what happened before. Trump will attack and attempt to weaken our institutions in an effort to save himself (and make a buck), or the judge will muzzle him. Porn stars, payoffs, wives giving birth alone won’t play well. Trump will never be re-elected, and he may not be nominated again. I know nothing of the provenance of the video attached to the fourth comment quoted above, I know this—“Trump is a cartoon…” with an appeal to the least in each of us. If he is the opening act for “the real fascist who is on his way,” let’s stop right here.
Let’s not allow Trump to soften the ground any further. Turn off 24-hour coverage of Trump. Defend our institutions when he attacks. Tell our representatives those are our rights—the people’s rights—and we do not want them abrogated. If another fascist is on his way, Katie bar the door.
