Month: June 2024

And here we are, time for the first Presidential debate for 2024. Ugh. Yes, there are still 129 days as of this posting until the election, and yes, this is unprecedentedly early, as neither candidate has even been officially nominated as of yet. But after months of debating if they’ll actually be debating — and knowing that extended, skillful dialogue is not a perceived strength of either candidate (albeit for very different reasons), it’s interesting what people have been saying about Thursday’s primetime match up… 

“As we near Thursday’s debate, Americans are fixated on whether Joe Biden will stumble on stage or Donald Trump will blow up in rage. Anything’s possible in a debate – especially when both candidates are high-wire acts,” begins RealClearPolitics contributor Ron Faucheux.

“In an age when we have become inured to the drama in presidential politics, there is still something about this week’s debate that sets the pulse racing. There has probably been no occasion in the modern era when the stakes of a presidential debate have been so high, the competition so close, or the candidates’ performances so unpredictable. The direction of the long campaign, its outcome and even the ultimate identity of one of the party’s candidates could hinge on this 90-minute encounter in Atlanta. Do I exaggerate? Perhaps,” writes The Wall Street Journal’s Gerard Baker.

“Rarely, if ever, has one candidate in a presidential debate had so much material to use against the other,” and, “Can Biden perform? Can Trump tone himself down?” writes AP’s Steve Peoples.

“How do you run a debate between two men whose combined age is two-thirds that of the US republic? The answer is to have no audience, mute the one not talking and schedule bathroom breaks (calling them commercials). It would be an overstatement to say that next week’s clash between Joe Biden and Donald Trump will be definitive. But in a close election in which each candidate’s mental capacity is under scrutiny, it will matter a lot,” wrote the Financial Times Edward Luce.

“This week’s debate between President Biden and Donald Trump won’t produce much in the way of civil dialogue over the nation’s future. It’s more likely to resemble a demolition derby, with each contestant trying to knock the other off course. And, let’s face it, many viewers will tune in mainly for the crashes,” says Los Angeles Times columnist Doyle McManus.

“Even if people are unenthusiastic about candidates, they want to see if there’s a meltdown on stage. And there could be two types of meltdown. Trump could have an anger meltdown, and Biden could have an age meltdown,” said Bipartisan Policy Center presidential historian, Tevi Troy.

“It’s an incredible test of their cognitive competence. This is our chance to see how much they’ve declined or if they’ve declined,” said University of Arkansas political science professor Patrick Stewart.

“Donald Trump and Joe Biden come into Thursday’s presidential debate as incredibly well-known quantities defined by shared unpopularity and competing weaknesses. But their most important liabilities — for the incumbent, his decrepitude and his record on inflation; for the challenger, an unfitness distilled and confirmed by the events of Jan. 6 — feel too well known to be worth discussing further until we see what happens on the stage,” writes New York Times opinion columnist Ross Douthat.

“So, we’re going to party like it’s 2020 all over again,” writes Salon’s Heather Digby Parton.

I suppose it’s sad that we are so far removed from the primary purpose of good debate, that is “to generate effective critical thinking into primary issues in the given topic.”¹ As indicated by the eloquent chorus above, the promotion of critical thinking is trivial at best. The candidates are attempting to score points, look more popular than they really are, and land socially acceptable, rhetorical knock out blows… none of which, dare I say, qualify as good and right and true.

Perhaps the commentary the Intramuralist most resonates with comes from CNN contributor Terry Szuplat, who avers that “most Americans say they want more civility in our national discourse.” In encouragement of how to get there — craving either Biden or Trump would lead us wisely (aka omit the knock out blows) — Szuplat recommends they debate the issues by utilizing the following:

• Have some humility.
• If you want to persuade, don’t condemn.
• Don’t otherize, demonize, or dehumanize.
• Don’t “fight” for your country.
• Appeal to common identities.
• And remember the values we share.

We have more in common than we do not, friends. I wish the candidates realized that, too.

Respectfully…

AR

¹ University of Illinois Springfield, ION Professional eLearning Programs

With all the discussion of age in recent months, perhaps there is something we can learn. Question, in fact: do we recognize youth as a strength? Note the following, fascinating stories of success. Yes, there is much we can learn…

The first emperor of Rome, Augustus Caesar, became a Roman senator at 20 years old.

Joan of Arc was 17 when she helped turn things around for France.

French mathematician Blaise Pascal began developing a handheld calculator at 19.

Louis Braille created the Braille language for the blind at only 15 years of age.

Mozart wrote his first symphony at the wee age of 8.

Also in the music world, Beethoven published his first work at only 13.

Mary, mother of Jesus, was said to be only up to 17 at the time of his birth.

History’s King David was crowned at age 30.

Moving to a bit more of a contemporary season, Bill Gates was 20 when he founded Microsoft.

Steve Jobs was 21 when Apple was born.

Malala Yousafzai spoke out against the Taliban and how they treated women, becoming the youngest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize at age 17.

Not only was Jesse Owens recognized as the world’s fastest human at 22, but he also was credited with “single-handedly crushing Hitler’s myth of Aryan supremacy.”

Several young authors led via their youthful creativity… Mary Shelley writing Frankenstein at 17 and both Charles Dickens and Truman Capote having iconic success at only 24.

Creativity continues as one Miss Taylor Alison Swift began professional songwriting at 14.

The “King of Pop” Michael Jackson went solo also at only 14.

We get a little older but remain youthful when we remember that Elon Musk founded SpaceX at 30.

And Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu — aka Mother Teresa — founded Missionaries of Charity at age 40.

At 52, Colin Powell became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest position in the Department of Defense, becoming the youngest officer to serve in this capacity.

Lest we forget the athletes, Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes each led their teams to their first Super Bowl wins at age 24.

And the one and only Nadia Comăneci became the first Olympic gymnast to score a perfect 10.0 at only 14 years of age.

Suffice it to say, there is great talent, leadership and gifting in our youth.

While I will always offer and encourage deep respect for those who’ve gone before us — those who have deep wells of experience and sweet stories to share, I feel like we need to tap into our younger generations. Instead of being the “one” — the leader, head honcho, top dog, you-name-it — those who are wisest know when to tap into others who could also be the “one.” Wise leadership is never self-preserving.

Last week, no less, as written, our staff participated in an interactive, team building event. Indeed, it was “epic.” There were four teams, each with a pre-chosen leader, a gifted, very capable captain.

Who were our captains?

Well, our four youthful interns and apprentices, of course. What a joy to see them succeed.

Respectfully…

AR

Who we listen to matters. Not every voice is wise to speak on all things. For example, I would never ask Donald Trump to write a book on “How to Win Friends and Influence People” nor Joe Biden on “The Art of Public Speaking.” 🙂

Today is Juneteenth, the day in the U.S. when all finally found out they were free. Freedom is a beautiful thing. While the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Pres. Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863 officially changed the legal status of enslaved African Americans, that message did not get to all people. Imagine not knowing you are free.

Who speaks on this, no less, matters. And while some may speak, not all voices carry the same level of wisdom. I realized such 4 years ago when I read 17 books on race, seeking understanding in an area where I was fairly ignorant. One of those disappointing public voices to me was Ibram X. Kendi, who promoted the idea that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” Sorry, but that doesn’t resonate with me as good nor God-honoring. The God I serve believes in discrimination of no one.

One voice that has long resonated with me is Condoleeza Rice. Yes, she is a Republican. That doesn’t make her good nor evil; it’s her story. She became a Republican in 1982 much because of the influence of her father, whose political affiliation was “because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did.” Again, let’s resist buying into this binary notion that either Democrats or Republicans are all good or all bad. They both have issues. But all this to say, Rice is a wise voice. Hear her words on Juneteenth…

Toward the end of my term as Secretary of State, I had the opportunity to visit the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Permanently displayed in the Rotunda alongside the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights is the Emancipation Proclamation. As I stood reading, I felt the presence of my ancestors. I said a little prayer of thanks to them—and to God—for the great fortune of being born American.

Most Americans are familiar with the Emancipation Proclamation. Issued by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, it declared freedom for millions of slaves living in the South. Today, however, many Americans remain unaware that two more years would pass before the enslaved living in Texas learned of their freedom. 

It was on June 19, 1865, that Union soldiers arrived in the farthest territory of the Confederate states—in Galveston Bay, Texas—bringing with them the news that slavery had been abolished. Major General Gordon Granger read out General Order No. 3: “The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them, becomes that between employer and hired labor. The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages.” 

While there was still a long road ahead—it would be nearly 100 years until the Civil Rights Act was passed—this was an important step for the 250,000 people still enslaved in Texas, and one they probably didn’t believe would ever come to pass.

A century after General Granger marched into Galveston Bay with those Union soldiers, I was growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, which was then the most segregated city in the country. My father couldn’t vote with reliability. We couldn’t go to the movie theater, sit at the lunch counter, or go to school with white children.

I was eight years old when, on a Sunday morning in September 1963, the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed. I felt the blast a few blocks away in the church where my father was the pastor. Four little girls, two of whom I knew, were killed.

But our community rallied and held close to one another. Despite the struggles of those years, we knew how far we had come from that fateful day in 1865.

Every year on Juneteenth, my parents and I talked about what our ancestors must have felt the moment they found out they were free and used it as an inspiration to keep seeking a better life here in America.

But even though my family has been celebrating Juneteenth since my childhood, it wasn’t until 2021 that Congress voted, almost unanimously, to make Juneteenth National Independence Day a federal holiday. Because many Americans are unfamiliar with its significance, some, perhaps understandably, wonder why it needed national recognition at all. After all, all Americans celebrate the Fourth of July—the ultimate celebration of our nation’s founding, of our independence and our liberty. 

To me, Juneteenth is a recognition of what I call America’s second founding. 

Despite our nation’s extraordinary founding documents about equality, this country was founded as a slave-owning state. That is our birth defect. But the words in those carefully crafted documents—written by great men who were themselves flawed human beings—ultimately lit the way toward a more perfect union. In some sense, the history of the United States is a story of striving to make their soaring words—We the People—real to every American. It’s the story of becoming what we profess to be.

When I was sworn in as 66th Secretary of State by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, I glanced up at a portrait of Benjamin Franklin in the State Department. I wondered what he would have thought of this great-granddaughter of slaves and child of Jim Crow Birmingham pledging to defend the Constitution of the United States, which had infamously counted her ancestors as “three-fifths” of a person. I wanted to believe that Franklin would have liked history’s turn toward justice and taken my appointment in stride. 

Today, just as I once did with my parents, I will celebrate Juneteenth. I will think about my ancestors and what they must have felt when they were liberated from slavery. And I will give thanks for being born in a country where such moral progress is possible. That is worth celebrating not just by black Americans but by all of us. 

Respectfully…

AR

Bruce: “How do you make someone love you without affecting Free Will?”

God: “Heh, welcome to my world, son. If you come up with an answer to that one, let me know.”

. . . . .

One of my movie faves is the 2003 comedy, “Bruce Almighty,” with the star-studded cast of Jim Carrey, Jennifer Aniston, Morgan Freeman and Steve Carell. Besides showcasing the talents of the aforementioned individuals (like Carrey and Freeman above), especially tapping into their comedic genius, it’s also seemingly pretty theologically sound and encouraging in how it encourages us to relate to God and to other people.

Carrey portrays Bruce Nolan, a career TV newsman who’s upset after not attaining the coveted anchorman position. He believes he’s a victim of absolutely everyone and everything. He has convinced himself in his victim speak that God is treating him badly. The course of the movie shares the growth in his relationship with God in clever, clever ways.

Suffice it to say, there’s not a lot of maturity in Bruce as the movie begins. As with each of us, maturity of faith (or lack of it) is oft visible via how we treat other people. That’s not rocket science; a timeless truth is that God asks two primary things of those who follow Him: (1) Love Him. (2) Love other people.

Bruce isn’t all that loving when the viewer initially meets him in the movie. Concisely put, Bruce is incredibly self-focused. When graciously bestowed by God with divine power for a week, in fact, Bruce immediately blesses himself with a chic new sports car and snazzy outfit as well. (Did I mention clever?) Clearly put, therefore, Bruce’s self-focus is what most would deem as unhealthy. That’s no attempt at subtle judgment; for purposes of this discussion, we’re equating “unhealthy” with not good nor anywhere close to God-honoring.

It got me thinking: is an others focus always healthy? Is a focus on other people always good and God-honoring? Is it what we’re called to do?

And I think it is… most of the time… when the focus is pure… when the intent is honor, kindness and consideration… when the shifting of attention is actually for the appreciation or well-being of the other… when it’s not really one more not-so-clever cover up of a hidden, still self-focus. Yes, intent matters.

I’ve noticed a way we move to an others-focus that is unhealthy, meaning not good and not God-honoring. It’s not for any good of another… it’s more for the deflection of attention on self…

Maybe they won’t see how frail I am if I point out their weakness instead…

Maybe that minor character flaw of mine will pale in comparison if they pay more attention to him…

What I did really wasn’t so bad. Look at them…

And just like that we create a moral barometer based on something less than what’s good and right and true. We create a moral barometer based on comparison and other people.

Why? 

Because it’s easier.

We see this in social media. We see it in self. We see it in political candidates. It all just feels so impure so many days. No wonder we keep losing faith. It is not good and right and true.

Would you look at them…

Sorry, friends… 

When we use other people in an attempt to make ourselves look better — that’s all of us — me, included — we don’t look any wiser; we don’t look wise at all. We are only attempting to reroute attention so there exists less reflection on our own behavior.

That seems unhealthy.

Respectfully…

AR

I had a great discussion with one of my life-sharpeners the other day. You know those people. They are the ones with whom time spent is always fruitful… always producing of something better… in me. Granted, I have to be humble enough and discerning enough to recognize that something better is necessary and possible.

We were talking about the WNBA and how they are reacting wisely (and poorly) to their unprecedented popularity and the reaction to rookie VIP Caitlin Clark. (If not a women’s basketball fan, sports fan, etc., hang with me, friends. The point of this post is not about Caitlin nor women’s basketball nor about any perceived transgression within a potential gender pay gap.)

As our conversation continued, we spoke of the reactions of some of the league veterans. One name came up, where my sharpener praised the former player, saying he really liked her. I paused.

When the league marked their 25th anniversary a few years ago, they celebrated the significance by releasing “The W25,” designating the top 25 players in WNBA history. The player my sharpener mentioned was a name near the top of that list. 

I met her once.

I met her in the middle of her storied career. Oh, indeed… she was an excellent player. Unquestionably gifted, talented and she clearly made the people around her better. Suffice it to say that she possessed most everything we’d say we want in a star player; she deserved that top 25 status. Except for one thing…

She wasn’t kind to me.

Not only was she not kind, I found her to be rude, arrogant and a little snarky, too. Don’t get me wrong. I can definitely appreciate some timely, witty snark here and there. But this was different.I perceived this as an unattractive cockiness that seemed to come with celebrity status. I was grateful to meet her, but it was not an enjoyable experience. She didn’t seem like any kind of life-sharpener. And now, I am the one being kind.

Here, no less, is the point of our thinking this day…

There’s no question that my experience with this star athlete was real. It is equally true that my reaction to our interaction was valid. It doesn’t make me “right” or “wrong” (way too binary of a response choice), but as said, my emotions were valid — meaning well founded and having a sound basis in logic.

But here’s what’s also true…

My one time experience with the celebrity does not define who she is, even though my experience was real.

In fact, it would be unfair of me to think I could determine who she is via a single incident.

Hence, I wonder…

How often do we convince ourselves we are capable of discerning the character of someone after a sole interaction?

… as if that interaction represents all another is?

Thank God I am not defined by a singular interaction … like the time I was openly judgmental of a dear friend… the time I flatly refused forgiveness (she didn’t deserve it)… or the time I yelled another timely snark (or maybe expletive) on the baseball field… at a 12 year old.

“But I know them!” We justify. Thinking one interaction means we know them.

No. We don’t.

Single interactions don’t define us. Thank God. But single interactions don’t define others either.

Respectfully…

AR

Next week I have a really fun event prepared for my staff. We love team building. We work hard. We enjoy play. We have multiple, extremely talented individuals on our team. We also encourage emotional, physical and spiritual healthiness. In that health, we value, too, the importance of relational connection amidst professional execution. 

Thing is, this event is a surprise. So at this stage of the planning, I can’t give them all the details. In fact, I don’t really want to give them any of the details. I want them to save the date, save the time, and then trust me with the process.

I also, though, want to ratchet up the excitement. I want them to be greatly looking forward to this thing they don’t know that they’re actually going to do.

And so as I was writing the email designed to hype what’s happening — without really giving them any information other than time, date and “trust me” —  I found myself using a surfeit of superlatives…

Excellent… deeply valuable… epic…

My desire is to utilize words that make my team believe this is going to be good… even though they can’t see what I see or know what I know.

The embedded question of integrity, no less, rests on whether I believe it. And for our event next week, I’m pleased to share that indeed I do.

But herein lies the problem in our words.

Too often the integrity isn’t there. Too often the person who speaks the words doesn’t believe the words. The words are still intentionally chosen, but instead of them being an attempt to help another see what the sharer sees, the words are an attempt to make the hearer believe something that contradicts what they actually see. The words are an attempt to manipulate the perception of the person on the other side of them.

No doubt, unfortunately, that’s one of the reasons we’ve lost significant trust in so many of our leaders. On all sides. They often employ words we know are not true; they say what they want us to hear — not what is true. In my head, I’m trying to be respectful, but usually I want to retort with something along the lines of, “Do they think we’re stupid?”

We see it blatantly in Presidents 45 and 46. With all due respect, 45 seems to speak in an entire language of superlatives, routinely invoking the words “greatest” or “best.” Kurt Andersen wrote a playful piece in The Atlantic a few years ago, cleverly educating us all in “How to Talk Like Trump.” Utilizing superlatives, just to discuss Trump’s play on the word “positive,” for example, Andersen points to his use of “amazing / beautiful / best / big league / brilliant / elegant / fabulous / fantastic / fine / good / great / happy / honest / incredible / nice / outstanding / phenomenal / powerful / sophisticated / special / strong / successful / top / tremendous / unbelievable.” The chosen words often seem an attempt to make something better than it is.

We saw it again this week with the Wall Street Journal’s research. The WSJ published a report on Pres. 46’s performance in private meetings headlined “Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping.” Understandably, some did not appreciate the acknowledgement of decline, especially feeling it was an unbalanced, partisan piece. But some in defense prompted that question of integrity, suggesting no mental slippage exists. They want us not to believe what we actually see, as centrist Joe Klein detailed: “I feel a sharp stab of concern every time I see Biden in public—his eyes slits (too much plastic surgery), his words mumbled and slurred, his gait unsteady. I’ve known this man for nearly forty years and he does seem different now.” The chosen words here, too, seem an attempt to make something better than it is.

My point this day is not to offer any advocacy or opposition to any of the above. The point is that we often use words to create an impression that doesn’t actually exist.

Next week, by the way, I have something really fun planned for my staff.

Did I mention it was epic?

Respectfully…

AR

Ugh. It was approximately 2:36. Did I mention “a.m.”? 

We had each fallen into bed just 3 hours prior, having driven 7 some hours after a long day and even longer weekend. We were spent. It had been a great time, but the hours of traveling with still more to go left us each feeling a wee bit exhausted, although grateful for a clean, comfortable, fairly nice place to rest our heads for the evening, prior to resuming our drive the next day.

And then at a hair more than half past 2, the alarms sounded loud. Everywhere.

It’s a little disorienting when the fire alarms flare when sound asleep in a strange hotel in an unknown city… Where am I? … What’s going on? … What should we do?

And without much coherence of thought, trying to look semi-presentable (emphasis on “semi”), we threw on a bit more clothes, maybe a ball cap, flip flops, and got out the door, to the stairwell, and moved awkwardly but swiftly down the steps exiting the building, joining the now jolted, herded crowd of others wondering what to our sleepy eyes should appear.

We saw nothing. No smoke. No fire. Not even a flicker.

Not a fire engine either, for at least 10 minutes. 

The crowd grew slightly, although the consistency of ball caps and especially flip flops was indeed sporadic.

Unfortunately, however, as we attempted to do our best undercover work with zero announcement or hotel staff communication combined with the ebony in the evening clouds, one of our investigative trails — noting the time of year and recent weather trends — was to probe local storm activity. Sure enough, one of those sometimes helpful/sometimes terrifying national weather apps let us know that at the moment, there were 6 active severe alerts across the country… 1 of which was a tornado coming straight toward us, only 20 miles to our west. 

Yikes. Inside or outside? Fire or tornado? 

Let me also now acknowledge the magnified level of difficulty in our collective decision making on so few hours of sleep.

Semi-futilely one could say, we chose inside. What a night.

We sat in the sullen lobby another 20/30 minutes, waiting for which firestorm would first erupt. The half dozen firefighters meticulously searched the areas of greatest suspicion. The clouds outside got darker. But alas, there was no explosion inside or out. The firefighters said the scene was clear; we could go back to bed.

But here was the thing — and here is where we hang today…

What happened was bad. Concerning and confusing. You name it. It was uncomfortable. Undesirable. And it only multiplied our exhaustion. The hotel staff was not responsible for what happened, but they were charged with leading in the moment — figuring out next best steps and directing all those of us (with or without shoes). Yet it was clear they didn’t know what to do. So what did they say to us?

What did they say that night or even the succeeding morning? How did they address the negativity we all so obviously went through? What did they actually say?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

No one on staff said a word to any of us. No one addressed the situation. No one handled the hard. There were no voicemails on our room phones nor any notes slid under our door. There was zero communication.

This, of course, got me thinking…

Sometimes we face challenges that are immense or intense and we don’t know what to do; we don’t know where to start. Sometimes, too, we’re afraid; we’re fearful we’ll fail and then be held responsible; we’re afraid it will then equate to the loss of agency or influence. And so sometimes, we miss the opportunity. We miss the opportunity to problem solve and build the relationship via the hard.

We didn’t need anything from that hotel. We didn’t need a comp room or free coffee or even lunch on them upon return. But had the staff of the hotel simply had any conversation with us, they would have secured a future stay. Acknowledging the issue — respectfully discussing the difficulty and discomfort — builds relationship. Relationship can handle the hard.

I went to bed still thinking the other night. Everyone else quickly crashed back to sleep. It was then that I heard the thunder begin to roll in…

Respectfully…

AR

So let’s begin with a quick caveat, followed by a minimum of one, two or potentially more deep, hopefully calming breaths.

The Intramuralist is not a fan of Donald Trump. The Intramuralist is also not a fan of Joe Biden. We are not attempting to invoke any “bothism,” so to speak. It’s simply that each man, in my opinion, lacks significant core competencies necessary to lead our country consistently, effectively. I’ve heard the raucous crowds, seemingly fewer in number and louder in voice, demonstratively vocalizing why one is clearly better than the other. The rise in volume, however, fails to nix the substantiality of the individual, glaring, lacking competency.

For those who are fans of one — haters, too, I suppose — it would be easier; we could then converse about “The Trial of the Century of the Week”¹ with a less objective retort along either the lines of “finally!” Or “take that!” Or “woe is he.” But something about that feels incomplete. It omits — in Harvey-esque fashion — the rest of the story. Here we ask: what relevant questions do the simple retorts omit?

Deep breath time. Truly. One of the complicating factors of this discussion is what I respectfully refer to as “Trump’s Law,” meaning when Donald J. Trump’s name is invoked, negatively or positively, it becomes inevitable that someone will lose all objectivity within less than 3 minutes, shutting the conversation down, regardless of the original topic.

I understand. It gets emotional. And with a massive segment of our media furtively focused more on rage² than on understanding, it makes sense that our emotions would be fully fueled.

(Hence, one more deep breath…)

In last week’s verdict in New York State Unified Court, the former president was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels. Two objective questions linger: 

(1) Was the trial fair?

And (2) was any part of it politically motivated?

If the first answer is a resounding “yes” and the second, an equally resounding “no,” then I am all for finding a just way to assign appropriate consequence. If either of those answers are the contrary, what I wish or want doesn’t matter. I can’t defend a lack of due process.

The challenge is that there are many on all sides who adamantly aver that the trial wasn’t fair and that it was politically motivated. 

One seemingly objective voice came from CNN legal analyst Elie Honig in the New York Magazine: “the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.” Not a conservative, Honig called the charges “inventive” and “inflated.” “Here,” Honig wrote, “prosecutors got their man, for now at least — but they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey.”

Liberal Nellie Bowles in the Free Press wrote more: “Now, I’m all for jailing politicians. But the idea that counting hush-money payments as a business expense should lead to 34 felonies? This is the big crime? Of all the various legal efforts that might lock Trump up or bankrupt him before the election, the New York endeavors always seemed like the weirdest and most obviously political. Even cable news analysts are baffled when it comes to the specifics…”

And from NewsNation host Chris Cuomo, one who has openly spoken about his disgust for the former president, talks about the legitimacy of this trial: “It’s certainly not justice. That would be shame; that would be vengeance. That’s not what our system’s supposed to be about. And that’s what has bothered me about this case from jump…”

Friends, I have no definitive answers on guilt or innocence. I wasn’t in the courtroom, and I am not here to defend any candidate or party. But I do believe wisdom dictates we ask appropriate, objective questions… and to not allow fandom, hatred, or emotion to get in the way.

Respectfully… always…

AR

¹The Free Press, Nellie Bowles, “TGIF: The Trial of the Century of the Week,” May 31, 2024.

²Them: Why We Hate Each Other — and How to Heal, Ben Sasse, October 2018.