So let\u2019s begin with a quick caveat, followed by a minimum of one, two or potentially more deep, hopefully calming breaths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u201cbothism,\u201d so to speak. It\u2019s simply that each man, in my opinion, lacks significant core competencies necessary to lead our country consistently, effectively. I\u2019ve 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For those who are fans of one \u2014 haters, too, I suppose \u2014 it would be easier; we could then converse about \u201cThe Trial of the Century of the Week\u201d1<\/sup> with a less objective retort along either the lines of \u201cfinally!\u201d Or \u201ctake that!\u201d Or \u201cwoe is he.\u201d But something about that feels incomplete. It omits \u2014 in Harvey-esque fashion \u2014 the rest of the story. Here we ask: what relevant questions do the simple retorts omit?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Deep breath time. Truly. One of the complicating factors of this discussion is what I respectfully refer to as \u201cTrump\u2019s Law,\u201d meaning when Donald J. Trump\u2019s name is invoked, negatively or<\/em> positively, it becomes inevitable that someone will lose all objectivity within less than 3 minutes, shutting the conversation down, regardless of the original topic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I understand. It gets emotional. And with a massive segment of our media furtively focused more on rage2<\/sup> than on understanding, it makes sense that our emotions would be fully fueled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Hence, one more deep breath\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In last week\u2019s 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: <\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) Was the trial fair?<\/p>\n\n\n\n And (2) was any part of it politically motivated?<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the first answer is a resounding \u201cyes\u201d and the second, an equally resounding \u201cno,\u201d 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\u2019t matter. I can\u2019t defend a lack of due process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The challenge is that there are many on all sides who adamantly aver that the trial wasn\u2019t<\/em> fair and that it was<\/em> politically motivated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One seemingly objective voice came from CNN<\/em> legal analyst Elie Honig in the New York Magazine: <\/em><\/a>\u201cthe charges against Trump aren\u2019t just unusual. They\u2019re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.\u201d Not a conservative, Honig called the charges \u201cinventive\u201d and \u201cinflated.\u201d \u201cHere,\u201d Honig wrote, \u201cprosecutors got their man, for now at least \u2014 but they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n