Trump is defending his Stormy Daniels related criminality by claiming that his lawyer should have told him that conspiring to pay her off in order to keep the public from finding out about the affair was wrong. The debate has therefore focused on whether Trump did, indeed, know it was wrong.
I once worked on a case involving a client who really did not appear to know right from wrong. He would make suggestions about possible actions he might take in a given situation. To his credit, when we explained that doing those things “would be wrong”, he accepted that and moved on. He was, despite his moral blindness, nonetheless, a somewhat likable guy. He was not, however, qualified to be president of the United States, precisely because he could not tell right from wrong.
No one seems to be pointing out that Trump’s defense boils down to a claim on his part that all on his own, he can’t tell right from wrong, and that unless someone tells him something is wrong, he can’t be held responsible for doing wrong. Focusing on whether he knew his illegal acts were wrong concedes that argument. Even if it does constitute a legal defense (which, given the facts that we know, seems unlikely), his admission that he can’t tell right from wrong disqualifies him from being considered a fit occupant of the office he has apparently obtained by fraud. I would humbly submit this obvious point should be front and center in the reporting on this issue.
Post a Comment