If I woulda left
Trump is displaying his usual taste and wit.
Donald Trump vowed Saturday to continue running for president even if he were to be convicted as part of the 37-count federal felony indictment that was issued against him this week.
“I’ll never leave,” Trump said in an interview aboard his plane. “Look, if I would have left, I would have left prior to the original race in 2016. That was a rough one. In theory that was not doable.”
Translation: He’ll continue to barge ahead because he’s a deranged narcissist.
While Trump said campaign fundraising had skyrocketed since the indictment was issued, he conceded it was an unwelcome development.
“Nobody wants to be indicted,” said Trump. “I don’t care that my poll numbers went up by a lot. I don’t want to be indicted. I’ve never been indicted. I went through my whole life, now I get indicted every two months. It’s been political.”
Sure it’s been political: he decided to run for a political office that presented him with all sorts of new opportunities to commit crimes. He got elected and duly committed many crimes. Some of them (though not enough) are now catching up with him.
Sometimes I wonder if we would have had such a cavalier attitude towards Trump’s crimes if we didn’t have such an imperialistic view of the Presidency. We elevate these guys to such an exalted status when they win this one big election that they become untouchable for life. It’s not surprising that illegal activity if the president does it is legal if the president does it, according to Nixon. Obama continued a long precedent by not investigating the war crimes of the Bush (2) Presidency.
If we had a true Republic then presidents would be considered just people subject to the law, rather than short-reigned kings. I don’t think he’ll see a minute of prison and this emboldens him and his slavishly loyal supporters.
He broke the law with intent. Remember, if you’re going to steal, steal big.
It’s all become way too deferential. Monarchy envy. It’s ridiculous.
I suppose that is the item most resembling a reason to have a monarchy – you have this one person who is treated as magic and special but has no power, while the humdrum everyday human gets on with presiding over the work.
I never understood the appeal of the “Weak Mayor – City Manager” form of government until I moved to a city with that charter. The city manager is independent and answers to the City Council rather than out glad-handing and making promises in exchange for donations. So prosecution for malfeasance isn’t seen as a political move.
I don’t know if the country would be able to be run like that, but I remember that people were speculating on a separate ceremonial Head of State when Reagan was president and acting like a regent.
OB:
The UK according to my understanding has no written constitution; just a set of conventions. But here in Australia the Governor-General, who acts as a local representative of the reigning British monarch, has ‘reserve powers.’ He or she can dissolve Parliament, but only to call a fresh general election immediately afterwards, leaving final power in the hands of the voting populace at large.