Indictments are one-sided prosecutor briefs, and even Trump is presumed innocent. Right?
By Gary Abernathy
Take a breath: The indictment is just an opening salvo
I had the TV on when news broke Tuesday about the latest indictments of Donald Trump - these charging him in connection with his challenge of the 2020 election results — and I was struck by television reporters and commentators who treated the indictments more like guilty verdicts than the allegations they are.
Regardless of how anyone feels about Trump — love him or hate him — in America, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and an indictment is merely an unproven charge, a prosecutor’s assertions with no pushback or other viewpoints included.
And yet, as I flipped back and forth between channels, the number of reporters and analysts concluding that prosecutor Jack Smith’s case was “solid” or “impressive” or “comprehensive” — all indicating something practically airtight — I was shaking my head wondering if they truly understood that these indictments were just one side of the story.
Yes, it’s “we interrupt this program” newsworthy that Trump was indicted, no argument. But it’s also a zealous prosecutor — they’re all zealous, by the way, nothing wrong with that — filing the most damning indictment he can possibly piece together. That’s his job. But it’s just the opening salvo. This will drag on for more than a year, maybe longer. Take a breath.
By the way, isn’t the current president — Joe Biden — under an active investigation for hoarding classified documents? Any reporting on that lately? Just for some variety?
Twitter’s change to ‘X’ reminds us how little we really care
Most of us knew it was coming, but when my Twitter app suddenly changed to ‘X’ this week, I thought to myself, “Wow, this is going to take some getting used to.”
By the end of the day, I wasn’t even thinking about it anymore, even when I posted a couple of things — which demonstrates how quickly we adapt in this rapidly-evolving world.
Twitter has been called Twitter, featuring its little blue bird logo, since its inception in 2006. One would think that after all these years, a shakeup such as dramatically changing its name and its logo would be more earth-shattering than it has been so far this week.
I’d like to think that it’s a reflection of how unimportant social media really is in the big scheme of things. Twitter is the only social media account I have. I closed down my Facebook account a long time ago. I only keep Twitter for business reasons. If I wasn’t still working in journalism, I wouldn’t have any social media presence at all.
Social media is not the real world. It’s not an accurate reflection of the real world. It’s not really very important, which is, I think, why it doesn’t really matter much whether a particular platform is called Twitter or X.
Patriotism is, sadly, not important to younger Americans
This USA Today column by Ingrid Jacques, analyzing a recent Gallup poll on patriotism in the U.S., led to some disturbing conclusions.
The poll found that “patriotism among young adults ages is now at a record low, after declining for the past 10 years.”
From the column:
Age, along with political party, are the biggest determining factors in how Americans feel about the country. Republicans at 60% are twice as likely as Democrats (29%) to say they have a robust pride in the United States.
Discrepancies in national pride are even more pronounced among different age groups. According to Gallup: “Whereas 50% of U.S. adults aged 55 and older say they are extremely proud to be American, 40% of those aged 35 to 54 and 18% of 18- to 34-year-olds say the same.”
So-called “Gen Z” is really down on America, the poll found.
Generation Z, born from 1997 to 2012 and an increasingly important voting bloc, is more liberal than other generations, even at similar ages. That seems to play into young people’s pride, or lack of it, in America.
This is part of a broader national trend. A decade ago, 85% of adults said they were "extremely" or "very" proud to be an American. Today, that's dropped by nearly 20 percentage points to 67%.
Why does being a liberal apparently correspond with being less of a patriot? Part of it is tied to how the Democratic Party’s negative drumbeat on capitalism is apparently hitting home for Gen Z.
As Jacques points out:
Even President Joe Biden has allowed himself to be pulled further to the left when it comes to higher taxes and government intrusion into the marketplace. Biden calls it “Bidenomics,” and it’s antithetical to the free-market capitalism that has made America the most prosperous country in the world.
The piece is worth a read. Check it out here.
Discussing (and debating) Trump on the NewsHour
That guy Donald Trump seems to dominate the headlines week after week for one reason or another, which is one reason I think it’s a bad idea to indict him for alleged crimes for which it will be very difficult to gain guilty verdicts. No matter how much they seem to hate Trump, many on the left also can’t seem to get enough of him, hence their anticipation of indictment after indictment.
I got to fill in for David Brooks for two weeks in a row on the PBS NewsHour, discussing all things Trump with moderator Geoff Bennett and NewsHour mainstay (and MSNBC host) Jonathan Capehart.
Both weeks featured a lively but respectful give and take on whether Trump should be indicted in the first place, and whether how the Justice Department treats Trump versus how it treats the Bidens (Joe and Hunter) is a fair comparison. (Hint: I think it is.)
You can check out the segments below.
Republicans are standing by Trump, no matter what
For a couple of years following the 2020 election, I thought Republicans would, slowly but surely, peel away from Donald Trump and find a new candidate to rally around. I knew that “Trumpism” was here to stay for the foreseeable future — there was no going back (nor should there be) to the country club Republicanism of old. But I thought more and more Republicans would decide, over time, that Trump’s failure to accept the reality of his election loss, coupled with his endless drama, just wasn’t worth the headache.
But as proven just this week by the latest New York Times poll, Republicans aren’t budging. As the Times reported:
Former President Donald J. Trump is dominating his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, leading his nearest challenger, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, by a landslide 37 percentage points nationally among the likely Republican primary electorate, according to the first New York Times/Siena College poll of the 2024 campaign.
Mr. Trump held decisive advantages across almost every demographic group and region and in every ideological wing of the party, the survey found, as Republican voters waved away concerns about his escalating legal jeopardy. He led by wide margins among men and women, younger and older voters, moderates and conservatives, those who went to college and those who didn’t, and in cities, suburbs and rural areas.
I confessed my misreading of the GOP faithful in a Post column just a couple of weeks ago.
Even after a federal indictment regarding his hoarding of classified material, polls show Trump’s dominance in the GOP field is unabated. This month, reporters shared tweets documenting what one called Trump’s “jaw dropping” crowd for a South Carolina rally. …
Clearly, I underestimated the depth of the emotional bond between Trump and his voters. What I continue to hear in personal conversations are passionate testimonials that the former president is the only candidate to be trusted, the exclusive remedy to our corrupt system, the lone meaningful defender of God, flag and country. Debate is futile. …
I concluded that support for Trump is far beyond the limits experienced eventually by most candidates — and beyond the limits of logic and reason. It’s an emotional bond.
Trump has energized a segment of America whose values and traditions are mocked as bigoted, backward or too religious. The world is hurtling past them at breakneck speed. Their belief that Trump is their last, best hope to avoid being left in the dust is partly disturbing, partly endearing and partly heartbreaking.
Part of me wishes for them that which I know is impossible — that the world wasn’t changing so fast and that Trump could be the man they dream he is.
You can read the whole piece here.
The GOP should stop fretting about how race is taught
In my most recent Post column, I weigh in on the controversy surrounding the new education standards in Florida, and how Republicans keep missing the mark with their attack on education in general nationwide.
In targeting how public schools teach about race, some Republican lawmakers seem determined to downplay or ignore the tribulations suffered by Black Americans throughout our nation’s history. Why?
Is it because they fear that by acquiring such information, the next generation of White Americans might gain a fuller understanding of why racial equality has yet to be achieved, as well as why remedies such as affirmative action and reparations for descendants of enslaved people are not so unreasonable?
I wondered, must Republican always come across as the party that wants to give students less information, not more?
I’m bewildered about why some on the right think too much knowledge is a dangerous thing, a fear demonstrated not only by restricting teaching about race but also through challenging or outright banning books in school and public libraries on any variety of topics, including many literary classics. While it’s true that the left too often wants to turn schools into laboratories for progressive ideology, expanding thoughts and ideas is always preferable to restricting them — something progressives should remember when they suggest clamping down on conservative voices on social media or barring right-leaning figures from speaking on college campuses.
Rather than banning reading material advocated by the left, the right should insist on adding books promoting conservative viewpoints. If that means building bigger libraries to accommodate the widest array of philosophies and opinions, everybody wins.
You can read the column here.
‘Reinventing Elvis’ a fun look at the ‘Comeback’ special
Lora and I went to the movies over the weekend to see a special presentation of “Reinventing Elvis,” which looks back at Elvis Presley’s famous 1968 “comeback” TV special, and the battle between the director, Steve Binder, with Elvis’ manager, Col. Tom Parker, over the tone and tenor of the special — and how it represented one of the few times that Elvis stood up to Parker.
As recounted in last year’s hit movie “Elvis” starring Austin Butler and Tom Hanks, Parker wanted Elvis to do a standard Christmas special along the lines of Perry Como or Andy Williams. Binder — and Elvis — wanted something more meaningful.
Binder, now 90 but mentally very sharp, recounts the battle in the new movie, with several contemporary artists weighing in and with great archival footage and behind-the-scene stories.
I wondered if they would find a way to end the movie other than with Elvis’ phenomenal rendering of the song that ended the special, “If I Can Dream.” But, spoiler alert, that’s the direction they went, and frankly, it’s smart — there’s just no topping that performance.
Following it’s one-time-only showing in theaters over the weekend, the movie will debut Aug. 15 on Paramount Plus. Check it out.
Sign up to get notified when my WaPo columns appear
People have asked me if there was a way they could be notified when I have a new Washington Post column published. Now there is — just follow this link, provide your email address, and you’re all set. Thanks!
Sign up or share this newsletter
Please sign up to receive this newsletter directly into your inbox or, if you are already a subscriber and reading this by email, share with a friend using the convenient button below. Thank you.