Guilty

    For the first time in history, an American president -- incoming, present or former -- has been convicted of a felony.
   However, the judge presiding over the case against Donald J. Trump did not penalize him, financially or with jail time.
   Whether he appeals the state court's decision to a federal system, potentially all the way to the Supreme Court, is another question. Nonetheless, he is now a convicted felon.
   The case involves lies told about his relationship with a woman in New York, and the lies were told before he was elected president, so the issue of presidential immunity does not apply. It was, at root, an event that took place before he was elected, and did not involve official government issues, either on the state or the federal level.
   Repeat: Therefore, the claim of presidential immunity does not apply.
   In any case, presidential immunity refers to things said or done in a person's official capacity as a government executive. It does not apply to issues related to a political campaign or personal activities.
   Whether Trump insists that this particular law -- or any other law -- does not apply to him, is another issue. 

Blissful It Ain't

   Ignorance may be helpful to politicians who are intent on building their power. And it may be yet more useful when listeners don't know the background of people who make headlines in their efforts to dominate public service. But when government leaders are unaware or deliberately ignore the background of newsmakers, that ignorance -- or stupidity -- can lead to harsh violence, if not outright war.

   Examples of  "blissful" ignorance: Canada, an independent nation, also recognizes the king of Great Britain as chief of state. The Canadian prime minister is the head of that nation's government. Other nations have similar details, in that the chief of state and the head of government are separate. The USA gives both jobs to its president.

   Greenland is also a self-governing, semi-independent nation, but it acknowledges that it is part of Denmark. And the Panama Canal Zone is fully part of the nation of Panama, and it always has been, even as the U.S. rented a stretch of land since about the year 1910 for a canal between the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. 

  So if the U.S. wants to take over those three independent nations, as Donald Trump proposes, it could lead to a full breakdown of commercial relationships, or even to a flat-out war.

Oink, Oink

   Donald Trump sought the presidency three times. On each of those occasions, his opponents were lawyers with experience in Congress, the White House and other government agencies.
   Trump's background was in real estate.
   Yet, Trump won twice, when his opponents were women.
   What does that say about the preferences of American voters? Can you say "male chauvinist"? The only time Trump lost election was when his opponent was a man, specifically Joe Biden, a former member of the Senate and vice president to Bill Clinton.
   (An argument can be made that he did not win the first election, but rather manipulated the electoral vote in a court battle with the backers of Hillary Clinton, a lawyer, member of Congress, delegate to the United Nations and married partner with President Bill Clinton.)
   In his third bid for the presidency, Trump defeated Kamala Harris, a woman who had served as a trained lawyer, a member of Congress and as vice president with Joe Biden.

Freedom of the Press

   Donald Trump has threatened to sue the Des Moines Register for printing a report that he came out second in a pre-election survey of Iowa residents.
   This was not an Election Day report, but an earlier private survey of what some potential voters planned to do several days later, on Election Day itself.
   It was not an official government tabulation of Election Day votes. It surveyed only a relatively few potential voters in Iowa, and none in other states. It was also done before Election Day. And there was no promise that they must do what they said they would do.
   There was also no guarantee that those surveyed actually would vote as they said they might. There were no promises that they would do on Election Day what they said two days earlier they probably might do.
   That's the kind of information surveys collect.
   Nonetheless, Trump sued the newspaper for printing a story about what might happen, could happen, would happen or should happen if, if, if, and if.
   None of the above actually did happen. It was only a survey of what some folks thought might happen.
   Even so, he sued.
   Why?
   Was this part of a threat to punish anyone who dared to make any negative comment about him, or about what might happen?
   By this standard, criticism is not allowed.
   If this incoming president succeeds in punishing anyone who does anything that can be perceived as negative, this nation founded on the doctrine of free speech is in trouble.
   Perhaps Trump and his cohort should read the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Ain't Gonna Happen

    Donald Trump has suggested he wants to integrate Canada into the United States. Why he wants to do that was not indicated. But the Prime Minister of Canada felt it was significant enough for him to visit Trump and persuade him that it was not a good idea.
   However, a spokesman for the Canadian government said it was only a joke. Even so, Justin Trudeau was on a visit to the incoming president when the suggestion was made.
   Couple this "joke" with an earlier suggestion that the U.S. somehow acquire Greenland and one wonders what kind of humor the incoming U.S. president has.
   In any case, from Canada's view, such a union would mean a loss of independence and loss of connection to the UK. And if Canada became a U.S. state, that would mean a loss of influence by present states, since the House of Representatives limits its membership to the national population of  1912, when the House established its total as 412 members.
   That means if Canada joins the union of American states, it would send two members for the Senate plus an untold number of House members, depending on its population. That would mean some existing states would lose some of its delegates.
   Or, if Canada splits into several states as it joins the union, each of its provinces would get several House members as well as two senators and a similar number of U.S. states would lose representatives.
   Already, this happens every ten years, when the national census determines the total population of the American states.
   Trump has already suggested acquiring Greenland to be part of the U.S., but that too was dismissed.
   But these questions remain: Was the incoming president only joking, or is he ignorant?
   Neither is appropriate.

Quo Vadis

    Where are you going?

   That can be society's motto for America in the near future.

   This implies a pardon to those who might go in a strange direction, and it's a reminder of the full pardon Joe Biden issued for his son. Now, with all the critical attacks from the GOP Trumpians, it's appropriate to consider a comparison.

   Young Hunter Biden was connected to two legal offenses, and in the context of society as a whole, they were relatively minor.

   1/ Possession of a gun for some 30 days.

   2/ Drug use.

   The two coincided for about five days, and Hunter quit both.

   Compare that to the dozens of more serious offenses perpetrated by many Trump allies -- including himself -- and you have an interesting perspective.

   Granted, Hunter Biden should not have used drugs and should not have possessed a gun at the same time, even considering any personal problems he may have had in his life, including the death of his mother and sister in an auto accident when he was a youngster, as well as the death of his older brother.

   Now make a list of the legal and moral offenses allegedly perpetrated by the Trumpians, and see how much space it takes, as well as the legal punishment -- including prison time -- they faced.

   Then consider the likelihood that the incoming president will impose punishments of various kinds against any and all who have ever disagreed with him on anything.

   Is there a balance?

Promises, Promises

 News media are detailed in their coverage of the incoming president's choices for his senior staffers.
   But his reaction to criticism from commentators borders on and often passes the level of threat.
   Threat, you say? Against the news media? Pshaw. That's not a threat, some insist. Rather, it's a promise that others must talk nice about him or go to jail.
   They will not pass Go, they will not collect a bonus, and they will lose their license to do business, especially in journalism.
   It matters not what the Constitution says. The president will suspend it, as he has warned. Keep in mind, however, that it will only be for Day One.
   That's what he promised, his followers insist.
   But will he keep his promise?
   What's his history of keeping promises?
   History is only a story, some remind us, and it's a word borrowed from the French l'histoire.
   Meanwhile, this question remains: What will the news media do about his threat to shut down any and all outlets that dare to criticize what he says and does?
   Perhaps that includes us, and others who use a public forum to discuss issues.
   We'll deal with that issue when and if it happens.
   Even so, the threat exists.