Washington Examiner Opinion: Trump’s Mar-a-Lago records were ethically indefensible

[hal]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini...defensible

Former President Donald Trump’s defenders in the matter of the Mar-a-Lago documents controversy are defending the indefensible.

Forget the legalities: For the sake of (spurious) argument, let’s stipulate that somehow Trump can concoct some looking-glass version of a legal argument that justifies his “authority” to do with the documents as he did. The point is that even if it was technically legal, it was wrong, wrong, wrong.

First, it is undeniable that even unclassified presidential records belong to the government, not to the ex-president — and even ones for which he may have temporary custody (for memoir-related purposes and the like) must be identified, cataloged, and explicitly granted through a formal process. As my colleague Tim Carney writes, “Because these documents were not his, Trump was supposed to return them, and the government had the authority to get them.”

Wrong as he was to have any unacknowledged records, he was even more wrong in refusing to turn them in despite many months of requests for them, further wrong in refusing even after a subpoena, and even more wrong in having his lawyer lie by submitting official paperwork saying they had all been turned over. There is no ethical or moral justification for the recalcitrance and the lies.

Drudge, National Review and now the Washington Examiner. Fox is close behind. This guy is toast!

[steve...]

hal wrote:
Drudge, National Review and now the Washington Examiner. Fox is close behind. This guy is toast!

Bet he'll be on a rant tomorrow at his Pennsylvania Rally.

[vision63]

And this has nothing to do with what's being alleged via the Jan 6 hearing. Nothing to do with the NYC AG. Nothing to do with the NYC DA, nothing to do with the Fulton CO DA.

This was totally, easily avoidable.

[hal]

vision63 wrote:
And this has nothing to do with what's being alleged via the Jan 6 hearing. Nothing to do with the NYC AG. Nothing to do with the NYC DA, nothing to do with the Fulton CO DA.

This was totally, easily avoidable.

yeah, good point - it's not even the sum total of everything - it's these documents.

[vision63]

hal wrote:
[quote=vision63]
And this has nothing to do with what's being alleged via the Jan 6 hearing. Nothing to do with the NYC AG. Nothing to do with the NYC DA, nothing to do with the Fulton CO DA.

This was totally, easily avoidable.

yeah, good point - it's not even the sum total of everything - it's these documents.
Every day it's some new layer of document mishandling. Just like I mishandled NY State AG.

[RgrF]

Will these editorials move the needle of committed MAGAites - doubtful although it may well push MAGAs into a minority position within the party they can never build out from.

The remaining GOP realize their party now represent the dog who caught the car. They gamed the system, got the judges they wanted, the Roe decision they used for decades to raise $ while never understanding what their constituents really wanted.

GOP pols are victims of Citizens United as well in that it got to where they only ever listened to the money.

[gadje]

isn't Washington Examiner one of the pro Trump/GOP websites?

[RgrF]

Yes.

[RAMd®d]

It's pretty safe to say there's nothing, no documents as evidence, no video as evidence, and certainly no testimony as evidence, that will change a true MAGA believer's mind and political positon.

This has been stated over and over, ad nauseam.

The real value, if any, would be to hearten those who want to help save democracy and actually do something about that, in particular — vote.

Besides, even if a MAGA or MAGA-ish type, sees the light, he or she will continue to be mock, and people in general won't be appreciative of them finally doing the right thing.

So those people shouldn't go public about a change of heart, in fact they shouldn't do anything at all, considering the damage done.

[dk62]

Ethics and morality are relative concepts. And Trump has never shown any adherence to mores of any relevant societal group. I do not understand why is anyone even debating the morality/ethics of his actions - that boat has sailed long, long ago. Breaking the law is the only thing that may stick, his lack of morality and ethics is irrelevant to his supporters.