Two of my friends disagreed on the issue of whether or not the President Elect had actually committed crimes. One said: I, and I think most Americans, don't believe any of this.
The other said: Nobody is above the law. He has to be held accountable. I have spent my life as members of two secretive orders with extreme codes of conduct. The following is my response to my two friends. .
.
.
I am late to this chat, but I will say this, my friend. I was an officer of both the press and the law. Whether or not you "believe" (from the Greek, "to fervently hope") something has little to do with how the law plays out. In my days as both a journalist and a police detective, I will tell you first hand, there are bars of ethics and a fealty to the truth. Had I covered a County Commissioners' meeting and misrepresented it in The Progress, Commissioner Lytle or Harry Fred Bigler would have seen me on the street the next day and said, "What meeting were you at, buddy?" The thing is, my credibility as a journalist was ALL that I had. When I write something, I sign it with my real name. I dare not lie. What you write HAS to stand up. You have to have empirical, attributed evidence. I was fired from The Progress for a true story that angered certain wealthy people in town. Rather than sign a retraction, I elected to be fired. Because the retraction, published on page one that day without my consent, was a lie.
In police work, you also have a bar of proof codified in the law. To bring a criminal charge, you must first assert an Affidavit of Probable Cause; meaning, you must spell out a crime that you believe was committed and that the defendant probably committed it.
This does not mean the defendant is guilty. It means he has been charged with a crime and is presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.
The defendant gets an arraignment where he is officially advised of the charges against him. Then the defendant gets a preliminary hearing, where a judge hears the evidence for and against and decides based on Prima Facie (meaning: "on the surface") evidence that the crime did or did not occur and that the defendant did or did not commit the crime. The judge then either throws the case out or binds the case over for trial. But, even then, the defendant is assumed to be innocent.
Then a trial happens. In this phase, the defense and the prosecution wrangle over the selection of 12 jurors out of a field of sometimes hundreds of candidates. The jurors are presented by legal counsel (who also share a strict code of ethics) more detailed evidence in trial. Witnesses, documents and other things aimed at PROVING guilt. Meanwhile, the defense cousel tries everything in their power to diminish those proofs.
The jury, in order to decide a guilty verdict, must, after all this, and having viewed ALL the EVIDENCE, decide UNANIMOUSLY and to a high standard called "Beyond a reasonable doubt" that the crime was committed and that the defendant did commit the crime. Then, and only then, is a defendant found guilty. Whether you believe the charges were warranted does, indeed, depend on the sources you use for news. But whether you "believe" the charges were warranted or not has nothing to do with the facts.
Had I, as a police detective, filed charges that were false, I would be a criminal myself. I do not "believe" Donald Trump is a criminal. He IS a criminal. I do not "believe" he raped a woman in a public changing room in New York City. He DID rape a woman in a public changing room in New York City. I do not "believe" he fraudulently operated a fake university, Trump University, bilking money out of people wanting to acquire his business acumen. He DID defraud people with his fake university. I do not "believe" he used his charitable foundation for his own enrichment. He DID use his charitable foundation for his own enrichment. I do not "believe" his CFO, Allen Weiselberg, committed crimes. He DID commit crimes and is in prison today as a result. These are all matters of criminal (and civil) prosecutions where juries agreed unanimously after hearing EVIDENCE that these crimes did occur.
What a person "believes" has nothing to do with PROOF. Whether or not a majority of American voters shares that belief has nothing to do with the Truth.
For those on one side of this issue, Fox News, or some like outlet, is telling you that this is all bullshit. MOST of what is on Fox's NEWS shows (which are few of their televised hours in a day, and only corrupted to a slight degree) is accurate. But a journalist does not tell the truth MOST of the time. A journalist tells the truth ALL of the time. Why, then, is Fox so invested in destabilizing "the mainstream media?" Because it is where their money is. Why does every other legitimate news organization come up with news that more or less shares the same general facts? Because they're true. Not because of some grand cabal somehow getting everyone to spin the same direction. Why is Fox so different? Because their "news" is just for republicans. It is spun, sometimes out of whole cloth, to make you feel rage and injustice.
The news silos we live in today were created when Rupert Murdoch came to America. When American legislators changed media ownership rules (for a lot of money) to allow him to come into our market. When the fairness doctrine, which mandated equal time to opposing views, was shelved because of greed. What his family, an Austrailian family, has done to our culture, world-wide, is impose his sense of grievance on many of us, and got us to pay for it.
The reason we are divided is because Fox (the clever animal) has divided us with deceit wrapped in the trusted trappings of "news."
It doesn't make either of my friends bad people. But it causes problems.
Most people have no idea what it is like to arrest a rich person. I do. My life has been savaged over and over again by people from the country-club set who did not like the Truth.
When you arrest someone rich, or somehow powerful, you are in a world of shit.
I had a notorious case once that had the effect of tearing the town I worked in apart. And I had to stand there, do the investigation, and after years, finally bring that case to bear in another state, all the while my credibility was publicly questioned.
Shady private eyes were hired to follow me around and investigate my life all down through the years. They followed me around taking my photograph and intimidating witnesses. They filed complaints against me at work which resulted in my being under investigation by the bureau of internal affairs for years having every ounce of my personal credibility and behavior questioned.
A jury found guilt on more than four dozen counts. But not before my reputation was damaged. Not before my wife and child were terrorized for years. Through it all, I stood my ground on the Truth. And I paid, and continue to pay, like you can't believe.
But I stood on the Truth.
But do you think for one minute anybody thanked me? The truth teller. Do you think anyone appologized to me? The damage of lies goes on, it seems, forever. And it is the one telling the truth that they go after, because the truth sometimes hurts.
So... back to the beginning here... given my relatively miniscule experiences as I've written, just imagine how hard it must be to prosecute Donald Trump. Let alone successfully.
In the end, all we have is the Truth.
And, finally, Here is a prescient footnote I saw at the bottom of an NPR story today:
"The Facts are Powerful. In an age of fake news and disinformation, NPR strives to amplify the truth. That's why when power structures are threatened, those in power target journalists. They want to silence journalists to conceal the truth."
I have been precisely in that crucible. I have been attacked as both a journalist and a police officer for telling the truth. Most of you have not. So believe me when I give you some of the tools I use to combat misinformation.
First and foremost is NewsGuard. NewsGuard is a browser plug-in that holds serious journalistic standards up to any web-site, news organization, or story you hover over on facebook (the mother of all lies). Check out the link and you'll find out how NewsGuard works. You can see what their standards are and agree or not that they're useful (they are).
Currently, some members of the Republican party are trying to stop, or censor, NewsGuard. You can read about that HERE.
Until next time, friends remember one of my favorite old adages:
"The Truth will give you bullet-proof armor...... And the need to wear it."
Comments