Yet Another Refugee from Livejournal

In my most recent journal entry, I said that I would draft a resignation speech for president Trump.

I haven't done that, and I'm not going to.  Why not?

I wasn't planning on a parody.  I thought I could come up with something plausible.  I even had an idea in mind of what that would be.

And now a second disappointment: not only am I not going to draft the speech, I'm also not going to tell you what the idea was.  Frankly, I now think it was embarrassingly naive.

I regret any inconvenience that this may cause.

As you may have read, the former president, Donald Trump, has been indicted on charges related to illegal handling of classified documents.  (Or more precisely, secret, or restricted-access documents; some of them are not, technically, "classified.")

What's going to happen?  This is not one question, but many.  I will offer a possible answer to one of them.

Let's narrow the question.  Let's assume that the case will go to trial.  What sort of defense will Trump direct his lawyers to present?  I wouldn't be surprised if he told them to argue as follows:

• Trump won the 2020 election.
• Therefore, Trump remains rightfully the president.
• Therefore, if the indictment says that Trump did something illegal on a particular date, Trump was president on that date.
• So, even if Trump did each act that the indictment says he did, on the date that the indictment says he did it … none of those acts were illegal.  The president can legally do anything he chooses with any government document, "classified" or not.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump insisted that his attorneys argue the case that way, because I think that such an argument would be entirely reasonable … to him.

What do you think?  Might this happen?  What would be the outcome if it did?

The purpose of this journal entry is, again, to call your attention to something that I wrote, but which is not part of this journal.  This time, it's a new page in the Politics section of my "site" at The Well.  You will find it at https://people.well.com/user/edelsont/politics/rhetoric/vote-vs-life.html.

What's on that page?  A "script" for a short talk (which I imagine) to be given by Joe Biden.  For example, a televison ad, in which he speaks directly to the camera.  The people he is most particularly addressing are those who intend to vote for Donald Trump.

His message for them is very simple: I suggest that you don't go to any of Trump's campaign rallies.  Why not?  Because then you might catch the virus, and then you might die, and then you wouldn't be able to vote for him.

He acknowledges that this might seem strange.  Not the actual logic of what he says, but his motivation for saying it.  Why would he volunteer advice on how to make sure that you will be able to vote against him?

He gives that an equally simple answer: I'd like to have your vote, but I care more about your life.

Now what is my motivation for addressing this journal entry to you?  Partly, of course, to get you to click the above link, and go read that "script" for yourself.  But there's also something else that I am asking you to do.

Namely: here's a question, and I'd like you to think about it, and give me your answer.  Ideally, you would do that by posting a comment to this journal entry.

Here's the question: does it seem possible to you that this, or something like it, might be effective?

Naturally, you respond to this with a question: effective at accomplishing what?  Am I asking whether it would be effective in persuading people to avoid rallies (and wear masks, and generally take care of their health)?

That is, indeed, an interesting question.  But it's not the one I'm asking you.  The real question is whether such an address—despite, on the surface, not attempting to do so—might encourage some of its hearers to change their minds, and vote for Biden instead of Trump.

Do you think that it would?  And why, or why not?