24 August 2018 | In Plain Sight

Every day, we see abuse of power committed in plain view. And just a few days ago, this soi-disant "president" was directly implicated in a federal crime and talks about pardons for people before they've been convicted that cannot not be interpreted as anything other being a corrupt decision and at odds with being the chief law enforcer in the country.

And every day, we see lawyer-pundits saying "this COULD be a crime." Look, we do understand why lawyers or former prosecutors parse their words carefully. They're trained to do so. They emphasize facts and evidence. They know the nuances and finer points of the law that the public doesn't. They know what makes a good case and what doesn't. And still with all that, the collective message from these folks on the cable shows is pure uncertainty: this might be a crime. It's possible that this is a crime. Even when we are confronted on a daily basis with acts that look corrupt, show some kind of corrupt intent and are just plain wrong, the lawyers appear to hedge their bets. Although they might think they are not, that is the inescapable conclusion by the public. The entire "I don't know, this maybe/could/possibly/kinda sorta be a crime" message just makes us doubt the system, and idea that there are any actual standards that are clear and unequivocal.

Maybe because of this, people are lulled into a false sense of security that "The Investigation" (whatever it happens to be) will hold all the answers and we just have to wait. And wait. And wait. Meanwhile, the active shooter on Fifth Avenue continues his killing spree. But never fear, the lawyer-pundits will be on TV to offer up their legal wishy-washy shoulder shrugging about the possible case against him.

If it was a crime.