‘Truth or Consequences” was the name of a game show created by Ralph Edwards, a popular American radio and television host. The show first aired on radio in 1940 and later made its debut on television in 1950.

The concept of the show was that contestants were asked a question, and if they couldn’t answer it correctly, they would have to face the “consequences.” Over time, the phrase evolved, leading to the variation “Truth and Consequences.” The phrase is now used more broadly to refer to the idea that one must face the truth and accept the consequences that come with it.

In political conflicts, different parties often present their own versions of the truth or manipulate facts to support their positions. When truth is compromised for political gain, the consequences can result in far-reaching polarization and the erosion of democratic values.

That may be an accurate description of how we all feel today, regardless of everyone’s political beliefs a week in front of the Fourth of July 2023. It also may be a rare instance of “truth” that both major political parties agree with.

My own question is why, as the Recorder asked on its June 14 front page, are “local opinions ‘mixed’ on [the] historic Trump indictment?” How is this possible when there is so much factual evidence that the former president has broken various laws?

I cannot find anything, anywhere that Republicans and Democrats agree upon as a source of objective truth. Proven fact-checking organizations including PolitiFact, Pew Research Foundation, and Snopes are preferred by liberals. The Heritage Foundation, the Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller and Fox News are preferred by conservatives.

Now, with easy access to artificial intelligence search services, you will discover a growing industry of websites claiming to “tell it like it is.” My question is who is determining what the “it is.”

Both “sides” express deep concern about the demise of democracy in America, but for fundamentally different reasons. In today’s polarized politics there are growing challenges in determining what constitutes reliable information. Fear, anger, and a lack of trust are blocking constructive dialogue. Are there any remaining shared values about what America is, can be, and should be? I think the growing evidence of prejudice (white superiority) proves there are not.

The acute need for fact- and experience-driven analysis in response to Trump’s indictment is critical because it has created its own storm of commentary based on “different” reasoning and outright lies. We must all acknowledge and respect the rules, regulations and laws that enable America to continue upon its path as a fledgling democracy. Not doing so has backed us into ideological corners that ignore the best aspects of our Founders’ vision.

Is it not a fact that Trump has been in trouble with the law for most of his “career?” His greatest talent appears to be evading or stalling the legal consequences of his legal misdemeanors and outright lawbreaking actions. His response to his recent indictment provides yet one more example.

LA Times columnist Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and former deputy attorney general, has written that “Trump is engaged in an outlandish and, for the country, very dangerous plot to delay the case until he can end it by winning the presidency in 2024. At that point, he could just order the Department of Justice to stand down.”

“Note,” Litman continues, “that Trump wouldn’t have to run the legal risk of pardoning himself at that point. Even if he is speedily convicted — a prospect made considerably less likely by the assignment of Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon to the case — his conviction would almost certainly still be on appeal by January 2025, allowing him to simply order the department to drop the case.”

Judge Cannon is the Trump appointee who allowed him to temporarily stop the classified records investigation by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago. Her rulings on that case drew two stunning reversals by the conservative U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Litman now asks, “How can Trump, abetted by Cannon, go about maximizing the delay? Through a series of pretrial motions, all lacking merit to various degrees but nevertheless likely to take up considerable time.”

In other words, will Trump, in federal court, be able to exercise his lifelong capacity to speak anything but the truth? And demonstrate again that “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose voters?”

What will the consequences be if that “truth” remains intact?

“Connecting the Dots” is published on alternating Saturdays in the Recorder. John Bos is also a contributing writer for Green Energy Times. Comments and question can be sent to john01370@gmail.com.

]]>