by Matt Taibbi
Nine years ago I was assigned to write a story about Donald Trump and the 25th Amendment. I was given the numbers of mental health professionals ready to say Trump was crazy. It was not to be quickie commentary; I was sent on the road to follow the president. As he was during the campaign, Trump was bombastic, paranoid, unpredictable, and occasionally even seemed to see or hear things that weren’t there. However, before filing, I spoke with lawyers, including a Fordham professor who’d help draft the original 25th Amendment bill. A president could only be removed, he said, for “inability,” not for “policy and political differences, unpopularity, poor judgment, incompetence, laziness or impeachable conduct.”
Weeks later, in an MSNBC green room, a Democratic aide complained about the article. I asked: if he were a juror judging Trump in a gas station robbery, would he vote not guilty by reason of insanity? “That’s different,” he said. This was at a time when it was widely expected that Trump would eventually be impeached for Russiagate. I told the man he couldn’t have it both ways, that Trump couldn’t be both criminally responsible and crazy. His answer: “If anyone can do it, it’s Trump.”
After the declaration of a mistrial in the horrifying Massachusetts murder case involving Lindsay Clancy, what is there to say, except to note how wildly inconsistent we’ve become in measuring concepts like “capacity” and “responsibility.” We’re a culture that doesn’t forgive, but quickly excuses. I don’t know what it means, nor do I understand how this case became a such a rallying cry for — something? What, exactly? How can “mental defect” have a lobby? What’s happening to people?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.