Staff Reports
If only life were a high school debate club where representatives could square off in a friendly contest. Former President Donald Trump is gearing up for just such a showdown with Vice President Kamala Harris, but this time his coaching staff includes none other than former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Evidently, even she recognizes the value of a good argument and the impending need to prepare for Harris, who famously believes that “the science is settled” not only applies to climate change but the debate format itself.
However, Trump’s not just battling the verbal jousting of a vice president whose debate strategies could be more aptly described as “vague talking points.” He’s wading through a swamp of legal troubles courtesy of Special Counsel Jack Smith, who apparently has mistaken the rulebook of democracy for a courtroom script. The newly thrust upon Trump is a superseding indictment following the 2020 election, signaling that Smith isn’t just ambitious; he’s relentless. It seems like Smith’s version of “America’s Got Talent” is all about indictments instead of singing.
Mr. Trump says he can’t do a debate on ABC because he’s in litigation.
He filed the lawsuit against ABC News in March.
Donald agreed to the ABC debate in May.#TrumpIsACoward
Liar’s gonna lie. What a chicken. 🐔 pic.twitter.com/uabyhFqt1Q
— Art Candee 🍿🥤 (@ArtCandee) August 3, 2024
Just when one thinks that things couldn’t possibly get stranger, the Supreme Court stepped in with a ruling suggesting that presidents have a cozy little blanket of immunity for their official actions. Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed that while presidents indeed aren’t above the law, they technically can’t be thrown under the bus for doing their jobs—a radical idea, as if a president has actual responsibilities beyond attending galas and cutting ribbons. It seems Smith didn’t get the memo and is instead pinning his renewed hopes on whether Trump was acting as a candidate or a president, which is a question that feels rather moot given Trump’s penchant for stirring the pot according to his own agenda.
Professor Jonathan Turley didn’t hold back either, claiming that the latest indictment is a rehash of previous charges with a sprinkling of weaker evidence. Apparently, Smith’s creativity in the courtroom isn’t quite on par with Trump’s campaign strategy. The situation has drawn attention to the potential seriousness of Trump’s legal troubles, as the clock ticks down to his sentencing date in New York over his hush-money debacle—a financial plot twist worthy of a reality show—set for September 18.
In the realm of legal tactics, Trump’s lawyers are attempting to push back his sentencing date to after the election. They argue there’s absolutely no valid reason to deliver a verdict before voters head to the polls in November 2024. After all, what could be more American than delaying a potentially career-ending decision until after citizens have had their say? As the legal battles intensify like some melodramatic season finale, one can’t help but wonder if the ultimate outcome will spark more debates about the presidency than the ones taking place on stage next week.
