Donald Trump is innocent squared. He never does, or is, anything by halves
By Theodore Dalrymple
After Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 charges, he said that he was “a very innocent man”: not just
innocent, mind you, but very innocent. Ordinary people who do not do what they are accused of having done, by contrast, are only innocent; Donald Trump is innocent squared, as it were. He never does, or is, anything by halves.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone claim to be very innocent before; while to say of someone that he is very innocent is not necessarily complimentary, suggesting naivety — not what the former president is best known for.
I happened to be reading the Cass report on the day Mr Trump was convicted, a sterling if not beautifully-written piece of work, and I noticed the following:
Balanced information, which is realistic and practical, and does not over-exaggerate or underestimate the risks, is essential to support everyone involved and identify young people in most urgent need of help.
Over-exaggerate? Is, there, then, a correct amount of exaggeration in the information to be employed in supporting everyone involved and identifying young people in most urgent need of help? We must also be careful not to over-underestimate.
I was taken back to the time in the hospital in which I was working to a patient’s notes that read, “Swallowed an overdose of bleach”. Was there, then, a correct dose of bleach for the patient to have swallowed, perhaps in pursuit of what my grandmother used to call, when advocating weekly castor oil for us, “a good clear-out”?
The Cass report must have passed through many hands before it was published, but evidently no one noticed this odd locution. I don’t want to over-exaggerate the importance of such ill usage, but on the other hand, I don’t want to under-minimise it either. If we are not careful, we shall become hyper-insensitive to verbal solecisms.
First published in The Critic
- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
2 Responses
I’m sorry, but this is silly. Trump’s whole nature is over-exaggeration, and he is not at his best with words. The President is simply trying to point out that the charges against him are beyond ludicrous by any sound legal standard. This essay would seem to imply that through his use of words, “he doth protest too much.”
First, his exaggerations are due to a lifelong career of buying and selling. It can be either amusing or irritating, depending on one’s viewpoint. Having said that, actions speak louder than words and his past record is in itself exonerating.
More importantly than that is the undeniable fact that there has been a concerted campaign by the fanatical elites to destroy Trump (and Bolsonaro in Brazil) by using lawfare. This has been done to give him the status of “convicted felon,” to bankrupt him, to derail his election campaign (a new tactic of electoral fraud). Towards this end, evidence has been suppressed and evidence has been distorted. On top of that, the prosecutors/DAs are fanatical anti-Trump haters and, surprise, surprise, so are the judges picked for the trials. Just like in banana republics. Just like in Russia. Just like any dictatorship. No wonder he is emotional over this authoritarian travesty.
If this occurred to Dalrymple, would he remain a cool, unflappable person? I think not. Anyone who has undergone the travesty of a kangaroo trial would be either infuriated or crushed.