×

An anti-corruption vote for Trump

Dear Editor,

Recalling the den of thieves in the Temple of Jerusalem and the sellers of indulgences in the times of Martin Luther, today we witness a new order of unfaithful stewards bestowing fortunes upon themselves while administering America’s republic. Too often, and at every level of government, conflicts of interest and the exchange of favors remain taken for granted or unprosecuted.  Opportunities intended for the benefit of the general citizenry have been arrogated to the fortunes of those entrusted with its care. Launched with the noblest of intentions, in the course of over two hundred years, the American practice of public service has migrated, with Icarian peril, from its destination.

The dramatic conclusion of this election season will color our future memory of this time not only as the political season of Donald J. Trump, but also as the Election of WikiLeaks. The thousands of emails disclosed by Julian Assange is one more great democratization of the Internet. What has been shown through these emails about the private ambitions of the Clintons while in public office, unbounded by modesty or conscience, rivals any monetization of power and influence seen in our nation’s history.

The indictment of the Clintons’ activities is not a partisan activity. Pay-for-play dictates access to government officials according to your bank account regardless of whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or apparently, a sheikh governing a nation under Sharia law. Destroying evidence damages the judicial leverage of anyone, liberal or conservative, with an interest contrary to the perpetrator. To anyone who starts anywhere below the top of the food chain, racketeers will ferociously defend market share from you, and they do not play by the rules.

The exposed conduct of the Clintons has been so egregious that it now renders secondary classic discussions of policy for this election. This issue must be of equal importance to the left and right, because a thoroughly corrupt government, no matter its size, will not validly apply any ideological policy, liberal or conservative, to the extent it is perceived detrimental to its enactor. Indeed, self-enrichment was the dominant “policy” of the Clinton State Department as demonstrated in its regular objectives; the securing of speaking engagements, the financing of the Clinton Foundation, and attending to the mutual interests of “WJC VIPs.”

As someone who practices law for a livelihood, I have seen fraud, spoliation, self-dealing, retaliation and other acts of self-interested nonviolence, many times illegal but sometimes legal, ruin individual lives and communities no less than common felonies and misdemeanors. Our jurisprudence of public service and our apprehension of white collar crime has failed to evolve at the same pace as the prosperity and sophistication this very same rule of law has enabled.

Just recently, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Robert McDonnell, former governor of Virginia, for bribery, i.e., receiving gifts in exchange for official action taken, because the federal bribery statute was unconstitutionally vague. Notwithstanding the vacating of Governor McDonnell’s conviction and the federal government’s decision not to pursue further charges, one conclusion–and latent solution–should be considered in the aftermath of such a failure to effectuate the will of the public; the authoring of ethical guidance with the force of law for political actors must become equal to the complexity of the activities that should and must be regulated.  I hold the legal profession accountable for our society’s inability to better articulate public service crime in all of its manifestations. I further hold each of the major political parties accountable for refusing to maintain as a priority the ethical and fair administration of governance. The legal and political communities, spurred by the will of the public, should set out to so fully analyze and codify miscarriages of public trust, that their prosecution will rival the medical profession’s diagnoses of cancer in both accuracy and specificity.

I find several comments Donald Trump has made during his campaign, particularly about women, to be reprehensible, and they cannot be condoned or defended. Nevertheless, many decisions in our lives merit the weighing of many factors, but resolve to the recognition of a single, dominant rationale. On the occasion of this presidential election, I exercise my judgment to determine that the worse of two evils for America, this nation being a single, unified beneficiary of the public service of the said office, would be the perpetuation of white collar criminal behavior attendant to Hillary Clinton’s political career. I will not cast my vote to license the White House to become a syndicate headquarters or wealth planning tool for those to whom too much has been mistrusted. Donald Trump is the most practical alternative to prevent this outcome, and also the candidate who has had the most pro-government reform platform.

I do believe this is an election of moment and a legacy to future generations. This vote is an imperfect but sincere stand against corruption, the beginning and not the end of work to ensure that our government and its agents do not proceed in the same recent course of benefitting the few to the disadvantage of the many.

Nathaniel J. Schmidt, Esq.,

Attorney in Warren and NW Pennsylvania in the general practice of law

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today