Tonight’s installment of NBC Nightly News brought us an appearance by Michael Beschloss, their resident Presidential expert. His angle? Offering supposed “context” on the recent guilty verdict handed down to former President Trump in a New York business records trial.
Presidential historian Michael Beschloss was invited on NBC Nightly News last night to provide a bit of insight on the groundbreaking guilty verdict against former President Donald Trump in the recent business documents trial. The commentator promptly kicked off a heated discussion on the matter, weaving comparisons with past presidential incidents.
NBC News anchor Lester Holt initially brought Beschloss into the conversation, emphasizing the fact that this turn of events marked the first time a former president had been convicted of a crime. Beschloss promptly agreed, referring to the moment as almost “surreal.” He further emphasized the turbulent times ahead since Trump is forecasted to be nominated as the Republican presidential candidate in merely six weeks.
But here’s where things went off track. Beschloss, not missing a beat, threw in an unexpected comparison with an incident involving former President Richard Nixon. He noted how, fifty years ago, Nixon was forced by the Supreme Court to surrender his secret tapes, which hinted at his probable involvement in criminal offenses. The two cases, however, are worlds apart, making the analogy a cheap shot at best.
Certainly, narratives around this verdict could not have emerged in isolation. Describing the current political landscape as divided wouldn’t be even scratching the surface. In gauging the potential aftermath of this historic verdict, Beschloss optimistically opined that despite controversial legal verdicts in the past, America has always stood up, grounded in the respect for the rule of law. This, he pointed out, is the DNA of America.
In closing, Beschloss reminded viewers of the privilege to protest peacefully and suggested that a guilty party could still appeal to the verdict, but the essence of our nation lies in ultimately respecting and following the rule of law.
I beg to differ though. Beschloss has often been seen as ardent anti-Trump, shown through his frequently heated throwdowns against Trump. He’s even gone so far as to liken Trump to a monster and dictator. His evaluation here, therefore, feels somewhat biased.
With this in mind, Beschloss’s attempt to provide context and insight into this monumental verdict seems rather pitiful. Is it not within the realms of possibility that the guilty verdict might be overturned due to a reversible error or on constitutional grounds? It appears Beschloss would rather dish out platitudes than tackle these tough questions.
In conclusion, Beschloss’s narrow perspective on Trump’s guilty verdict is a prime example of biased commentary disguised as expert analysis. The historian’s blatant disregard of potential legal recourse and his blinkered view raises several questions about his ability to offer objective comment. The political landscape, after all, is rarely black and white and not some high school style popularity contest.
