The alleged Trump crime that we all saw
Analysis | The alleged Trump crime that we all saw The Washington Post
sdgtalks
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Trump’s Attempt to Dismantle Democracy
Introduction
We saw it coming.
The Context
For months before the 2020 presidential election, President Donald Trump was elevating baseless or nonsensical claims about the security of mail-in ballots. It was transparent in its intent. He went on TV and said that making it easier to vote was bad for Republicans, and in 2020 “bad for Republicans” meant “bad for Trump.” But the nation had already settled into its trenches, with an established pattern of Trump making false claims, his allies pretending they were legitimate and his base ignoring the explanations of independent adjudicators about why they weren’t.
Trump’s Gambit
As the election drew closer, Trump’s gambit became explicit. He would take advantage of the gap between counting votes cast on Election Day and those submitted by mail to pretend that the election was being stolen from him. His aides and allies talked about it. There was even reporting that he was going to simply say he had won even before most of the votes were counted. Which he did.
The Historic Indictment
The indictment issued by a federal grand jury in Washington on Tuesday is a historic document, for obvious reasons. It is distinct from Trump’s previous indictments in part because of its scale. This indictment makes the case that Trump was trying to dismantle democracy. This was Trump trying to orchestrate a mechanism through which he got to keep flying around on Air Force One, whatever the costs to the country. This particular U.S. v. Trump is, more so than the other indictment obtained by special counsel Jack Smith, very much about Trump vs. the U.S.
Unfolding of Events
The charges it includes are ones that would have been foreign to non-attorney observers a few years ago — what did it mean to conspire to defraud the nation? But we watched what Trump did. We saw how, in the days after the election, he elevated obviously false arguments about fraud and boosted obviously unreliable storytellers who were saying what he wanted people to hear.
The Aftermath
By early January 2021, the water was scalding. Reports of angry meetings at the White House. Disruptions in the leadership of the Justice Department. Warnings about the threats posed to state election workers. And Trump, running out of options, demanding that his supporters come to Washington on Jan. 6. His millions of supporters were being crowded into a narrower and narrower path toward retaining him as president, jostling and growing angrier. And the path led to the Capitol steps.
Consequences and Reflection
What makes Trump’s third indictment different is that we saw what the grand jury felt constituted a crime unfold in front of our eyes. What makes it different is that we were all the victims of the alleged criminal behavior. All of us, every American. Even Trump’s supporters. What makes it different is that, for the first time, there may be actual consequences for what Trump tried to do.
SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis
1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?
- SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
- SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
The article discusses the attempts by former President Donald Trump to undermine democracy and retain power, which is connected to SDG 16. SDG 10 is also relevant as it addresses the issue of reducing inequalities, including political inequalities.
2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?
- Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels
- Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status
The article highlights the need for effective institutions that uphold democracy and the rule of law (Target 16.6). It also emphasizes the importance of political inclusion and ensuring equal rights and opportunities for all individuals (Target 10.2).
3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?
- Indicator for Target 16.6: Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services
- Indicator for Target 10.2: Proportion of people who believe they have a say in what the government does
The article implies the need to measure the satisfaction of the population with public services, indicating the effectiveness and accountability of institutions (Indicator for Target 16.6). It also suggests measuring the perception of individuals regarding their participation in decision-making processes, reflecting political inclusion (Indicator for Target 10.2).
Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
| SDGs | Targets | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions | Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels | Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services |
| SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities | Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status | Proportion of people who believe they have a say in what the government does |
Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.
Source: washingtonpost.com
Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.
