A statement is said to be self-evident if it is generally accepted and requires no proof. Most Americans associate "self-evident truth" with the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. This post is not about whether all men are created equal or have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Special Counsel Robert Hur, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate President Biden's handling of classified documents when he was Vice-President conducted his investigation, including a 5 hour interview with the President, and sent his report to the DOJ. The bottom line was that Mr. Hur did not recommend indicting or prosecuting Biden. When a prosecutor does not recommend an indictment, it is generally understood that he/she does not think there is sufficient evidence for a jury to convict. I think it is safe to say that if Mr. Hur did not find credible evidence against Biden, it was not for lack of trying. After all, the DOJ knew that in order to be credible the prosecutor in this case had to be good - and a Republican. Robert Hur fit that bill. But as good as he was at the job and as hard as he must have tried he could not make the case against the President. He knew his conclusion would not be well-received by Republicans in Congress. But he took fire from both sides at a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing. Republicans were unhappy Hur did not think Biden's transgression rose to the level of an impeachable offence; after all the whole exercise was a bald-faced attempt at a tit-for-tat for former President Trump's second impeachment for his handling of classified documents. Democrats, while happy with Hur's conclusion, objected to what they considered his gratuitous assessment of the President as "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" - which they considered an unprofessional jab meant to reinforce the case that Biden was unfit to serve another term because of his age. The committee hearing and the ensuing public debate focused on these opposing perspectives. I don't know Mr. Hur and don't claim to know what he was thinking when he wrote that 388-page report. His performance at the Judiciary Committee hearing appeared, to me, to be even-handed. For some reason though, few commentators seemed interested in the first two attributes of Biden in that phrase. I would think that if Mr. Hur intended to put a dent in the Biden re-election bid and help Trump's campaign, he went about it in a novel way. In the years since the 2016 election I have come to understand and even accept the unquestioning devotion of Mr. Trump's base to his cause. But I would venture that even they would balk at describing him as sympathetic or well-meaning! In fact, some of them might consider those traits a blemish on his image.
If even a hostile prosecutor is volunteering that President Biden is indeed "sympathetic and well-meaning", then I think that qualifies as a self-evident truth. It should be obvious not just to middle-of-the-roaders and Democrats but to most people. When the dust settles after what is bound to be a rancorous campaign and you go to vote this year, that is the one thing you should remember. The second part of Mr. Hur's assessment - elderly man with a poor memory - applies to a lot of us. It certainly applies equally to Mr. Trump. And yet we all plod on as best we can. Some of us, like me, have retired to spend our time writing a blog while others find the will and energy to run for President. More power to them. The choice, to me, is clear. I would think that none of the forty-six men who have served as our President have been saints; but, in our present predicament, we could use an elderly, sympathetic, well-meaning man over how ever you would characterize Donald Trump.