If Trump's trials start after Nov. 5

Much concern has been raised regarding the former president’s attorneys’ attempts to delay, delay, delay his pending criminal trials. Some fear that unless the former president is convicted in a court of law prior to election day, the conduct alleged against him may not be considered by voters.

As a retired prosecutor, I believe the law applies equally to all. Also, the due process clause of the Constitution accords every criminal defendant the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a conscientious citizen and voter, however, my responsibility differs importantly from the responsibility of a juror. More often than not, highly relevant facts regarding a candidate’s character, honesty, past performance, etc., have not been litigated in a court of law.

Nevertheless, I have to make my best voting decision.

Say, for example, I heard a recorded phone conversation between a recently defeated La Conner candidate and our Skagit County Clerk. Say the candidate threateningly pressures her to find him just enough votes to change the result of the election in his favor. Say the candidate does not deny the call. How would you describe this behavior? Anti-democratic? Disgusting? Disqualifying?

The former president made just such a recorded call to the secretary of state of Georgia and threateningly pressured him. Disqualifying? Or is this sort of behavior by a president now acceptable in America?

A similar non-legal analysis can be made of many uncontroverted events of January 6, 2021. I hope to address those events in a future letter, the editor willing.

Shunji Asari

Shelter Bay