Trump’s calculated moves aim to transform legal woes into political capital:
“On November 5, 2024, justice will be done. We will take back our country,” bragged former US president Trump in front of his supporters just a few hours after pleading not guilty in a South Florida courthouse to federal charges of allegedly mishandling classified information.
Trump is trying to use his indictment, the first-ever in the US’s presidential history, to his advantage. His post-indictment belligerent moves are part of a strategic plan to turn his legal woes into political gain.
With a keen eye for political theatrics, Trump has employed a belligerent approach, defying conventional politicking and exploiting every opportunity to gain attention. Every step he takes is carefully choreographed to maintain a grip on his supporters’ pulse, ensuring that his name remains in the headlines. Trump is employing a calculated narrative, one that portrays the indictment as a direct assault on his presidency and a subversion of the democratic will of the people. Through this lens, he stokes the embers of resentment among his loyal followers, cultivating a potent brew of perceived persecution and systemic injustice.
“[President] Joe Biden will forever be remembered as not only the most corrupt president in the history of our country, but perhaps, even more importantly, the president who, together with a band of his closest thugs, misfits, and Marxists, tried to destroy American democracy,” Trump said in his typical bullying style.
But beneath the theatrics lies a shrewd strategic calculus. Trump recognises the power of victimhood, and he is harnessing its emotional resonance to solidify his base. By presenting himself as the embattled underdog, he taps into a deeply ingrained sense of grievance, a belief that the establishment conspires against those who dare challenge its dominance. Through the indictment controversy, Trump is trying to distract the public, polarise the electorate and galvanise his supporters.
In the realm of politics, adversity can be an unexpected ally, and Trump, ever the astute showman, is striving to turn the tables on his accusers. Through calculated moves and a flair for controversy, he endeavours to transform his indictment into a potent weapon, channelling it to reshape the Republican discourse and secure his political resurrection. In a characteristically elusive manner, Trump sidestepped addressing the specific charges levelled against him, instead mounting a defence of his decision to keep sensitive national security documents.
Justifying his actions, he boldly asserted, “I had every right to have these documents. These boxes were containing all sorts of personal belongings. Whatever documents the president takes with him, he has a right to do so. It’s an absolute right. This is the law. ”
Drawing on a questionable precedent, Trump has invoked what he calls the “Clinton Socks Case” in an attempt to establish a parallel that would justify his own actions. In this case, which unfolded in 2010, a conservative group known as Judicial Watch sued former president Bill Clinton, alleging mishandling of classified material. The group sought to have the National Archives take custody of audio recordings Clinton had kept in a sock drawer, claiming they were presidential records.
But a district judge ruled that these recordings were personal rather than presidential records, undermining the case’s relevance to Trump’s situation.
There is a big difference between the two cases: Clinton cooperated with the government’s efforts to retrieve the tape-recordings, but Trump obstructed attempts to reclaim the hundreds of documents he took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, his home in Florida. His attempt to find solace in the “Clinton Socks Case” fails to withstand scrutiny and raises further questions about his handling of sensitive materials.
Considering his track-record of misleading statements about Hillary Clinton’s emails, Biden’s papers, and Bill Clinton’s audio diaries, his detractors say he is resorting to such tactics to divert attention from his wrongdoings. Trump, as usual, has dismissed the charges against him as “fake and fabricated”, attributing them to a purportedly left-leaning activist-prosecutor.
Trump’s ethical frailty is unparalleled in the annals of US political leadership, as he grapples with the legal problems. Like a typical populist politician, he flits from one excuse to another. At first, he insinuated that the FBI had staged the search at Mar-a-Lago in August, claiming they manipulated evidence and illegally leaked photographs to the press. Then he asserted his entitlement to unrestricted control over his papers, as if official government documents were mere trifles he could hoard at will. Yet suddenly, these papers transformed into a hodgepodge of souvenirs, ranging from shoes and T-shirts to personal snapshots.
The cycle of shifting narratives continues unabated. This convoluted dance of evasion and contradiction exposes the fragility of Trump’s defence.
His attempts to deflect accountability is incoherence, undermining his credibility in the face of mounting scrutiny. Despite the absence of political consequences thus far for Trump regarding the alleged mishandling of confidential presidential documents, the risks inherent in nominating a figure who might find themselves diverted from the campaign trail to attend a federal trial as a defendant cannot be discounted indefinitely.
Furthermore, Trump faces the prospect of another trial next year in a separate state case initiated by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg, accusing him of falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments to a former adult film actress. These charges, filed in April, marked the unprecedented moment of a former president facing criminal indictment. Trump has pleaded not guilty, yet the spectre of these legal battles looms.
Ironically, Trump’s poll numbers continue to show a slight upward trend, defying expectations and highlighting the enduring loyalty of his support base. As the episode unravels, one is left wondering what desperate twist awaits. Interestingly, until now, despite such tribulations, Trump is confident about his return to the Oval Office in 2024, while all his challengers in the Republican party are far behind in the race.
Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance columnist on international affairs based in Karachi, Pakistan. He qualified as a physician from Dow Medical University in 1991 and has a master’s degree in international relations from Karachi University.
Labour court upholds dismissal of lying municipal chief financial officer:
The Johannesburg labour court has ruled that the axing of a Lesedi municipality chief financial officer for misrepresenting his qualifications was fair.
Acting Judge Bart Ford set aside a previous ruling by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) that Paul Mpele had been unfairly dismissed, ordering his reinstatement with back pay of more than R2 million.
Ford said the decision by the commissioner to reinstate Mpele in circumstances where he had misrepresented his qualifications and professional status was “unreasonable”, adding that the misrepresentation of qualifications was “pervasive and a menacing evil that greedily devours and indelibly taints our employment landscape”.
He said it was “morally offensive”, cheapened legitimate and hard-earned achievements and could never be condoned.
“This rot must be resisted and exposed at all costs,” he said.
Mpele was hired in 2015 and fired in April 2019, after an internal disciplinary hearing prompted by a forensic investigation into his qualifications.
Aggrieved, he turned to the CCMA, which found in his favour, ordering his retrospective reinstatement with back pay.
The municipality, which has its seat in Heidelberg, Gauteng, sought to review the CCMA ruling in the labour court.
Ford said the forensic report showed that Mpele claimed to have a BCom Accounting degree from the (then) University of Durban-Westville (now the University of KwaZulu-Natal) but he had only obtained a BCom degree.
He claimed to have an honours degree in Generally Recognised Accounting Practice from Stellenbosch University, when he had only obtained a NQF Level 8 qualification after attending a short course.
He had also cancelled his membership with the Institute of Administration and Commerce “and accordingly could not claim in 2015 to have been a registered accounting officer”.
Evidence before the commissioner was that although Mpele had met the general requirements for the position, he had been considered favourably, to the exclusion of other candidates, because he claimed to be a BCom Accounting graduate.
Judge Ford, referring to the transcript of the evidence before the CCMA, said Mpele had been unnecessarily evasive but had eventually conceded that he did not have the accounting degree.
“When unable to adequately set out his reasoning for overstating his qualifications, he attributed this to an error on his part, but denied that it was dishonest,” Ford said.
Mpele claimed he never represented that he held an “honours degree” but that his interpretation of the NQF Level 8 was that it had the same standing as an honours degree.
The judge said the commissioner had been presented with “overwhelming evidence” yet had come to an unreasonable decision in favour of Mpele.
“The issue was not whether Mpele met the requirements for the CFO [chief financial officer] position as advertised, it had to do with the fact that in his application he presented himself as the holder of certain degrees and professional memberships which he did not have. This evidence remained largely uncontested. Mpele was, as the applicant [the municipality] correctly contended, grossly dishonest.”
If Mpele had “made an error”, as he claimed, he would have admitted this at the first and earliest opportunity and been extremely penitent.
He had failed to do so and had only made the concession when he was “cornered” during cross-examination, and had nevertheless maintained that he had done nothing wrong, the judge said.
He ruled that Mpele’s dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair, setting aside the CCMA award.
Meat-eating South Africa, is it time to slow down?:
If I had to tell you that South Africa ranked in the top 10 countries globally that consume meat, would you react with shock or indifference?
What shocked me is that our meat consumption is higher than in countries such as the United States and United Kingdom.
This is according to a study by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), which investigated meat consumption by the kilogramme, per person. The study placed South Africa in seventh place. Australia topped the list, followed by Brazil.
Globally, meat consumption has been increasing for a few decades. In the 1960s, on average, a person ate 23.1kg of meat annually. By 2019, the figure had risen to 43.2kg.
Whether one should eat meat is a personal choice that requires a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, it is high in protein. On the other hand, eating a lot of meat is unhealthy, and South Africa has a high burden of heart disease and obesity.
But there is another problem with the meat industry — the environment link. It is a major contributor to carbon emissions, contributing to climate change, and uses a lot of water.
Climate and environment problems
According to another FAO study, 14.5% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to livestock farming.
The industry releases carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, which cause harm to varying degrees. Methane and nitrous oxide do not linger in the air as long as carbon dioxide but their climate warming potential is higher than carbon dioxide.
Producing feed for livestock also contributes to carbon emissions.
Amy Quinton, of the University of California, wrote: “Cattle are the number one agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide. Each year, a single cow will belch about 220 pounds of methane.”
German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle reports that “about 15% of global greenhouse emissions result from livestock farming — almost on par with those produced by the transport sector”.
The debate is complex, which is why the journal Nature featured a study that compared greenhouse gas emissions from plant-based and animal-based foods.
The study found “plant-based foods account for just 29% of greenhouse gases emitted by the global food industry. In contrast, 57% of greenhouse gas emissions in the industry are linked to breeding and rearing cows, pigs and other livestock, as well as producing feed,” as reported by Deutsche Welle.
A 2021 study by Tokyo Ndlela and Melanie Murcott, of the University of Pretoria, noted some of the environmental harms of the meat industry.
“The reality of South Africa’s agricultural landscape is that approximately 60% of national water is used for watering crops. The majority of those crops are then fed to animals intended for human consumption. In this way agriculture for meat production and meat consumption is exacerbating South Africa’s water crisis, which is characterised by periodic droughts which are a consequence of climate change.”
They also referenced how the industry can be seen to cause land degradation, air pollution, waste pollution and water pollution.
Other reports have found that the food system, which is largely meat-based, is a major cause of deforestation.
The other side
But Frank Mitloehner, an animal science and air quality specialist at the University of California, believes that the meat industry is nowhere near as bad as it is made out to be.
He questions the claims made regarding emissions being worse than the transport industry. He contends that the FAO looks at all aspects of emissions, including from fertiliser production, land conversion and direct emissions. But manufacturing and assembly of vehicles were ignored in the transport sector.
He believes that initiatives such as meat-free Mondays won’t do much to reduce climate change.
He writes that it may be worthwhile exploring sustainable farming practices that can be scaled globally. He notes the importance of livestock for livelihoods in many developing nations.
Drawing my own conclusions, I believe that meat does contribute to global climate change. I don’t believe individuals cutting out meat will make a major difference, but a change in livestock rearing would.
I do think that meat is crucial for livelihoods and can be a crucial protein source. But, as with everything, moderation is what’s needed.
I’m no industry expert, but logic tells me that big meat producers need to include sustainable practices, which may bring down the emissions from the sector.
“Business as usual” in all sectors, from agriculture to transport, will exacerbate climate change.
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
