Trump is presumed innocent

But we are not presumed to be blind to the facts.

My excellent colleagues and I have had useful discussions over time around the newsroom about how to talk fairly and accurately about Donald Trump, the four-times-indicted former president. It’s necessary to draw a distinction between facts and allegations.

Trump is presumed innocent, and is entitled to that presumption unless and until a jury finds otherwise. Courts will decide if his actions amount to a crime. But it is clear what those actions were. In saying this I do not make any policy for NPR, happily leaving that to NPR executives whose job it is, and speak here for myself.

It’s a little too wordy to say that Trump “allegedly tried to overturn his 2020 election defeat.” There is no need for allegedly. He did this in public. Some acts, like his call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, were recorded and published. Trump himself doesn’t deny them; he only disputes what the facts mean. He claims he had good reasons to pressure officials like Raffenperger to change the election results, because he “won by a lot.”

His lawyers failed to produce any of those reasons before more than 60 judges who ruled against him. When in court, where they could be prosecuted for lying, his own lawyers said they were not alleging fraud. Thousands of election officials from both parties affirmed that Joe Biden won; and subsequent “investigations” like one in Arizona found nothing to change the results, even when they were directed by the most extreme partisans of Trump’s own party. In other words, we can cite thousands of sources to show what happened. Rarely has a set of facts been more thoroughly confirmed than Trump’s defeat and his baseless effort to overturn it.

If it had been a late-night burglary and we had to rely solely on the police accusation that a certain person did it, it would be appropriate to say police allege this crime until prosecutors showed their facts in open court. But this happened in the open, and has been aired in court.

Where it is fair to allow for allegedly is in comparing the facts to the provisions of criminal law. Trump allegedly committed the crime of conspiracy as he attempted to overthrow his 2020 election defeat. His co-defendants allegedly committed crimes as they enabled his efforts to stay in office after his defeat. State and federal prosecutors allege he conspired with other defendants. Defense lawyers have countered with various responses and characterizations, and will spend months, at least, making more. Prosecutors will call witnesses at trial and defense lawyers may cross examine them. A jury will decide. Before the verdict, I will be glad to hear out analysts who think they know if it was a crime or not! Even after the verdict I will keep an open mind if someone makes a strong case that the verdict was wrong. Trump still did what he did.

This sort of distinction is a useful answer to a repetitive debate about the role of journalists in a free society. Supposedly, this debate pits “objective” journalists against those who feel it is time to “take a side.” I don’t accept either model. (I’m also uncomfortable with the partisan media approach, where you say whatever.)

A more realistic approach is like the Serenity Prayer. We need the strength to ruthlessly call out the facts we have; the courage to be fair about the facts we do not have; and the wisdom to know the difference.

Thanks for reading Differ We Must, which is a companion to my biography of Lincoln of the same name. It tells his life story through his meetings with people who differed with him. The book is out Oct. 3, and this is a great time to preorder: click here and you can have a printed book, or e-book, or let me read you the audio book, as soon as it’s out.