By John Q. Hosedrinker 
House Speaker Mike Johnson defended President Trump’s private dinner with $TRUMP meme coin investors, asserting Trump’s transparency contrasts with alleged Biden family dealings. Johnson dismissed concerns about potential conflicts of interest, claiming Trump conducts business openly, unlike the Bidens who allegedly use shell companies. He cited his own unfamiliarity with the event due to legislative priorities, reiterating Trump’s supposed lack of hidden agendas. Despite this, Johnson previously professed ignorance regarding the meme coin itself.
Read the original article here
The argument that investigations into Trump’s alleged corruption are unnecessary because the alleged acts are “out in the open” is deeply problematic. This reasoning suggests that the very act of committing a crime openly somehow negates the need for accountability. It’s a perverse logic that inverts the principles of justice.
This approach fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of investigations. Investigations aren’t solely about uncovering hidden wrongdoing; they are also about gathering evidence, establishing context, and ensuring due process. Even if an alleged crime occurred in plain sight, there’s still a need to meticulously document the facts, determine the extent of the illegality, and assess the culpability of those involved. Simply stating something is “out in the open” doesn’t substitute for a thorough, impartial inquiry.
The implication that open criminality renders investigation superfluous sets a dangerous precedent. It suggests that brazenness itself becomes a shield against accountability, rewarding those who flaunt their actions instead of punishing them. This isn’t simply a matter of legal procedure; it’s about upholding the very notion of justice and deterring future misconduct. If blatant disregard for the law is met with inaction, it sends a clear signal that such behavior is acceptable, even encouraged.
The argument also ignores the complexity of many alleged crimes. Even if certain acts might seem obvious, the full scope of the wrongdoing, the network of individuals involved, and the extent of the damage inflicted may require in-depth investigation to be fully understood. Simply because something is visible doesn’t mean its entirety is understood. A superficial understanding is rarely sufficient for a just and effective response.
Furthermore, the claim that investigating Trump’s alleged corruption is unnecessary because it’s in the open ignores the potential for systemic corruption. If individuals in positions of power are committing crimes openly, it points to a systemic failure of oversight and accountability. The investigation wouldn’t just be about Trump’s actions, but about the larger structures that allowed, enabled, or even encouraged such behavior.
This perspective exhibits a troubling disregard for the rule of law. The suggestion that visible wrongdoing justifies inaction undermines the foundation of a just society. The concept that justice should be applied impartially, regardless of the visibility of alleged crimes, is a cornerstone of fairness and equality. Dismissing investigations because the allegations are “out in the open” is a dangerous precedent that erodes faith in institutions and fosters a climate of impunity.
The assertion that open criminality eliminates the need for investigation also ignores the importance of due process. Even if evidence of wrongdoing seems abundant, the right to a fair trial, to present a defense, and to have the accusations thoroughly examined remain paramount. Rushing to judgment based solely on the visibility of alleged actions deprives individuals of their fundamental rights.
Finally, the acceptance of such reasoning reveals a profound double standard. Applying this logic consistently would mean no investigations into any crimes, so long as they were committed openly. This would obviously lead to lawlessness and societal collapse. The selective application of this “open crime” defense to only certain individuals reveals a concerning bias and hypocrisy.
In conclusion, the argument that investigations into alleged corruption are unnecessary because they are “out in the open” is fundamentally flawed. It undermines the principles of justice, due process, and accountability. Ignoring such alleged crimes simply because they are visible encourages lawlessness, undermines faith in institutions, and fosters a dangerous precedent that ultimately harms society as a whole.