In any legal or contractual action, it is up to the agreeing parties to perform their own \u201cdue diligence\u201d. They have an obligation to investigate the agreement, the other party, and the process of the agreement. We often hire lawyers to perform this task for us. By hiring them we make the lawyer liable for any issue that gets missed and later on causes problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, a friend bought a home. As part of the purchasing process, it is customary for the buyer to arrange and pay for an inspection of the building before closing on the contract. That is a part of \u201cdue diligence\u201d. My friend waived inspection, and failed to find significant wiring issues left over from a fire that took place years before. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Months after the sale, the buyer discovered burnt and cracked wiring, an obvious hazard that needed to be replaced. Since he waived inspection, the cost of re-wiring the house fell to him. He failed to perform his \u201cdue diligence\u201d and now bore the responsibility. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the United States, we have a great obligation to perform \u201cdue diligence\u201d when it comes to our Presidential candidates. We \u201cassume\u201d that the media, and the process itself will \u201cvet\u201d candidates, revealing their weaknesses and failures. In the past, this worked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 1988 Democratic Presidential candidate Gary Hart, literally taunted journalists to find out about his extra-martial activities. When they did, it ended his run for the Presidency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And in 2008 then leading Democrat John Edwards had an affair and a child while his wife was being treated for cancer. Edwards then paid the other woman off. That was revealed, ending Edwards political career.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sometimes the vetting process is a little odd. In 2004, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean was the front-runner and top fundraiser going into the early Democratic primaries. When he finished a disappointing third in the Iowa caucuses, his concession speech including an odd \u201cscream\u201d. When the \u201cscream\u201d was broadcast over and over again, it became the dominant issue in Dean\u2019s campaign. After a disappointing showing in other early primaries, Dean abandoned the race.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Traditionally candidates for President reveal their finances, usually making their tax returns for a number of years public. They also reveal their health conditions, giving access to medical exam results. And candidates often reveal \u201cproblematic\u201d information proactively. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both revealed youthful drug use, and George W Bush discussed his own substance abuse issues as part of his lead up to running for President. This \u201ctradition\u201d wasn\u2019t written in stone, or law. It was a political \u201cnorm\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But in our current political era, \u201cnorms\u201d don\u2019t count. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 2016 we elected a President who scoffed at the \u201cnorms\u201d. He refused to reveal his tax returns, and continues to do so, fighting all the way to the US Supreme Court to maintain his secrets. He had a \u201cdoctor\u2019s note\u201d about his physical health, claiming he would be the \u201c\u2026healthiest individual ever elected to the Presidency\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We also now know that Mr. Trump spent significant sums of money to hide stories of his sexual indiscretions, including an affair with a pornographic movie actress only months after his wife gave birth to his son. He also had his friend David Pecker use his ownership of the National Enquirer <\/em>to \u201ccatch and kill\u201d other embarrassing stories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It seems the current group of Democratic candidates are still following the \u201cold\u201d norms. We are seeing tax returns, learning details of Bernie\u2019s heart attack, and Hindu group financing of Tulsi Gabbard. Senator Warren is modifying her \u201chealthcare for all plan\u201d, and Vice President Biden revealed a lifelong stuttering issue. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But will the rules apply to all? Mike Bloomberg is bypassing much of the scrutiny by campaigning in the mass elections of Super Tuesday, rather than the microscopic evaluations of Iowa and New Hampshire. Will his money by him a \u201cpass\u201d from the norms?<\/p>\n\n\n\n And, of course, the House of Representatives and public opinion are now retroactively vetting the President. But he has been immune to the \u201cnorms\u201d, and Republicans have steadfastly refused to hold him accountable. Will Mr. Trump ever have to follow the rules, written or unwritten? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Don\u2019t count on it. We know all that we know about Donald J. Trump. However, unlike the sale of that house with bad wiring, America gets to have a \u201cdo-over\u201d in 2020. Will we finally exercise our due diligence?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Applying the Rules<\/h3>\n\n\n\n