A conversation no one's having

I had a conversation with a fellow who said he was still thinking about the election.

When I asked, he said that he feared putting the country in the hands of someone who is obviously fading. He told of taking the car keys away from an elderly relative. There was real emotion in his voice. I listened and heard things I had not considered.

When he asked, I said I thought Trump was dangerous.

I said I thought anyone who had tried to overturn an election was not qualified to hold office. And anyone who continued to talk about dictatorial measures after trying to overturn the will of the voters was doubly unqualified.

But those are opinions, I said. As a matter of principle, I think a felony conviction disqualifies anyone from running for president.

The fellow said a lot of people thought the trial was political, a witch hunt.

I said I’d spent years as a newspaper reporter covering courthouses. Countless cases — many involving murder and one involving cattle rustling. I sat through more trials than most lawyers I know.

I’ve seen juries make mistakes. I’m pretty sure Texas executed an innocent man whose trial I covered decades ago.

But juries usually get it right. Twelve ordinary citizens somehow feel the weight of responsibility as jurors.

While juries sometimes get it wrong, the fact that 12 citizens found Trump guilty of crimes should disqualify him as a candidate. A convicted criminal doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt while the appeals are heard.

I’ve seen enough of the jury system to have some respect for it. I couldn’t support a political party that thought otherwise.

That’s where we left it.

I've been thinking about that conversation because I read an article by a pundit who said there were no real conversations about the election at this point. I suspect the pundit is wrong.