Irish Examiner view: Donald Trump charged under Rico law used to tackle the Mafia

Trump was arraigned under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, introduced in the 1970s to bring down gang bosses

Former US president Donald Trump's arraignment puts him on a footing with infamous gangs such as the Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino, Genovese, and Lucchese crime families prosecuted on Rico charges in the 1980s. Picture: Matt Rourke/AP

Fans of American gangster films and TV shows will be familiar with the acronym Rico, which stands for the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It is an American legal measure which was originally introduced in the 1970s as a way to bring organised crime gangs to justice by linking different criminal acts and enterprises to the pursuit of a common goal.

The fact that former president of the United States Donald Trump has now been indicted on charges under Rico for attempting to overturn election results in the state of Georgia is astonishing, even allowing for his capacity to generate unprecedented events.

Amid the flood of criminal charges being laid against Trump and his co-accused, it must be pointed out that this latest indictment puts him on a footing with infamous gangs such as the Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino, Genovese, and Lucchese crime families who were prosecuted on Rico charges in the 1980s.

In a twist that a screenwriter would dismiss as too far-fetched to believe, one of Trump’s co-accused on Rico charges is the very man who prosecuted those crime families as a US attorney in New York — Rudolph Giuliani.

It has been said often enough that Donald Trump has survived scandals that would have sunk political careers without trace in times past, but this latest development is criminal rather than political. Conviction could carry a jail sentence of as much as 20 years, while the symbolism of a former president having to stand for a mug shot, for instance, would be a potent image ahead of election season in America.

Trump’s conduct has been the strongest argument against the prospect of a second term in office, and the latest development confirms that his return to the White House would be disastrous for all.

Skin ink is not our biggest concern

News that three garda recruits were sent home from their training intake in Templemore because they had visible tattoos has sparked debate across a number of related topics.

Was the decision itself unfair? Are the garda regulations on tattoos too conservative for modern Ireland? Are tattoos more socially acceptable now than in years past?

Taking those points in order, it should be pointed out that the garda regulations make specific reference to tattoos and members of the force; tattoos are not permitted on the face or if visible above the collar, while they are to be covered at all times while on duty, whether in uniform or plain clothes.

Two issues arise when considering this provision — one relates to the three recruits, who clearly should not have been admitted to Templemore if their tattoos were visible. It is surprising that this matter was not resolved before these recruits ever arrived for training given the visibility of their tattoos; on that basis it appears fundamentally unfair to accept and then remove those trainees from their intake.

The idea that tattoos are now more acceptable in society was mentioned by many contributors to this debate, including the Garda Representative Association. Its spokesperson described the guidelines as ultra-conservative, adding that while it was important for members of An Garda Síochána to have discipline and a dress code, “once the tattoos are not of an offensive nature, it should not prevent someone from becoming a guard”.

There is a far wider context to this controversy than the public’s appetite for tattoos. On one hand, we have an ongoing crisis in Garda staffing and retention, and on the other a growing perception of lawlessness in parts of Dublin City in particular, where tourists are being targeted and assaulted by gangs of youths.

Set against these ongoing challenges, the focus on tattoos among recruits in Templemore is not at all encouraging, and is likely to lead to a sharp question from the public. Are there not far more pressing problems for An Garda Síochána to focus on?

Varadkar guards his private life

Speaking on the latest episode of the Irish Examiner’s Ciara Phelan Podcast which went live yesterday, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said he and his partner, Matt Barrett, have stepped back from the public eye in recent years.

“We’re a gay couple, we’re not married and I do think though, to a certain extent as well at least for a couple of years, we were quite public in our relationship and we have kind of pulled back from that a bit,” the Taoiseach said.

It is hardly surprising that the couple have done so. The challenges faced by politicians in maintaining a balance between their public and private lives were brought home to the Taoiseach and his partner earlier this year, when Mr Barrett apologised for an ‘irreverent’ message sent to friends on Instagram about the coronation of King Charles in Britain.

At the time, some commentators ignored the fact that Barrett’s message was intended to be private but was eventually circulated publicly, a neat illustration of the near-impossible standards imposed on the modern politician.

Going back through the centuries, treading carefully in public has always been part of the package for the ambitious office-seeker. However, having one’s partner remain on-message and inoffensive even in private communications seems a severe imposition — and one unlikely to attract people to enter politics.