In the Wall Street Journal today, former judge Michael McConnell tries to explain to us Democrats why Republicans are sticking with Donald Trump despite all the court cases against him.
First he argues that the New York hush money case was bogus. Fair enough. It's an arguable point. But he also says this:
Many Republicans who condemned his part in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol and thought he should have been impeached and convicted for it now consider the legal crusade against Mr. Trump to be as threatening to democracy as what happened that day. Democrats need to understand why.
This is odd. McConnell says lots of Republicans think Trump should have been convicted for his role in the January 6 insurrection, but later on he dismisses as "lawfare" the current federal case against Trump for his part in January 6. Why?
And it gets worse. Even McConnell has to admit that the classified documents case is sound:
But here too, the odor of selective prosecution is hard to escape. Not only did Mrs. Clinton mishandle classified documents, so did Mr. Biden. In fact, he shared them with a ghostwriter after leaving the vice presidency. Special counsel Robert Hur determined that Mr. Biden’s actions were “willful” but declined to prosecute.
....Bottom line: Both candidates for president appear to have violated the same law; the one in power is excused and his opponent faces trial.
This is the worst sort of sophistry. Trump is not being prosecuted for "mishandling" classified documents and McConnell knows it. As usual in Journal op-eds, what's important is what's left out.
Clinton and Biden both mishandled a small number of unimportant documents and cooperated completely with investigators. By contrast, Trump is being prosecuted because he took highly classified documents; he took lots of them; he refused to return them; he ignored subpoenas; and he aggressively tried to hide them even from an FBI search. McConnell knows this. So do the Journal's editorial page editors.
But they don't care. For the good of the cause, this all has to be shoehorned into a narrative of "Democratic lawfare" instead of acknowledging it as the entirely predictable result of a president who happens to be a serious serial lawbreaker. I'm not sure why this has to be repeatedly explained to Republicans.
If Republicans had no bad-faith arguments....
Damn….. you beat me to it…..
I think you meant “Clinton and Biden,” not “Clinton and Trump both mishandled documents…”
Except including Hillary in that argument is a bald face lie. There were precisely zero classified documents involved in the Hillary email scandal. And if you read the 2nd last page of the final fbi report on that scandal, the FBI had over 100 expert witnesses who told them the scandal involved precisely zero classified information.
Yeah as I understand it, there were a few items SENT TO her, not BY her, that LATER were determined SHOULD have been classified "Confidential," which is the lowest and (by far) the least significant level.
IOW she did nothing wrong, either actively or inactively.
But, y'know, both sides. And also HILLARY!!!
Also accusations of misogyny (and other bigotry) about Republicans are TOTALLY UNFAIR!!!!
No. Comey testified to a House committee — after he had already handed the election to Trump — that there was a total of THREE emails in Hillary’s email account that had “classified markings” in th body of the emails. When pressed he was forced to admit that these emails did not have the required header and footer denoting the level of classification that all classified documents have and that those emails just had some info with the marking “c” (confidential, the lowest level) in the text. When pressed further the Saint Comey admitted that even an expert on our classification system would reasonably assume those emails were not classified.
You can see Comey’s testimony here:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/james-comeys-sins-of-omis_b_12735220
Later the State Department explained that lists of proposed calls for the Sec State are always marked confidential but if the Sec State decides to place that call that listing is immediately declassified even before the call is placed. Whoever declassified those emails had removed the headers and footers but overlooked the small “c” markings in the body of the emails.
Those emails had nothing to do with national security. One was about a phone call to Kofi Annan who was stepping down from leadership in a nonprofit organization. The call was a routine congratulations/thank you for your service call. Another was to the leader of a small country to offer condolences on the death of the former leader and congratulate the man for becoming the new leader. The third was still confidential because Hillary had decided not to place the call.
Confidential classification is not about national security. It is similar to someone not making public their tentative wedding guest list because they don’t want to anger or embarrass someone they later decide not to invite.
I really had to dig to get this information. In fact I only ran across Comey’s testimony by accident.
There is no excuse for our media’s horrible misreporting of the email pseudo-scandal. The media repeatedly got the facts wrong. For example Chris Cillizza who obsessed about the emails for months for the WaPO actually insisted that classified information was supposed to be sent through the State.gov server. He clearly had no idea that State.gov is not secure and had been hacked repeatedly or that classified info is only sent by using a SCIF.
When information contradicting the email story arose the media just buried it like they did Comey’s admission that there were zero emails properly marked classified — not retroactively classified by another agency — found in Hillary’s account. And when it was revealed in the IG report about the FBI’s handling of the email investigation that the sanctimonious Comey was using her personal email account for official FBI business at the time he was excoriating Hillary as reckless for doing the same thing most of the media looked the other way.
Thank you. This is exactly right. People everywhere are still under the impression that Clinton had a bunch of scanned top secret document attachments in her email folder or something and that was patently not the case. She did, however, have classified *information* (some of it only classified post-hoc) in her emails, which were then stored on her private server, although there was no evidence that it was ever compromised. Trump, on the other hand, absconded with literally 100s of *actual*, physical top-secret government documents and stashed them in his bathroom. Anyone saying these two things are even remotely equivalent is either too stupid to breath or as dishonest a hack as Michael McConnell.
And here is the answer to Kevins question. The constant messaging and cooperation of the general media who are afraid to push back leaves most people a bit confused and muddled.
Even in Kevins response, the fact that he needs to include Clinton and Biden muddles the issue a bit and is a win for determined GOP lawbreakers and their lackeys.
Yeah, and whaddabout Mike Pence and his classified document horde? Why wasn't Pence, REPUBLICAN, mentioned, too?
Kevin is wrong that it was just Biden and Clinton who had “mishandled” classified documents. Even Saint Obama had classified docs mixed in with others. From the definitely not liberal Forbes Magazine:
“ Not Just Trump And Biden: Every Administration Since Reagan Mishandled Classified Records, National Archives Finds”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/05/17/not-just-trump-and-biden-every-administration-since-reagan-mishandled-classified-records-national-archives-finds/
From what I have read at the end of an administration staffers have to quickly pack everything up at the very end. They don’t have much time because the administration keeps working until the last minute. The president doesn’t have time to be packing up documents unless, like it seems with Trump you are deliberately planning to take classified documents. There isn’t the time for staffers to review each document packed by staffers so some classified docs get mixed in inadvertently. Clearly
Consider the audience of the WSJ. They subscribe to notions of truthiness. So what if a few crucial details are left out? Movers and shakers on Wall Street look at the big picture.
For decades the WSJ had a stellar reputation for reporting even though its editorial page was truly off-the-wall rightwing. Back in the 90s the editorial page editor, Robert Bartley, pushed all kinds of insane conspiracy theories about the Clintons, including the accusations that they had murdered their close friend Vince Foster and that Bill Clinton ran a drug-smuggling operation when he was governor. (That drug smuggling operation was the one ran by the Contras to fund their insurgency and that Reagan’s CIA has been accused of turning a blind eye to if not aiding and abetting.)
I was always skeptical of the claim that there was a firewall between the editorial page and reporters but journalists I really respect always insisted there was. However that all changed after Murdoch both the WSJ. Reporters started complaining about pressure. The old WSJ would never have published the recent hit job on Biden that quoted Kevin McCarthy and several anonymous sources slamming Biden’s mental acuity but not reporting the contradictory statements several prominent Democrats interviewed made.
There is a gross typo.
I'm not sure why this has to be repeatedly explained to Republicans.
Why on Earth do you think it needs to be explained to them?
As you observe, "they don't care ... for the good of the cause."
Republicans do not believe in the rule of law. They believe in the rule of Republicans, which right now means the rule of one man. It's tribalism and royalism. It's profoundly unconstitutional and un-American. And they don't care about that either.
I assume McConnell also ignored the fact that former VP Pence, who, as Biden did, promptly returned the documents and coöperated with investigators, was not prosecuted.
Nor did DOJ official that oversaw Pence’s case publicly berate him the way Trump appointee Robert Hur publicly berated Biden.
"Bottom line: Both candidates for president appear to have violated the same law; the one in power is excused and his opponent faces trial." Again, the dishonorable piece of filth is bald face lying. Nothing Trump is actually charged with in the classified documents case was committed by Biden. Trump was not charged with taking or having the tens of thousands of classified documents he stole. He was only charged with not returning them after he was caught and hiding them so that he could avoid obeying a subpoena.
"In fact, he shared them with a ghostwriter after leaving the vice presidency. Special counsel Robert Hur determined that Mr. Biden’s actions were “willful” but declined to prosecute." The lying piece of crap ignores that if you read the Hurr report, yow would know Hurr said Biden couldn't be prosecuted solely because Hurr couldn't prove the above opinions.
Because Republicans don't care about law and they think that everyone else who does is only claiming to and are all as self-deceived as they are, and if they wrap it up into the easiest, most 'explanatory' story that ties up all the confusion into as neat and self-contained a package as they can then that's what everyone will believe, and that will make it true, and then they'll be getting away with, their highest ideal and aspiration.
So it's really important that they all keep repeating this.
"Democrats need to understand why."
That part is easy. Republicans don't want to lose, nor do they wish to be known as a traitorous party (and it is at least arguable that January 6 qualifies as "levying war against the United States;" a bullshit, half assed little war, like everything Trump does, but that isn't a Constitutional escape).
Finally, it has been obvious since at least Newt Gingrich that Republicans' primary allegiance is to the party, and only secondarily, if at all, to the country, its history, or its Constitution. People like the current speaker don't even have any allegiance to the religion they profess to believe.
And to think that democrats saved speaker Johnson’s job not long ago. Bad move.
It was a good move in that it meant that the government could function as if it were run by adults.
Once you realize that "bullshit false equivalence" is the Republicans' rhetorical stock-in-trade, you'll see it everywhere and you won't be able to unsee it.
Exactly! The trick is, coming up with good, brief, emotionally compelling responses that debunk each incidence. Emphasize the BRIEF! Keep it within the attention span of a normal person, not some long winded ivory tower treatise, which although enlightening, accurate, and historically valid, makes people's eyes glaze over.
Once you have to debunk accusations you are already on the defensive and in a weakened position no matter how good your response. I will never forget when the odious Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth” falsely accused Kerry of lying to get his war medals.Most of the media gave Bush a pass on the slander even though it was some of his top Texas supporters/friends funding that vicious attack. Instead the media excoriated Kerry for not aggressively responding (he did not want to dignify the lies with a response which is not an unreasonable response). Then when Kerry did aggressively respond the media slammed him for not doing it in a way they approved of. They should have been hounding Bush — a man who pulled strings to avoid serving in a war he supported — to strongly denounce the lies about Kerry’s very real war heroism. Instead it was the victim of those false accusations that got the blame. There was no response from Kerry that would have satisfied the chattering classes.
Bullshit false equivalence is also the mainstream “liberal” media’s stock-in-trade.
"First he argues that the New York hush money case was bogus. Fair enough. It's an arguable point"
Why is fraudulently altering business records in order to dodge taxes/commit campaign fraud "arguably" bogus? This is basically saying white collar crime isn't real crime and prosecuting it is just unfair piling on or something. Also, too, twelve jurors listened to some pretty complicated evidence proving the case and voted to convict. If it were just a bunch of handwaving and bullshit on the part of the prosecutors, I don't think it would have gone that way. Even in Manhattan.
+1
"Why is fraudulently altering business records in order to dodge taxes/commit campaign fraud "arguably" bogus?"
Because the lie machine of Trump/Republicans is effective enough that even somebody like Kevin starts to have doubts.
Really scary.
Like!
Most of the media ignores the dodging taxes part of the crime and just focuses on the campaign fraud.
The prosecution makes him stronger and when he wins (or steals) the presidency from Biden the revenge will be all that more vicious. I won’t vote for him, but it will be fascinating to see it all fall apart.
The prosecution only makes him stronger with the people who were already going to vote for him for sure, and there aren't enough of them for him to win. It weakens him everywhere else. And the new polling is starting to show that.
I remember making a comment on a WSJ editorial in Warren Buffett's office in the 80s, and was confronted that the WSJ editorial page was considered the "cartoon section" that many publications hosted.
Seems things haven't changed.
Things are much worse now that Murdoch owns the WSJ. Before that it was just the editorial page that was rightwing extremist land.. Now the regular reporting is compromised too.
What is with all the Meooooow!! He is a CROOK. CROOKS BE LONG IN JAIL. Not running for President !! Kitties know...
This is a hoot, actually. Schools will have to post the list of t-Rump's crimes so they don't forget. This will be made worse "if" he returns to the throne. It's all out there for all to see.
Good catch! Do you think any of the students ... or teachers ... will notice?
Moscow Mitch McConnell made an inspirational and stirring speech at Impeachment II: the Insurrection. Of course, then he voted to acquit. Nonetheless, Democrats need to start quoting his excellent words of condemnation. Put McConnell's sound bytes into ads, with attribution. Maybe even ask "What happened?"
The weeks after Jan 6, most Republicans were on the right side of history. Shortly thereafter, they groveled and kissed ... the "ring." But Republicans currently running for re-election said some pretty good stuff in the moment.
Hit 'em with their own words.
"I'm not sure why this has to be repeatedly explained to Republicans."
This dos not have to be repeatedly explained to Republicans. You brief and factual thumbnail needs to be stated without equivocation in real time by anyone - i.e., the media, Democrats, and anyone not maga zombied - who is ever confronted by McConnell's 'sensible" and 'reasoned' and 'resonable' style of authoritarian propaganda. "Democrats need to understand...?" We understand just fine, and McConnel's brand of "we can all agree on...." reality distortion, gaslighting, and lying needs to be shot down in real time, with prejudice, and with unflinching authority. Every time.
They are not going to stop gaslighting, ever. They are not going to suddenly become 'reasonable', ever. They are not going to stop lying and cheating and breaking laws and destroying our society in service of their privilege and sick ideology, ever. They will not stop seeking endless revenge for any attempt, real or imagined, to hold them accountable, ever. They will not stop their existential scorched earth tactics, ever. And they will not stop acting like you're some kind of idiot, degenerate, or scumbag when they're confronted with their maliciousness, ever. This is who they are and they are not going to change, ever. They are only going to get worse until they are forced to change, with the key word being forced. There is no other way.
Count me among those who are very tired of hearing how the NY State Charges were "bogus". Is it a crime on the books? Yes. Have people gone to jail for this? Yes. (Talk to Michael Cohen.) Did a jury find him guilty? Yes. Does he still have avenue of appeal if he truly believes he was mistreated? Yes.
Now, would the state spend this much time and effort going after most people who committed these crimes? No. But he is asking for an enormous amount of power by voting him back into office, so I think its fair to give him more scrutiny than most criminals would get.
I'm also really tired of anti-anti-Trumpers effectively doing the "Look what you're making me do!" thing. No, we're not making you do anything. It's a binary choice. It's Biden, or Trump. If you vote for Trump, it's because, weighted by the issues that matter to you, you think he's the better choice. I'm not making you do a goddamned thing.
I'm reminded of the night before the Battle of Agincourt scene in Henry V, with Henry walking among his troops, and a couple of them discussing with each other. "If we die, we're not going to Hell, because the King is making us do this!", and Henry in disguise responding, "Every man's duty is the King's, but every man's soul is his own." Don't use me as an excuse -- you own this. You vote for Trump, you're saying he's the better choice for your priorities. That's 100% on you. Again, you've got a binary choice to make; don't write OpEds trying to convince yourself that someone else is forcing your hand.
The fraud and campaign finance violations were criminal laws that Trump broke and a jury unanimously found him guilty of all 34 counts. It was not a "hush money" case and it isn't "arguable" that it was was bogus. JFC, this shit isn't that fucking hard.
This is not a mystery; it's just motivated reasoning. If they don't invoke some form of tortured reasoning to justify voting for Trump, then it would follow that they should vote for Biden. This is the best justification they can come up with. It's pretty lame, but they don't want to abandon the GOP, so this is where they have to go. They all know it is b.s.