"The country deserves a thorough and immediate explanation of what led to the events of Monday. Attorney General Garland and the Department of Justice should already have provided answers to the American people and must do so immediately."
Mitch McConnell
I agree. Let's hear what prompted the FBI search.
On the spectrum of responses by GOP leaders, Mitch McConnell's was at the far end, merely asking for explanation. More typical are ones expressing outrage. Most GOP leaders--Kevin McCarthy, Lindsay Graham, Ted Cruz, Ron DeSantis--took the point of view that the FBI search was partisan tyranny. McCarthy immediately defined the FBI search as illegitimate and announced political revenge:
We will conduct immediate oversight of this department, follow the facts, and leave no stone unturned. Attorney General [Merrick] Garland, preserve your documents and clear your calendar.
Lindsay Graham called it "stunning, damning, salacious, and a piece of crap."
 |
| Wall Street Journal |
MAGA voices in the GOP called for abolishing the FBI. Dinesh D'Souza said it "should now be a central plank in the Republican platform in both 2022 and 2024 that we will abolish the FBI." U.S. Representative Paul Gosar tweeted that he "will support a complete dismantling and elimination of the democrat brown shirts known as the FBI." U.S. Representative Boebert, Matt Schlapp, Candice Owens and many more had similar statements.
We have a fundamental mis-match of perceptions on what took place in the FBI search. Democrats and the broader population of the Trump-skeptical think that it is unquestioned that Trump has broken the law on record retention.
He also openly and proudly attempted to stay in office by overturning the 2020 election. It was unprecedented, but was it a out-and-out crime? Were written statutes abridged, or was it only on the edge of crime? Maybe it was just an aggressive look at legal options and loopholes. After all, he urged the January 6 crowd to "be strong," but not that they should hang the Vice President. He didn't tell Georgia's Raffensperger to cheat to find the 11,000 votes. The lawyer John Eastman said that his premise that Pence could overthrow the election would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court, but at least it would have its day in court. Is that a crime?
Democrats look at this and say that "no one is above the law." Investigate crimes and probable crimes. Get the evidence. If presidents can break the law then there are no checks and balances. Defend the rule of law.
Most Republicans and conservative media are saying this is just politics, and the very institutions of justice are corrupt. They make the argument made by the most radical within the BLM and Antifa groups, that the entire law enforcement system is corrupt. Defund the police; defund the FBI. A knee on the neck of George Floyd; an FBI search of Donald Trump.
Mitch McConnell is in a lonely political gray area. He condemned Trump for inciting a riot, but then voted against impeachment. He said he wants someone other than Trump to be president, but said he would support Trump if he were the nominee. McConnell doesn't criticize Trump. Trump calls him incompetent, weak, disloyal, and a RINO.
McConnell is right to demand an explanation from the Attorney General. There are Justice Department rules forbidding commenting on incomplete investigations. Garland should work around them. He needs to go to a microphone immediately--today--and tell the American people why the FBI did the search. They surely had reasons. Tell us. The premise that silence by the FBI protects the privacy of the accused is false. Everyone knows Trump's home was searched and that he is being investigated. Trump announced it. The media is covering it 24-7. This isn't about privacy. It is about the credibility of America's systems of justice. Justice Department silence fosters conspiracy theories. It gives license to talks of violence and civil disruption. People will get killed.
Explain. Explain now.
13 comments:
Let the DOJ, who are finally giving us a peek at their process, do its job.
The explanation they all are bloviating about will be heard in court. I believe one thing is certain. This search will lead to an indictment.
That's all we need to know for now.
But here's a thing. Trump summoned GOP leaders to dinner, and only got back benchers. Mitch had a previous engagement, cleaning his fish tank.
"Democrats look at this and say, 'No one is above the law'".
Well, except for Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Hunter Biden, to name a few.
I don't believe the DOJ owes an explanation unless and until they are readyto indict. But it best had not be just records retention.
Assuming they don't want Trump donning martyr's weeds and winning in 2024....
It’s a pretty safe bet that neither Christopher Wray, a Trump appointee, nor Merrick Garland would have sought a search warrant and a federal judge wouldn’t have approved it unless there was good reason for it. If people want to know the reason, Trump has a copy of the warrant, but he’s no more likely to release it than he was his taxes.
Anybody that’s followed the Jan. 6 hearings is well aware of Trump’s criminality, but the more despicable he is the more Republicans seem to like him. They can rage all they want, but justice shouldn’t be held hostage by their anger and ignorance.
I don't think we should attack the DOJ/FBI for doing its job. Law enforcement cannot alway advertise what they are doing because it can compromise the investigation.
The Traitor expects everyone to play by the rules except for him and his enablers and cronies.
I heard on the national news that The Traitor was given a copy of the search warrant. The Traitor can show us the warrant.
Re: "If people want to know the reason, Trump has a copy of the warrant"
From a lawyer:
The warrant copy that Trump and his lawyers does not have the complete detail of the justification that was used to convince the judge to issue the search warrant. That will not come out unless there is an indictment.
-----
I agree that the bar is high for taking this type of action. The smart legal minds want the "T's" to be crossed, and the "i's" dotted properly. Fishing expeditions are unwanted.
I hope it is not the weaponization of the DOJ.
While there are a few things I like about what Trump accomplished while in office, I don't want to see him occupy the White House again. I would prefer a conservative candidate in 2024 that can do more, and also turn down the divisiveness and rhetoric we are experiencing.
Announced on Rachel Maddow that trumpentraitor will not he releasing a copy of the legally obtained Warrant.
I strongly suspect that Christopher Wray, Trump appointed FBI Director, who compromised a legitimate investigation into Kegs Kavanaugh at the direction of the White House, would rather have swallowed bleach than sign off on that Warrant. I really do want to see what's in it, and while I appreciate General Garlands tight grip on Investigations, I do agree he should tell us something about what caused him to sign off on the Warrant, along with Director Wray. He doesn't need to specify exactly what's in the Warrant, just reassure the public that there really is bombshell type evidence.
The warrant may not tell us everything (of course not), but it still would be good information. If He has nothing to hide and wants transparency (what a joke) then he will release the warrant.
If, in fact, the search warrant itemizes classified information as the evidence sought, we enter a zone where disclosure of even the existence of said document threatens national security or compromises on-going and successful intelligence operation. The very name of the document in question may be code-word secure, meaning the very word cannot be spoken to people not cleared to hear or say it. That is the dilemma that faces the DOJ. Furthermore, the DOJ itself may not even be cleared to handle, see or speak of said document as it requires a clearance level at the very highest level.
All this said, steps to explain tangentially the significance of documents seized must be made. Time is not on JODs side at this moment. The issuance of an indictment from a grand jury looking at this matter would also be helpful in defusing the wildest conspiracy theories.
The mob that will assemble to defend Trump will not be coming with torches and pitchforks, they will be coming with AR-15s and full combat gear.
I consider "what about Hillary" and the others to be a poker-style tell. It is the distraction employed because the person using it is embarrassed by the reality that Trump is, of course, in fact guilty. Yet they want to defend him, but he is indefensible.
Rather than consider it a respectable argument by a well-meaning advocate, I see it as a surrender. Of course Trump is guilty and of course the FBI has every reason to investigate him. They know it. They also know Trump did crimes far beyond whatever was done byHunter Biden, Jared Kushner, or Ivanka Trump. All those adult children are guilty of nepotism corruption. It is disgusting and, thank god, petty. They took advantage of having powerful relatives. They had privilege and in American you get to use your privilege, be it family money, family power, social status, educational privilege, whatever. Still, nepotism is indefensible on the basis of governmental integrity, even as it is natural as a matter of biology and social science. Cinderella, after all, married a prince.
Donald Trump, though, was president, the man himself, and he tried to overthrow an election to hold onto power. It is the biggest of crimes in a democracy. Yet some feel obligated to defend him. So they send out flares like the jet fighters that I sometimes picture in my blog.
Peter Sage
Regarding the concern that Trump’s chumps will rise up to defend him with their AR-15s:
They’d last about 10 minutes against the military, and that would improve the nation’s IQ. But rather than sacrifice their lives for something so feculent, perhaps they could be convinced to relocate to Texas and secede from the union. It’d be a win-win.
Mr. Sage (as poster too)--
Respectfully, your characterization if or to the extent it includes me is wrongheaded. First off, my comment is not a defense of Trump but an expression of grave concern where the potentially unprecedented political bias and favoritism of the FBI and DOJ are concerned, in multiple instances.
Second, as I've noted here before (forgive me, but it's apt), "whataboutism" is a grossly overused trope, in that unless it refers to "Look Over There!" tactics, as it should, it can be employed essentially to foreclose any viable and helpful comparison/contrast whatsoever. That neuters legal analysis.
That tack is almost disingenuous in the context of Democrats intoning, "No one is above the law". Honing in even more, Berger, HRC and Comey all mishandled--or worse--sensitive classified and/or confidential materials, HRC's already under subpoena. Alone charged, the Berger home was not raided with guns.
I agree with LD. Pointing out a double standard is useful and important.
The policy of not commenting is a good one, based on wisdom and experience.
Post a Comment