Republican Rep. Tim Burchett spoke with CNN’s Boris Sanchez on Wednesday in an attempt to defend the House GOP’s bogus “investigations” into President Joe Biden and his family. Unfortunately for Burchett, Sanchez decided to be a big stickler about facts.
After Burchett lazily repeated the baseless accusations that Biden took millions of dollars for favors done on behalf of his son Hunter, Sanchez reminded the Tennessee congressman about the difference between legal and illegal.
There's a huge distinction between whether it's appropriate for the family of a president to make money off of his name and whether that's ethical. But the question is specifically about what Joe Biden did when he was in office in vice president. Whether he abused his power or whether he enriched his family members. And right now, there is zero evidence coming from the oversight committee that when he was vice president, he did either of those things.
Burchett responded by floating the mythical $20 million number that Republican House committee chairs like James Comer and Jim Jordan speak into microphones a lot, even though there is zero evidence that the Biden family received any such amount. Hunter Biden’s former business associate Devon Archer even testified that Joe Biden not only did not help his son’s new employers out, but he may have added more uncertainty to their business venture at the time.
Sanchez interrupted Burchett to say he had seen the banking records and there was no such evidence. Burchett bristled, saying, “Are you going to let me speak?” Sanchez responded, “I'm not going to let you say things that are untrue, sir.” Burchett then tried to reiterate … the exact same talking point again, so Sanchez took apart the $20 million claim. That led to this sweet exchange:
Burchett: So, listen, if you want to, you just do the interview. But you're asking me a question and I'm trying to give you an answer.
Sanchez: You're not giving me an honest answer, sir. You're repeating a talking point that has been debunked repeatedly.
What makes the GOP attacks on Biden and his family so remarkable is the utter lack of even the most tangentially circumstantial evidence. Every “star” witness has been a bust and every “bombshell” piece of evidence has not only been debunked, but frequently debunked in record time.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer went on CNN last Friday and gave a sad defense of his tax-dollar-wasting impeachment investigation into President Joe Biden. Host Jake Tapper’s willingness to ask about the glaring holes in Comer’s conspiracy theories once again exposed the absurdity of the pointless Republican witch hunt. It was embarrassing.
On Monday, Comer was forced to answer another hard question, this time from Newsmax host Rob Finnerty: How does the Kentucky Republican deal with the fact that half the country sees his investigation as a joke?
Rob Finnerty: [Tapper is] making your investigations sound like a joke, and he's trying to make you look like a joke. And then half of America sees that and they think your investigation is a joke. How do you work around that? How do you work through that?
James Comer: Well, that's the first time I went on CNN in three months. We thought we would give it a try. You know, Jake Tapper is an intelligent guy, but he's playing to a low-IQ audience.
A pretty famous study from the past decade shows that conservative ideologies and prejudice are both linked to low intelligence. These people then seek out their information from conservative propaganda outlets like Fox News and Newsmax, which, in turn, loops their poorly developed ideologies back to them, reinforcing the cycle. One of the best ways to manage people with poorly thought-out ideologies is to tell them everybody else is stupid—with their facts and all.
Markos and Kerry give their thoughts on what the country is facing in 2024. The Republican Party is running on losing issues like abortion and repealing the ACA—with no explanation of what they plan on replacing it with. Trump has a lot of criming to atone for, and the Republican platform remains set on destroying democracy.
In her new book, former Rep. Liz Cheney unloads on her former colleagues in the Republican Party, and to no one's surprise, her disgust is seething and deep.
"Oath and Honor," which was obtained by CNN, serves as an overarching indictment of the many Republicans Cheney deems most responsible for gifting the GOP to the twice-impeached, four-time criminally indicted Donald Trump, whom she calls “the most dangerous man ever to inhabit the Oval Office.”
“As a nation, we can endure damaging policies for a four-year term. But we cannot survive a president willing to terminate our Constitution," writes Cheney, who served as the number three House Republican before being ousted from leadership over her vote to impeach Trump for the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol.
According to the book, then-Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Cheney following the 2020 election that Trump knew he had lost. “He knows it’s over,” McCarthy reportedly said at the time. “He needs to go through all the stages of grief.”
Yet that same day, Cheney reveals, McCarthy fanned the election-denial flames on Fox News, telling viewers, "President Trump won this election."
Cheney writes, "McCarthy knew that what he was saying was not true.” So much for virtue.
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a pro-Trump MAGA stalwart, derided the legal avenues for challenging the election results, saying, “The only thing that matters is winning,” according to Cheney. So much for honor.
Cheney also shredded Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana in the book, which she finished writing before he was elevated to speaker. Johnson, she said, pressured his Republican colleagues to sign on to an amicus brief supporting his legal challenge to 2020 results.
“When I confronted him with the flaws in his legal arguments," Cheney writes, "Johnson would often concede, or say something to the effect of, ‘We just need to do this one last thing for Trump.'" So much for the rule of law.
Fast-forward to Nov. 29, 2023, and Johnson contrasting Republicans' ham-handed effort to impeach President Joe Biden with what he framed as Democrats' "brazenly political" impeachment of Trump for springing a violent coup attempt on the U.S. Capitol.
"What you are seeing here is exactly the opposite. We are the rule-of-law team—the Republican Party stands for the rule of law," Johnson told reporters Wednesday, touting his work to defend Trump against Democrats’ "meritless" impeachment proceedings.
Speaker Mike Johnson claims that both of Donald Trump's impeachments were “brazenly political” and “meritless,” but says the GOP's efforts to impeach Joe Biden are “just the opposite” because “the Republican Party stands for the rule of law.” pic.twitter.com/vqpjqbPnbk
Just a quick trip to Republicans' present day house-of-mirrors routine as the majority party in the House. Now, back to the book.
Perhaps the most chilling part of CNN's write-up was Cheney's recollection of House Republicans' methodical efforts to reject the will of the people in 2020. Here’s CNN:
On Jan. 6, before the attack on the Capitol, Cheney describes a scene in the GOP cloakroom, where members were encouraged to sign their names on electoral vote objection sheets, lined up on a table, one for each of the states Republicans were contesting. Cheney writes most members knew “it was a farce” and “another public display of fealty to Donald Trump.”
“Among them was Republican Congressman Mark Green of Tennessee,” Cheney writes. “As he moved down the line, signing his name to the pieces of paper, Green said sheepishly to no one in particular, ‘The things we do for the Orange Jesus.’”
Minnesota Democratic Rep. Dean Phillips is running in the Democratic Party’s primary to try and unseat incumbent President Joe Biden. The launch of his campaign has been met with dismal polling numbers, coming in at 6% support, which trails Marianne Williamson at 8%, who in turn trails Biden by more than 50 percentage points.
On Tuesday, Phillips’ campaign made a push, releasing attack ads against Biden and sitting down with CNN’s Abby Phillip for a primetime interview. It didn’t go particularly well. The CNN host asked Phillips about the backlash he’s received from a recently published interview with The Atlantic, where he obliquely questioned Vice President Kamala Harris’ competency to be president.
Phillips’ response was to try on what seemed to be an attempt at a shoot-from-the-hip catchphrase, saying, “I'm the one who says—I'm the one who says the quiet part out loud. I think that's pretty well documented,” but the CNN host pressed him as to why he would repeat these “comments.”
The man who just told everyone that it is “pretty well documented” that he is “the one who says the quiet part out loud” explained, “I do not recall saying those words. I recall those words being shared with me, and saying that’s what people have been saying.”
He proceeded to say both Biden and Harris were good people and that it wasn’t him saying these things. He switched tacks to argue that, in fact, the low approval ratings being touted by media outlets prove that both Biden and Harris have people saying these things about them. Of course, if that’s the metric, Phillips is even less exciting to Americans.
While that didn’t go well, maybe Phillips could get back on board and show solid leadership and diplomacy around Biden’s behind-the-scenes success in helping to broker a hostage deal and temporary cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.
ABBY PHILLIP: The reporting is that Hamas would release kidnapped Israeli hostages in exchange for a 3-to-1 ratio of Palestinian prisoners: women and minors—children who are in Israeli prison. If you were president of the United States, would you accept that deal?
REP: DEAN PHILLIPS: No, because we have nine Americans held hostage right now by Hamas, have been there for six weeks, including at least one child. And by now, I would have expected American special forces to perhaps play a hand in extracting them. I think it's absurd, shocking, and dismaying that six weeks later we still have American hostages held by a terror organization in Gaza. I'm happy for the Israelis, don't get me wrong. Hamas should release all hostages. But the fact that we have Americans sitting in Gaza right now held hostage is appalling and should be addressed immediately.
PHILLIP: So to be clear, you would turn down even this opportunity to free 50 hostages, and I want to just clarify for the audience, these are Israelis, but some of them are dual citizens—they hold dual passports, including some Americans.
PHILLIPS: If all Americans are included that are held hostage right now, of course I would approve it. If there's a single American that is still held hostage after this deal. No, I think it's that important, Abby. I think the American president has an obligation to extract Americans. It's been six weeks, and I'm happy that some are being released, but every single American citizen should be part of that group. And if I were the American president, I would not agree to anything until every single one of them is released. I would demand it. And if it wasn't done, we have to use every lever available to us to ensure it.
Phillip decided to try and tease out how unsophisticated the candidate’s statement is as an actual policy position.
PHILLIP: Well, you have said that the war has taken an unacceptable toll on Palestinian citizens and civilians—
PHILLIPS: —And Israelis.
PHILLIP: And, of course, on Israelis. But in terms of the toll on Palestinians in Gaza, you're saying a cease-fire only in exchange for the hostages. It seems pretty clear at this point those are not terms that Hamas will accept. So how will you get them to agree to release all of the hostages, which they've refused to do up until this point, simply by putting a cease-fire on the table?
PHILLIPS: First of all, Hamas should have been eliminated years ago. The fact that a terror organization will not release 200 humans in exchange for the preservation of life of the people they ostensibly represent is appalling. By the way, this is a failure, Abby, of the past—
PHILLIP:—But what will you do about it, is my question? What would you do if you were president? What would you do to change that?
PHILLIPS: Just like I proposed, release the 200 hostages. There will be an immediate—
PHILLIP:—Hamas has to—Hamas has to do that. So how do you get Hamas to do it?
PHILLIPS: Hamas—Hamas has to do it because—ow do you get Hamas to do it?
PHILLIP: Yeah.
PHILLIPS: You make the—this is exactly the presentation: Release 200 hostages, an immediate cease-fire, and a multinational security force to maintain security for all Palestinians in Gaza. That eliminates Israel's responsibility.
PHILLIP: Do you think that the Biden administration is deferring too much to the Israeli government in how this war is conducted? Because it kind of sounds like what you're saying is that you think that the United States government should simply just go in there and release the Americans.
Regardless of your position on the conflict in Israel and Gaza, arguing that the Biden administration forgot to ask for all hostages to be released and a cease-fire is not a position. And most importantly, it isn’t a meaningful position in opposition to Biden. Phillips' candidacy remains an enigma.
Republicans are challenging labor leaders to fights and allegedly physically assaulting one another. Donald Trump says he will abolish reproductive rights entirely and is openly calling for the extermination of his detractors, referring to them as “vermin” on Veterans Day. The Republican Party has emerged from its corruption cocoon as a full-blown fascist movement.
House Republicans have now subpoenaed Hunter Biden and James Biden, President Joe Biden’s son and brother, as part of their ongoing and so far fruitless effort to connect the president to any kind of corruption at all. Republicans have been on this for nearly a year in an investigation involving thousands of pages of documents and multiple witnesses, but they keep pretending that if they harass Biden and his family a little more, they’ll find something. Because we’re talking about Republicans, they’re definitely not worried about hypocrisy, but they can still look bumbling, confused, and all-around bad, as Rep. Greg Murphy showed when faced with a tough barrage of questions from CNN’s John Berman.
Berman set Murphy up with a simple question, referring to those subpoenas to Hunter and James Biden: “Will you vote to hold them in contempt” if they don’t respond? “Absolutely, absolutely, why would they not be, what do they have to hide?” Murphy responded, oozing relaxed confidence.
He didn’t seem ready for the follow-up: “Why have you changed your position on holding people in contempt of Congress? You voted against holding Steve Bannon in contempt.”
BERMAN: If Hunter & Jim Biden don't respond to subpoenas, will you hold them in contempt? GREG MURPHY: Absolutely B: Why did you change your position? You voted against holding Bannon in contempt M: It's different when someone is in office B: What office was Hunter Biden in? pic.twitter.com/OTy9CJNAVV
Murphy’s response made no sense right from the start. “Well, I think it’s a little bit different when you have the president of the United States, when you have somebody who’s not an elected official, you have the president of the United States was selling his influence, his son was ...”
This kicked off an extended back and forth, with Berman trying to pin Murphy down on who the heck the elected official in question was, given that neither of the people who has been subpoenaed is an elected official. Asked about contempt of Congress for people who don’t respond to subpoenas, Murphy only wanted to talk about the president—who has not been subpoenaed.
At one point, Berman stopped Murphy to press on the fundamental problem here: “I’m sorry, who are you saying is in elected office here when you’re talking about holding people in contempt of Congress for being nonresponsive?”
Murphy: “Well, tell me what office Steve Bannon was in.”
Berman: “Well, tell me what office Hunter Biden is in.”
“No, I’m not talking about Hunter Biden,” Murphy said, in a conversation that was entirely about his vow to vote to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress if he didn’t respond to a subpoena. “I’m talking about Joe Biden, the president of the United States.”
“You haven’t subpoenaed him,” Berman responded. “I’m asking if Hunter Biden or Jim Biden, the brother and son of the president, who are not elected officials, if they’re not responsive, will you hold them in contempt?”
“Think about this, John,” said Murphy, who was obviously not thinking about anything but how to fit his talking points into this inconvenient line of questioning. “If you’ve seen the facts, the facts that have occurred, we’ve seen that there’s been influence-peddling.” Then, having delivered that line that was not an answer to the question being asked, he dived back into his canned and baseless accusations against the president. Who has not been subpoenaed.
Berman tried to pull it back on track by again pointing out that Murphy had voted not to hold Bannon in contempt.
“Yeah, but was Steve Bannon related to the president of the United States?”
“No, he was a former employee of President Donald Trump, and the other people who you did not vote to hold in contempt literally worked for the former president, Donald Trump.”
Murphy blathered about Hunter Biden “using the Biden brand,” which he insisted was “an entirely different standard, John, and you know it.” Well, yes, we all know that the different standard here is that Biden is a Democrat and Republicans are determined to drag him down even without evidence of corruption.
“I just, no, I don’t, I’m actually still confused,” Berman responded. “We’re talking about private citizens, and my question to you is if they are not responsive to the subpoena would you hold them in contempt. You say yes for Hunter Biden. You voted no for Steve Bannon, and then you talk about there’s a different standard for elected officials but neither of them are elected.”
Just to be clear, Murphy’s stated, albeit muddled, position is that it’s more relevant to subpoena people who happen to be related to a president than people who worked for a president in his official capacity. But trying to discern a logic beyond the partisan witch hunt is kind of pointless, because that’s the only there there. They want to get Joe Biden, and since they haven’t been able to find any evidence he’s corrupt, they’re going to use “Biden family” to muddy things.
The main reason that Republicans and other conservative elected officials like to appear on Fox News and Newsmax while staying away from traditional media outlets: Their propaganda wilts under the softest pressure. On Wednesday, Rep. Matt Gaetz went on CNN to make his case for impeaching President Joe Biden. It didn’t go so great for the Florida man. This wasn’t anchor Abby Phillip’s first rodeo with a conservative trying to defend the indefensible.
Phillip understands that if she simply asks serious questions that are based in logic, Republicans like Gaetz will flail about helplessly (and sometimes angrily). The Achilles’ heel in the Republicans’ push for an impeachment inquiry is that they have no evidence of any crimes linking President Biden with his son Hunter’s business dealings—none at all. Phillip repeatedly reminded Gaetz of this very easy-to-understand fact, and Gaetz began flailing as expected, blathering about evidence that the Republicans’ own star witness contradicted in testimony.
Acting as if he was flabbergasted with Phillip’s inability to grasp the “evidence,” Gaetz stepped over the line, and Phillip shut down this one-man dog-and-pony show:
First of all, this is not about innuendo. It's not about what I believe. It's a question: Do you have evidence? If you had evidence that Joe Biden was linked to Hunter Biden's business deals in a way that is illegal, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You would probably have the votes for an impeachment inquiry, but you don't, because of people like Ken Buck and people like Don Bacon and many others in your conference.
Suspected pathological fraudster Rep. George Santos went on CNN to be interviewed by host Erin Burnett Tuesday evening. Santos started by saying he supported House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s announcement of an impeachment inquiry, which is based on no evidence, of President Joe Biden. Burnett then asked Santos questions about recent reports that he had entered into talks with prosecutors in his own fraud case. The fundamental issue with interviewing George Santos is that he is a well-documented liar. Santos quickly said none of the reports were true and that he wouldn’t and couldn’t talk about it—but it wasn’t true, so there.
Burnett asked Santos to speak to his plea deal in Brazil, which was reported on in May by multiple news outlets (including CNN). Facing fraud charges in Brazil, prosecutors allowed the embattled congressman to admit guilt and pay a pittance of restitution. Santos responded to Burnett’s question by opening up the gaslight machine and sending the interview off the rails: “I don't know where you're getting your information from, but I would challenge you to bring up receipts on that because that's not how it happened in Brazil.” Santos similarly denied knowing anything about accusations of fraud surrounding his work with rescue animals and of potentially defrauding a veteran, as well as about the complaints of misuse of campaign funds.
After more combative lying from Santos, Burnett brought down the hammer in the form of an edited montage of Santos’ lying in his own words about his grandparents being Holocaust survivors, about his mother surviving 9/11, about various schools he did not attend and degrees he did not earn or receive. Santos’ response was to say CNN should have Biden on to be “grilled” like this. Burnett didn’t let this pass, responding that his answer was “completely irrelevant to the conversation,” adding, “and to be very clear, you and I spoke this afternoon and I said we would begin with impeachment and talk about many other things about you. You are well aware of that. So it would be unfair to claim anything otherwise.”
Once again, the fundamental crisis in America’s political journalism is an unwillingness to confront corruption—or even to recognize it. Uncritically repeating politically motivated hoaxes is a corrupt act, one that sabotages democracy by depriving citizens of the facts necessary to make democratic decisions.
A new CNN story is indicative of this very problem, so let’s rip it to pieces and see what we can learn. The article is "McCarthy starts to plot Biden impeachment strategy while GOP skeptics remain,” and it is a bog-standard inside look at the politics of the Republican Party’s attempt to further its propagandistic narratives.
The article tells us that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has "privately told" Republicans he plans to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden "by the end of September." And yet, despite setting up an array of committees and subcommittees for Trump's most-loyal toadies to probe Biden and his family, the vengeance squads continue to present only nebulous theories and claims that have already been disproven. This presents McCarthy with a problem.
The article continues:
But leadership recognizes that the entire House Republican conference is not yet sold on the politically risky idea of impeachment. That’s why one of the biggest lingering questions – and something Republicans have been discussing in recent weeks – is whether they would need to hold a floor vote to formally authorize their inquiry, sources say. There is no constitutional requirement that they do so, and Republicans do not currently have the 218 votes needed to open an impeachment inquiry.
Skipping the formal vote, which would be a tough one for many of the party’s more vulnerable and moderate members, would allow Republicans to get the ball rolling on an inquiry while giving leadership more time to convince the rest of the conference to get on board with impeachment.
In other words, with no clear evidence of wrongdoing, House Republicans in swing districts don't want to commit to an impeachment based on the murky say-so of the chamber’s conspiracy cranks. So, to make his deadline, McCarthy plans to simply skip that vote if he must and launch the inquiry anyway.
The issue with this article is not what it covers but how it covers it. All this information is presented as a problem of political gamesmanship. That Republicans have unearthed no actual justification for impeaching Biden is depicted as a political problem, nothing more.
Another factor that could complicate the fall timeline for an impeachment inquiry: Government funding expires at the end of September. McCarthy has already signaled they will need a short-term spending patch to keep the government’s lights on, which hardline conservatives have balked at.
Officially moving ahead with an impeachment inquiry could help keep angry conservatives off McCarthy’s back. And the speaker himself has linked the two issues publicly, warning that a government shutdown could hinder House Republicans’ ability to continue their investigations into the Biden administration – a direct appeal to his right flank, and a sign of all the competing pressures that the speaker is facing.
Every political journalist in Washington, D.C., knows that House Republicans’ push to impeach Biden exists as a strictly partisan maneuver to (1) retaliate against Trump's impeachments and (2) manufacture an anti-Biden scandal so as to offset the accusations of Trump’s rampant criminality. Republicans want to bend the narrative from "Trump and his Republican allies did crimes" to "Both sides are doing crimes." Their intention is to use the false claims to sway the next presidential race. Again.
But we political journalists are going to ignore all that, studiously, and report on the propaganda campaign as a political tactic. What does this mean to Republicans in vulnerable districts? How will it affect short-term spending battles? Can McCarthy thwart would-be Republican moderates to push the propaganda campaign forward?
It's not until paragraph nine that we get the disclaimer: Republicans’ impeachment rationale is bullshit:
Republicans have pointed to unverified allegations that Biden profited from his son’s foreign business dealings as grounds for impeachment and have also alleged that there was political interference at the Department of Justice in the ongoing Hunter Biden criminal case – neither of which Republicans have been able to prove, which the White House and Democrats have repeatedly stressed.
“Unverified” is the key word, but the paragraph ends with a deflection to "White House and Democrats" who insist on pointing out that Republicans have not been "able to prove" their claims—a deflection that is unnecessary and borders on manipulative. CNN knows these claims are unverified, that Republicans have been unable to prove their accusations, and yet the grounds for this impeachment inquiry gets a passing mention deep in the story.
Most of the claims surrounding Hunter Biden are the product of a Trump-era ratfucking operation by Rudy Giuliani, the now-indicted former mayor of New York City. The operation’s goal was to deflect from Russian election interference with a bizarre theory that, actually, it was Russia’s enemy Ukraine that meddled in our elections and that Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, and the Hamburglar were all somehow involved. Republicans’ investigations of the “Hunter Biden” story isn't a case of longstanding suspicions of a Biden crime ring being dutifully probed by public servants; it is a conspiracy-peddling campaign pushed by known liars, several of whom are facing charges for their own roles in an attempted coup.
Republicans’ conspiracy mongering is the far more interesting and important story, and political journalism so often seems uninterested in telling it. It is as if these journalists cannot comprehend conspiracy-peddling as corruption. Surely, by writing such articles, they would invite retaliation from elected officials whom the journalists court for access. Better to have access to those telling lies than to point out the lies.
The article closes out by calling attention to a new social media post by the man at the center of all this. On Truth Social, Trump screeched his frustration at, of all people, his allies in Congress: "You don’t need a long INQUIRY to prove it, it’s already proven. … Either IMPEACH the BUM, or fade into OBLIVION. THEY DID IT TO US!"
That is what the article should have focused on: the indicted leader of an attempted coup demanding the impeachment of the man who beat him, all while the indicted leader himself mounts a new bid to retake power. It is the story of one political party mired in corruption and peddling hoaxes. It is the most exciting political story on the planet, the story that happens in nations just before democracy falls and a strongman and his toadies declare elections to be too corrupt to continue and journalists to be enemies of the citizens. It is the last political story a democracy tells, and the political journalists tasked with fetching quotes from the conspirators still avoid telling it.
We talk about the upcoming Republican presidential debate and how sad a situation it is. The Republican Party shot itself in the foot with a Trump-sized bullet and now it's stuck with him for the foreseeable future. We still try to game out the possible paths the Republican field might take in order to rid themselves of the Donald.
House Republicans have been planning to impeach President Joe Biden since before last November’s midterm elections. They had to come up with an excuse, which they knew would center on Hunter Biden. After months of relentless sham investigations, they are ready: It’s going to be about Hunter, like they planned, and since they haven’t found anything implicating the president in corruption, they will go ahead and lie. Lucky for them, the headlines will focus on Republican claims rather than the fact that they are lies.
Dueling articles at The New York Times and CNN show the multiple ways that the media can cover the Republican impeachment push without ever saying that it’s completely partisan BS. CNN offers up what appears to be a straightforward news report on House Republican plans. Really it’s dozens of paragraphs laundering false Republican claims.
CNN anchor Erin Burnett and a former lawyer for Donald Trump spent time fantasizing about a scenario in which the ex-President is forced to pardon himself from a prison cell.
Ty Cobb, a hilariously-named former member of the Trump Administration legal team, has been very vociferous about his opinion that the Republican candidate is going to jail based on a Justice Department investigation into his possession of classified documents after leaving office.
Burnett pressed him on what the future might hold should that be the case, particularly if Trump wins the election.
“What happens, though, if this trial does not wrap up before the general election, Trump wins?” Burnett asked. “Does he just pardon himself and it all goes away?”
“Well, so those are all oddly–those are possibilities,” Cobb replied. “The sad thing is nobody knows. This is so unprecedented.”
Cobb proceeded to discuss the issue of Trump pardoning himself, something he believes is not permissible but admits there are other legal minds who disagree.
“The timing is, if there’s already been a verdict in the federal case… you would assume that that could be consequential during the election.”
BOOM.
Former Trump White House Lawyer Ty Cobb predicts Trump will go to jail over the classified documents case. pic.twitter.com/snWGSp2VDE
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) May 22, 2023
CNN Discusses Possibility of Trump Pardoning Himself From Prison
Where the conversation veered to next is why it is so difficult to take CNN seriously when they try to portray themselves as less partisan under CEO Chris Licht.
Cobb discussed what might happen if the Trump trial wraps up, he is convicted and sentenced, and this all happens before the election.
“He doesn’t have the power to pardon himself until he’s actually inaugurated,” he said. “So, if there’s a verdict, say, before the election in November, sentencing could easily occur in advance of him taking office.”
At this point in the interview, you can see Burnett get eager about the prospect, mouth hanging slightly open, eyebrows raised, head shaking in disbelief.
“And he would have to report to jail,” Cobb added. “So he would be (pardoning) himself ostensibly under those circumstances from jail.”
Burnett found the scenario “absolutely incredible” but suggested, “It’s a reality we could be looking at.”
Erin Burnett and Trump White House Lawyer Game Out Scenario Where Trump Pardons Himself from Prison: ‘Absolutely Incredible’
Congressman Matt Gaetz, following the 2020 presidential election and before the transition to the Biden White House, advised Trump to pardon himself and key members of his administration prior to departing.
In retrospect, he probably should have listened to Gaetz’s advice.
Matt Gaetz: “President Trump should pardon Michael Flynn, he should pardon the Thanksgiving turkey, he should pardon everyone from himself to his administration officials, to Joe Exotic if he has to!” pic.twitter.com/mEEEqCl9rl
Trump insisted that a pardon would be unnecessary as he has “done nothing wrong.”
Self-pardons have been an issue of much debate in the Trump era.
Law scholar Jonathan Turley has argued that as President, he had the right to do so. Or will have the right should he be re-elected.
“There is no language specifying who may or may not be the subject of a pardon,” he wrote in a USA Today column. “The president is simply given the power to pardon any federal crime.”
“As a textual matter, there is nothing to prevent Trump from adding his own name to the list of pardoned individuals.”
As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!
Interestingly, pardons even in such a scenario would only apply to federal law; they do not apply to civil, state, or local offenses.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced an indictment of the former President earlier this year.
Trump has been charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, low-level felonies in New York State but which carry a potential for a 4-year prison sentence each.
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”
