#436 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Monday August 22)
Good morning,
Apologies for being one more voice in the cacophony…this will hopefully be the last Musing about Mr. Trump for a while…
FBI ON TRIAL
I really don’t understand the frenzy over the FBI’s enforcement of a valid warrant on former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. A subpoena was issued earlier this year. The entirety of the materials requested weren’t delivered. Probable cause was demonstrated to the satisfaction of a judge. A search warrant was issued. The goods were found.
The Trumpists who complain about the search don’t dispute that Mr. Trump had the records, that the records didn’t belong to Mr. Trump, that Mr. Trump failed to comply with the prior subpoena, that the warrant was properly issued, or that the seizure wasn’t lawfully executed. Why is so surprising that, when all prior attempts to obtain the illegally retained documents, the Justice Department eventually would have to come get the documents?
The arguments propounded by Mr. Trump and his supporters include the following complaints:
This is a “witch hunt,” notwithstanding that there was a previous subpoena for the records and they weren’t handed over and that the records were known to exist and were held by Mr. Trump.
The judge was anti-Trump, although he seems to have simply done his job. But by this theory, perhaps we should start recusing all judges who ever express opinions—like many of the Federalist Society members appointed to the bench by Mr. Trump.
It isn’t “fair” to Mr. Trump and this was a breach of his home. But of course, these sorts of seizures occur all the time to ordinary Americans when probable cause of a crime being committed is shown to a judge.
It is inappropriate and excessive. I’m not exactly sure what to say. Mr. Trump failed to comply with a validly issued subpoena of these records—records that didn’t belong to him. People have served time for less. Why, exactly, should Mr. Trump receive a free pass? How can the Justice Department allow the law to be so flagrantly disregarded? How flagrant must a former president’s unwillingness to comply with legally compelled actions in order to satisfy the Republicans?
The FBI is “out to get” Mr. Trump and has always been biased against him. Let’s not forget that the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2016, the subject of a very public press conference by the then-Director of the FBI, James Comey, is widely attributed with tilting the election in Mr. Trump’s favor. The FBI Director is a Trump appointee. Further, cries that the Mueller Report generated nothing about Mr. Trump’s wrongdoing is merely an oft-repeated canard.
What a world. If someone jumped in a time machine in 1975 and came to today they would be shocked to find that the Republicans, the party of law and order, are now in a full-on battle against the FBI, diminishing it at every turn, while the Democrats are the big defenders of law enforcement. Meanwhile, Democrats act as if Liz Cheney were Joan of Arc, while Republicans castigate her as criminal—or worse…
GO GET ‘EM, LIZ
When the history of our times is written, the names of Liz Cheney and Adam Kitzinger will ring out as patriots who, notwithstanding ideological differences with their Democratic committee members, stood for democracy, decency and compliance with the law. They did this in the face of a Republican leadership that continues to toe the line of election lies, insurrection denial, and fealty to the defeated charlatan, Donald Trump.
In an election whose result was hardly in question, Ms. Cheney was defeated by the Trump-backed Harriet Hageman, someone who continues to parrot the lies about the prior election being stolen (without, of course, any evidence to support this claim).
Ms. Hageman is on record in 2016 stating that Mr. Trump was a “rascist and xenophobic.” Once she began to strategize over her political future, she adopted the mantra that Mr. Trump was (and I quote), “the greatest president of my lifetime.” She follows a long line of people who warned of the danger of Mr. Trump (see, e.g., Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio…) and then fall into line, prostrating themselves before Mr. Trump.
HOW TO CONCEDE
Ms. Cheney conceded defeat moments after the election was “called” by the press, a stark contrast to Mr. Trump, who continues to assert, notwithstanding 62 failed lawsuits, a failed coup, a failed attempt to create false electors, multiple recounts, and an insurrection at the Capitol, that the election that he lost by a wide margin was a conclusive win for him.
Now that the election results are behind her, Cheney is not backing down. She determined some time ago that her seat in Congress is not as important to her as doing the right thing for her country, continuing to be the leading voice of the January 6th Committee. It is curious that Democrats, with whom Ms. Cheney has significant policy disagreements, are cheering her on, while the Republicans, whose party Mr. Trump has ripped apart and steered away from its core values, have turned on Ms. Cheney.
BUT WHAT DOES THE WYOMING VOTE REALLY MEAN?
We live in a world where “breaking news” is the norm. Pundits maintain that Ms. Cheney’s defeat is a bell weather of the national mood. But I think this election means less than the pundits say. Election results in tiny places with small margins of votes are not necessarily indicative of greater trends. The New York Times and others maintain this is a “big victory” for Mr. Trump. But let’s remember that less than 150,000 votes were cast in the Wyoming primary. The vote of this tiny state (#50 out of 50 in population), which is heavily conservative, is hardly indicative of a larger national trend.
Another example of the absurdity of looking at a single election in a tiny district as indicative of anything at the national level is Ilhan Omar’s victory in the Democratic primary. She defeated Don Samuels by a vote of 57,683 to 55,217. Just because she captured 2,400 votes more than her challenger is indicative of no larger national trend. There are school board and college student council elections that sport higher numbers than these.
And yes, that was Wayland Jennings in The Highwaymen in Saturday’s Musing…!
Have a great week,
Glenn
From the archives: