Good morning,
We are in the midst of a deflection campaign of “whataboutism” in this country. Whataboutism seeks to diminish the ramifications of bad acts by pointing to other (often lesser) examples of similar behavior or, as often as not, drawing an equivalency to completely unrelated transgressions and/or perceived crimes. The first example is with the attempted coup orchestrated by Donald Trump and his minions, while the second is the ethical lapses of Justice Clarence Thomas.
First, let me be clear that, whomever is making the claim that “wait, look at that other guy,” whether they are Republican or Democrat, is guilty of the same fundamental sin—of failing to acknowledge bad behaviors. Instead, they deflect the question to create a false equivalence between the matter and hand and other perpetrators of perceived malfeasance. Often, these comparisons are regarding acts that are unrelated and differ by orders of magnitude. After all, aggravated assault and shoplifting both are crimes; but one is far worse than the other.
THE TRUMP WHATABOUTISM
Donald Trump may or may not be convicted by a unanimous jury of 12 in one of his many trials. Whether he is convicted or not is a question of how 12 people assess whether the evidence meets the elements of the alleged crimes. It is not a question of whether he engaged in acts that were self-aggrandizing, encouraged others to violence, or violated his oath of office. The facts speak for themselves. We all know who he is and what he did (and most of us, including the majority of Republican legislators and commentators understand his culpability, venality, and danger to our democracy). The only debate now is over (a) whether he will be convicted, (b) whether the Trump loyalists will ever turn against him, and (c) whether the Republicans can so distort the narrative to make a majority of the population believe this is a “witch hunt.” I consider it unlikely that a jury will convict him, as I consider it likely that at least one MAGA fanatic—willing to find Trump not guilty, regardless of the evidence, will find his or her way onto each jury.
But regardless of meeting the elements of the crime or convincing a jury, the facts of the cases to not change. The lack of a conviction doesn’t change the facts that he was engaged in a scheme to overturn the results of the last election and that he is unfit for office. Most of us know that, and if Mitt Romney’s recent memoir is to believed, most of his Republican allies believe this too.
There is a good deal of confusion about what a “not guilty” verdict, a “hung jury” or an election not to prosecute may actually mean. Neither means that events didn’t happen. The first impeachment of Donald Trump did not receive a conviction by 2/3 of the Senate, not because he didn’t try to shake down the leader of a foreign country in order to further his election prospects. It failed because the Republican senators decided not to vote for removal.
I like to point out to other people two examples where the facts generally were known, yet the perpetrators of certain acts were not held accountable. Consider first the O.J. Simpson not guilty verdict regarding the murder of his wife and her friend. There are few people that, upon witnessing the trial, did not believe Mr. Simpson was guilty of the crime. But a jury did not believe the prosecution sustained its burden of proof (or simply engaged in jury nullification). Few people dispute Mr. Simpson killed these people or that he was culpable. Yet he went free (although suffering civil penalties) until convicted of a different crime. Then there is the “Access Hollywood” tape, wherein Mr. Trump maintained he was free to grab women by their genitalia without consequence. Most people, myself included, believed this statement was disqualifying for the highest office in the land. He suffered no consequence for this action and, if anything, he was emboldened to even worse behaviors. After this revelation and the myriad claims of sexual predation, even those who felt it was just fine to elect such a misogynist to the highest office in the land likely wouldn’t want him dating their daughter.
So here are some irrefutable truths that will survive all of these trials:
Trump did rile up a crowd for the January 6th attack, stating they should “be wild” and he repeatedly uses violent language, including all along the campaign trail, in riling up his supporters.
He did delay defending the Capitol on January 6th, notwithstanding repeated requests from his staff, other Republican leaders, and conservative media figures (and, contrary to right ring news to the contrary, he did not attempt to call out the National Guard days before January 6th).
He did try to convince the Vice President to adopt a heretofore unheard of position and not validate valid election results and used language about his Vice President that reasonably could be interpreted as encouraging his followers to put Mr. Pence in physical danger
He did retain classified documents, defied subpoenas for their return, lied about possession, shared their content with people who lacked security clearance, and attempted to hide those documents from federal authorities.
He did pressure of local election officials to overturn election results, to certify alternate, illegal electors, and to “find votes,” without evidence of wrongdoing and after recounts already verified the validity of the results.
He did pay hush money regarding a sexual harassment case.
He did misrepresent the values of his properties in order to deceive lenders.
He has besmirched and weakened faith in the U.S. elections process through unfounded claims of interference by individuals and voting machines. His behavior after having lost an election is unheard of in American history.
THE PERSECUTION OF DONALD TRUMP
Trumpists will say that pursuing Trump is political in nature. They argue that it’s just a “little thing.” Meanwhile, Bill Clinton’s perjury is, in their opinion, far worse than undermining American democracy. In the meantime, his acolytes are pursuing an “impeachment inquiry,” brought to a head by the far right that owns Kevin McCarthy’s political future and his voracious appetite for power. While it is likely Hunter Biden is culpable, and probable that Joe Biden played along with introductions and even meetings, there is no evidence that the President sold favors or made money from his son’s schemes. But that doesn’t stop the Republicans from the performative art of impeaching the President without evidence. Meanwhile, of course, these same legislators are doing everything they can to stop the operations of the government unless…well, that’s just it…we’re not sure…
The refrain heard from Trump’s supporters on the right is that he is “being persecuted.” This is a “political trial.” This is “unprecedented.” But then, of course, Mr. Trump’s behaviors and his undermining of the Constitution and our democratic processes are unprecedented. Even Richard Nixon knew when the time had come to pack it in. His supporters threaten that these prosecutions will open the floodgates of political prosecutions in the future (and the certain impeachment inquiry being pursued in the House would support this assertion). But I maintain Trump is sui generis both in his ignorance of laws, practice, and mores, but also seeks to ignore those which should act as guardrails on the behaviors of authoritarians.
The Trumpists, who did their best to weaponize the FBI, and will again if Trump is reelected, see the prosecutions as “weaponization.” The “weaponization of the FBI” argument seems to argue that the relatively light plea bargain (ultimately trashed) for Hunter Biden, is an example of disproportionate prosecution by the FBI, in comparison with the “witch hunt” for Mr. Trump. But let’s remember the key differences:
The “weaponized” FBI essentially assured Donald Trump’s victory in its handling of the Hillary Clinton emails (which seems almost trite in light of where we have gone since then).
Mr. Trump is not being singled out. The crimes Mr. Trump is being charged with surrounding the improper treatment of confidential documents lies and the insurrection are similar to charges leveled (and convictions obtained) against people who engaged in similar behaviors.
What Hunter Biden has been accused of, were he not the son of the president, would have resulted in fines and perhaps probation, but certainly not a full-blown investigation. The irony is that he has been subjected to so much more scrutiny than the typical American precisely because of who is father is. This is not to suggest that he shouldn’t be subject to legal consequences to the extent his actions justify it—of course he should.
We never voted for, or were asked to vote for Hunter Biden. To single out someone who is not an elected official, and whose actions, while unacceptable, hardly went to the core of American democracy, is an exercise in a myth of equivalence. If one looks at similar cases to Hunter’s, the punishments are relatively minor.
The fundamental arguments against Hunter are that he would not have received business contacts, but for his father’s position and led people that they could gain access through him. Why haven’t the Democrats seized on the absurdity of going after him, but not Eric, Don, Jr. and Jared for their trading on the presidency? Or the Trump hotels foreign dignitaries stayed at to curry favor with Mr. Trump?
Let’s assume everything Hunter did was wrong and let’s assume he should be punished to a greater degree than the prior plea deal, let’s recall the crimes and behaviors are not all all comparable. Hunter didn’t try to commit a coup and retain control of the government after a valid election. The magnitude of the crimes aren’t even in the same ballpark.
The cases against Mr. Trump go to crimes for which there is evidence, and with respect to which grand juries indicted him. No connection yet has been made to Joe Biden. If Biden is found to have made money as a result of his relationships, he should be subject to consequence. Still, it pales in comparison to inciting violence, an attempted coup, and violation of the oath of office. Most absurd, of course, are the claims that Mr. Biden sold state secrets, but we live in a world of misinformation.
Few thinking Republicans I know believe Trump is fit for office or that he is not guilty of one or more felonies for the outrageous acts after the 2020 election. Rather than acknowledging this, and rather than abandoning him, they say, “wait, look over here at Hunter” and “this is all part of the Biden crime family.” If Joe Biden were guilty of anything, he should of course be held to the legal consequences. But until actual evidence emerges, let’s focus on the business of the people and not the silly impeachment inquiry in the House, championed by those great legislators Matt Goetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Jim Johnson.
Meanwhile, outside of the House…
SWEARING FEALTY TO PARTY OVER PRINCIPLE
This slavish devotion to party over principle is most clearly illustrated by a truly outrageous action of the RNC. Requiring participants in the Republican primary debates to pledge to support the Republican nominee, whomever that turns out to be, regardless of the facts, furthers the notion of tribalism (rather than policy and merit). In doing so, they have laid bare the lie that there is any moral standard to their pursuit of power. In essence, they are saying there is no behavior by a Republican nominee that could disqualify that person from full-throated support. In essence, the RNC is asking their candidates for the highest office in the land to say, “I’m a Trumpist if Trump is the nominee.” It diminishes the party and the candidates. Sadly, few candidates have had the courage to challenge this requirement (which, by the way, Mr. Trump has avoided).
It seems crazy to me, but then so much seems crazy. There is a golf metaphor that applies here. When one hits a shot into the trees, one has the choice to chip the ball back onto the fairway, rather than trying to “go for it.” It often is referred to as “taking your medicine.” Better to take a small penalty now than to risk even greater disaster in the future. I thought at the time, and certainly think now, that the Republican leadership in the Senate missed the opportunity to “take their medicine” when voting on Trump’s second impeachment. Sure, many of the Trump dyed-in-the-wool supporters would have complained and perhaps even protested. But let’s recall the mood at the time. The attack on the Capitol was terrifying. Both McConnell and McCarthy placed blame firmly on Mr. Trump. The time to act was at hand but, in an amazing display of political cowardice, the Republican leadership failed to take the next step and “take their medicine.” The world would have looked different today, had they shown some spine. Now they (and we) are faced with even greater consequence—a Trump presidency without guardrails, ready and waiting to upend even more of our checks and balances and democratic institutions. Potential catastrophe awaits.
Later, the lack of Supreme Court ethics, and Justice Thomas and the Whataboutism on the Supreme Court.
Have a great day,
Glenn
Right On, Glenn!