The Republican Party is A Bottomless Well of Cynicism
So far the biggest takeaway from the January 6 hearings - aside from Trump's obvious guilt -- is the cravenness of those who enabled him.
I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you received this email - or you are a free subscriber - and you’d like to subscribe: you can sign up below.
There Is No Bottom … Part 54,701
When it comes to acknowledging the cynicism of the modern Republican Party, I take a backseat to no political observer, but, my god, the January 6 hearings are testing me. I thought I’d reached the point where no new revelation could shock me, but then in Thursday night’s hearing, Rep. Liz Cheney “said that multiple members of Congress, including Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., sought presidential pardons for their efforts to overturn the election results.”
As I noted in my recent MSNBC column:
If Trump allies truly believed the election had been stolen, why would they need pardons? They were simply pushing good faith arguments about election fraud, right? The fact that they sought Trump’s assistance in potentially avoiding prosecution is compelling evidence that they knew the claims they were making then — and are still making now — were not true.
So, several House Republicans were pushing discredited, evidence-free allegations of massive voter fraud to overturn the election. Then, when it didn’t work, they ran to Trump begging for a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Or what about those in Trump’s inner circle:
On Thursday, we heard over and over from those close to Trump that they knew in early November that he’d lost the 2020 presidential election. Alex Cannon, a campaign lawyer, says he gave the same information to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who replied via text, “There’s no there there.” A key Trump aide, Jason Miller, recounted Trump being told, in the Oval Office, by a campaign data expert that he was going to lose. The president’s daughter and former White House aide Ivanka Trump told the committee she believed Barr when he said that Trump had lost.
The case of Barr is instructive. Here’s a guy who turned the Department of Justice into Trump’s own personal law firm. He covered up the key conclusions of the Mueller Report and refused to hand the unredacted report to Congress. He sent the other Michael Cohen to jail for refusing to stop working on a book that could have embarrassed the president. Before the election, he publicly pushed evidence-free theories about potential fraud in mail voting. The list of Barr’s misdeeds could go on for a while … and yet even he wasn’t willing to go along with Trump’s lies. Why? Because supporting Trump no longer suited his purposes. The former president was useful to Barr. He made him Attorney General and gave him an opportunity to push his extreme theories on presidential power. But after his defeat at the polls, Trump was no longer useful — and then the Attorney General was more than happy to throw him under the bus.
Or how about Bill Stepien, Trump’s former campaign manager, who testified in his deposition to the committee that he told Trump on election night that there was no basis for him declaring victory. He also said two groups were advising Trump, and he dubbed his “Team Normal.” Stepien didn’t believe the allegations of a stolen election — and yet today, one of his clients is Harriet Hageman, who is challenging Liz Cheney in a Republican primary and is a “Big Lie” devotee. In short, he’s working for a client he knows is lying about an issue that goes to the heart of American democracy.
Yet, amazingly, here is what Stepien told the committee about his devotion to honesty and professionalism:
Twenty-five years and I’ve spanned political ideologies from Trump to McCain to Bush to Christie. I can work under a lot of circumstances for a lot of varied candidates and politicians but, a situation where—I think along the way, I’ve built up a pretty good—I hope—reputation for being honest and professional. I didn’t think what was happening was necessarily honest or professional at that point in time that led to me stepping away.
But did Stepien speak up at the time and decry Trump’s lies? Of course not, because if he did, he’d never get lucrative political consulting gigs, like working for Harriet Hageman.
Within the campaign, most of Trump’s advisors knew that he’d lost. The Committee played videos from their depositions in which they said as much. Did it stop the campaign from sending out fundraising pitches to Trump’s supporters — raising $250 million in the process? Nope. Indeed, Gary Coby, the Trump campaign’s head of digital advertising, agreed that the campaign’s claims of electoral fraud amounted to a “marketing tactic.”
What about Jason Miller, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Mark Meadows, et al. Each knew that Trump lost. Some of them reported this to the president. Did any of them speak up at the time — or since? Of course not. Miller still works for Trump. Meadows has refused to testify to the Committee.
Again, the why is obvious. Crossing Trump means risking their political and professional careers, and none of them were willing to do that. The same goes for all the Republican members of the House and Senate who have parroted Trump’s lies — knowing full well they are lies. There are exceptions, of course. Ginni Thomas appears to believe the election was stolen. So too does Marjorie Taylor Greene, but these people are crazy. The rest of them are just cynical beyond belief. They’d rather enable a lunatic, who is undermining the very tenets of American democracy, than risk their careers. In short, they’d rather be members of Congress than patriots.
On Thursday, Cheney most accurately described the immoral choice that her entire party of fellow Republicans has made: “There will come a day when President Trump is gone,” she said. “But your dishonor will remain.”
The Legal Implications
There is an important legal implication to many of Trump’s aides telling him that he lost the election —it opens up Trump to a fraud charge. To indict Trump, federal prosecutors would likely need to show that the president acted with criminal intent. If aides repeatedly told him he’d lost the election and he pursued the claim of a stolen election anyway, it would potentially show that he knew he was lying. One might argue that Trump appeared to believe the crazy things he was saying. But that, in itself, is not a defense. Trump would need to show that his beliefs were reasonable. If every campaign person around him said otherwise, that could be a difficult hill for Trump’s legal team to climb.
Then there this is:
Lofgren is referring to the $250 million raised by the Trump campaign and the creation of a defense fund called the “Election Defense Fund,” which, it turns out, didn’t actually exist. This seems like a fairly obvious example of wire fraud.
Remember, back in March, a federal judge ruled that Trump “more likely than not” committed two federal crimes when trying to stop the certification of ballots on January 6: obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States. Over the first two days of the hearing, the evidence of Trump’s guilt on these two counts seems practically overwhelming — and there’s still more to come.
But, prosecuting a former president is not a decision for the faint of heart. If the Department of Justice goes that route, it could dangerously destabilize the country — and lead to violence from Trump’s supporters. Moreover, a prosecution initiated by the Biden Department of Justice would, in effect, mean that the president of the United States is leading a prosecution of his opponent in the 2020 election … and his likely rival in two years. It might be a righteous prosecution, but it doesn't look good.
My opinion is that public officials must be held accountable for their actions, and if Trump broke the law, he should be prosecuted. But this is hardly a slam dunk; frankly, I would not want to be in Merrick Garland’s shoes making this decision.
What’s Going On
Poland banned abortions. You will 100 percent believe what happened next.
John Cassidy is right about the Senate’s bipartisan compromise on gun control legislation. It’s not nearly enough, but it’s still a significant step forward.
Ginni Thomas was awfully busy trying to reverse the 2020 election outcome.
Patrick Keefe tells the story of possibly the dumbest CIA agent ever to steal and then leak classified material.
Musical Interlude
One of the stunning realizations after watching today's hearing was that Stepien, as you noted is now working for Liz Cheney's GOP primary opponent, Harriet Hageman. What's sad is that Hageman, while originally someone who worked for Ted Cruz's campaign and opposing Trump, has steered her ship far enough right to get Trump's endorsement. What's so cynical about all this is Stepien had the nerve to say in his testimony today that he considers himself honest and professional.
On the politics of prosecuting Trump, it will certainly be perceived by some that it's the current admin PERsecuting their political opponent...and that is likely to cause some level of violence. Yet, how are we supposed to proceed as a country of laws if we deem someone as vile and dishonest, and likely criminal, as Trump as being above the law. It all just makes my blood boil.
Hirelings, picked from the drunken spew and vomit of an uneasy civilization.