WaPo publishes conservative drivel - for the second day in a row - please make it stop
Yesterday, Washington Post contributor, Marc Thiessen, made the absurd suggestion that President Biden pardon Trump. Today Hugh Hewitt writes that Merrick Garland needs to explain the timing of the Trump indictment. His logic is as facile as Thiessen’s. I understand that WaPo wants to present political diversity on its opinion pages, but can they not find conservatives better at making coherent arguments?
Hewitt starts with boilerplate conservative distraction — “what about the timing of the Trump indictment.” He claims he is terribly concerned it will interfere in the 2024 election. This misdirection deliberately obscures the main point. The only reason there is any ‘timing’ is that Trump — despite being given multiple opportunities and ignoring the advice of his lawyer — refused to return stolen property.
Whose fault is it that Trump now faces 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information? Who personally directed his staff to hide this stolen property, leading to an obstruction charge? Who lied about having the documents, leading to concealment charges? It was not the prosecutors.
And yet Hewitt demands that Merrick Garland explain himself. It is unconscionable.
Conservative orthodoxy is that you cannot charge a Republican presidential candidate with a crime if there is an election sometime in the future. Why not? Common sense mandates that anyone looking to have access to the nation's secrets be someone who does not think those secrets are his personal property. And worse, someone who leaves those secrets sloppily stored behind homeowner locks, easily accessible to the members and guests of a holiday resort.
Hewitt ignores all of that. He demands to know why the indictments were issued when they were. He writes,
“Prosecutors had other options — to charge Trump sooner or delay prosecution until later — but instead have chosen to take this route, two months before the Republican presidential debates begin.”
Nice try. It would not matter when the prosecutors acted. Hewitt would have still asked, “Why now?” If they had charged Trump sooner, Hewitt would have demanded to know why there was a rush to judgment. Any later, it would have been closer to the election — how would that have been better?
Hewitt piles on. He next complains that prosecutors overreacted.
"But maybe the most basic question about the case is one I had, and I’m sure many shared, when the indictment of Trump for allegedly violating the Espionage Act was unveiled: That’s it? In this “espionage,” no documents were given to a third party? None were sold? It’s all about “unlawful retention”?
For the sake of argument, I will assume that Hewitt is not an idiot. If so, he is a shameless apologist. It would be like saying that a bank manager, who helped themselves to some cash out of the safe, is not really a crook because they did not spend any of the stolen money or give it to a friend.
Sadly, as bad as it is, that is one of his better arguments.
Hewitt then wanders further into the long grass by saying,
“Jack Smith raised expectations this spring by subpoenaing the Trump Organization’s overseas dealmaking records going back to 2017. The implication: Trump was selling classified information to foreign powers.”
“The evidence of that in the indictment: zero.”
Maybe Hewitt is, in fact, an idiot. He argues that because the prosecutors looked to see if Trump sold secrets but did not charge him for selling secrets, it was OK for him to have secrets. To put it again in terms of the larcenous bank manager, it is the same as saying that because the prosecutors could find no evidence the thief gave the money to anyone else, he did not really steal it.
That is the most charitable way to describe Hewitt’s nonsense. He says that the subpoena implies “Trump was selling classified information to foreign powers.” It does? Where is the evidence for that? Who knows what Smith’s people were looking for? And just because something is not in the Florida indictment does not mean it does not exist.
Hewitt sails on. After pointing out there are photographs of many boxes, he writes,
"But the indictment hinges on just 31 documents — presumably small enough to fit in a single box — and among the containers in the infamous chandeliered-bathroom photo is one with “Bedroom” scribbled on it with a marker, just as millions of Americans would do when moving.”
I did not realize that there was a minimum volume for a “willful retention” charge. Is the bank manager free and clear because they only took 31 $100 bills? Further, how many people keep porn on their computer in a file labeled “tax stuff?” I do not know. But I know it is porn, no matter what you call it.
Hewitt then shoots his argument in the leg.
“The central issue with this case is whether Trump’s possession of those 31 documents was so dangerous to national security that the former commander in chief must be put into the dock and face a prison sentence of more than 300 years.”
A rational person would look at Hewitt’s speculation and think if Trump has been charged with crimes that might land him in prison for 300 years, then yes, those 31 documents were "so dangerous to national security." You do not face 300 years for stealing the bank’s pen.
Besides, no one thinks that Trump is realistically facing 300 years — so Hewitt is throwing out the number, hoping its shock value will obfuscate the truth that Trump had those 31 documents.
Hewitt then gets specific about the calendar.
“Has the Justice Department really thought this through? After the GOP presidential debates begin on Aug. 23, they will occur regularly for months to come. Do prosecutors envision sandwiching court hearings between debates and campaign appearances? Do they foresee hearings while Iowa is caucusing or New Hampshire is holding the first Republican primary? Will the government demand his presence on Super Tuesday?”
Let me say again that the Justice Department did not steal the documents. If Trump has to balance court appearances with campaign appearances, it is because he did not return the documents when the National Records people politely asked him to.
Hewitt keeps hammering away.
“At a minimum, Americans have a right to know how the attorney general will ensure that the same standard of prosecutorial discretion used to charge Trump will be applied by the special counsel investigating President Biden’s trail of improperly kept classified documents.”
Dear God, he is an idiot. Biden — and Pence — gave their documents back. If Trump wanted the same standard of prosecutorial discretion, all he had to do was return the purloined property. I hope I do not have to say that again too many more times.
Hewitt then claims that the fact the documents are classified will cause delays. So? There is only a court case at all because the documents were classified. Technically, they did not have to be classified for DoJ to charge Trump — but does anyone believe there would have been charges if they were not?
Hewitt then crashes the plane as he tries to land it,
“That’s why the country needs to hear from Garland. Why the Justice Department dawdled so long in bringing its expansive charges just as the 2024 election season gets underway is deeply puzzling. I’ve always dismissed conspiracy theorists and pushed back on “deep state” paranoia, while defending the great majority of professionals working at the FBI and elsewhere in the Justice Department. But this sequence of events has painted both the FBI and DOJ a deep blue in the eyes of red America. That’s going to be very difficult to undo.”
“Dawdled?” It was liberals who had been ripping their hair out because of the seemingly interminable time it took to indict Trump. If Smith had brought charges right after the search of Mar-a-Lago revealed Trump’s crimes, conservatives would have been crying ”rush to judgment.” Nothing Garland did would have made them happy.
Lastly, what red America thinks about the FBI and DOJ is irrelevant. Besides, the base thinks those agencies are deep blue only because pot stirrers like Hewitt keep telling them they are. People saying irresponsible things led to the Jan 6 insurrection. But that has not stopped conservatives from winding up the base.
Hewitt should look at Trump’s crimes as an American rather than a conservative. It would lead to more thoughtful writing and better arguments.