Republican Officials Are Getting Awfully Quiet About Donald Trump

The same party leaders who condemned the Mar-a-Lago search have had a muted reaction to Merrick Garland’s special counsel announcement.

By
61
Former US President Donald Trump speaks at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Donald Trump. (Photo by Alon Skuy/AFP/Getty Images.)

A lot has changed since the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, the country club resort and amateur classified document storage facility where Donald Trump resides. Back in August, the search was denounced by many on the right as an unprecedented outrage befitting a banana republic that challenged  the very legitimacy of the American regime. 

“I’ve seen enough. The Department of Justice has reached an intolerable state of weaponized politicization,” House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy said at the time. “When Republicans take back the House, we will conduct immediate oversight of this department, follow the facts, and leave no stone unturned.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee—now a peddler of pro-Trump kiddie propaganda—insisted that this affront required simply nominating Trump by acclimation: “We need to rally around him and simply say, ‘He is the candidate.’”

Indeed, there was a brief frenzy about how the search would cause Republicans to rally to Trump’s banner.  “The FBI just made Donald Trump president!” an NBC reporter quoted a Trump adviser credulously. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
61
By
Comments (61)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    O.M.G. calling from Vaudeville, AZ

    I thought I saw a real Republican in Congress call out the world’s formerly biggest Twitter troll and America’s Now Biggest Sore Loser Donald J Trump for having a sit down with a neo Nazi and a dumb….Ye…but I only saw a pussy….Viva The Dispatch.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ray Salemi

    Since when does it matter to Republicans that Trump is guilty? It doesn't. The muted response comes from cowardly Republicans not wanting to be on the wrong side of the new über-leader, whether that be Trump or someone else.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Dr. Livesey

    Covid-afflicted Goldberg commentary beats commentary by the next 17 commentators combined.

    Collapse
  4. Mirabelle Schnocklevan

    I think people smell blood in the water. Now that Lindsey had to testify, and since the testimony came after the election, just what did he have to say, I wonder. I think people are emboldened to take down Trump. I don't really think people like kissing his rear, though I could be wrong, and are perhaps looking for a way to kick that rear.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Lindsey Graham all but endorsed Trump after his announcement.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    This is the correct bottom-line (which, unsurprisingly, was near the bottom of this essay): "Now, as a constitutional matter his involvement in the January 6 effort to overturn the election may be too complicated to prosecute criminally—which was all the more reason he should have been convicted in his impeachment trial. But the classified documents case is straightforward and exceedingly easy to document and investigate."

    I agree, but have an additional point which I think supports this conclusion:

    The potential criminal charges arising out of Trump's efforts to overturn the election, up through and including January 6th, would be unprecedented in American history, presenting novel questions of substantive criminal law, criminal procedure, and constitutional law. Trump will have legal defenses to many of those potential charges that don't depend on whether he's innocent or guilty, nor how strong or weak the admissible evidence against him may be. They're defenses that could be urged by ANY ex-POTUS against ANY criminal charges relating to his conduct while in office.

    And it's entirely within the realm of plausible outcomes that that sort of criminal case could be dismissed outright in response to a pretrial motion to dismiss. And that that could happen well before the 2024 general election, and possibly even before the final selection of a GOP nominee.

    Who wants to see Trump run again for POTUS on the campaign slogan that unlike Joe Biden, HE HAS BEEN ACQUITTED?!?!?11?!

    Because that's how he'd frame it — disingenuously, but that's the immutable default value with Trump. Heck, even if his motion to dismiss were denied but the trial stayed pending an appeal — also an entirely plausible scenario — he'd claim that the stay by itself proves his complete innocence.

    Simply put: The danger of spectacular blowback — blowback that not only would help Trump in 2024, but that also would seriously undermine public confidence in government — grows in direct proportion to the ambition of any federal prosecutor in deciding whether to charge Trump with stop-the-steal conduct.

    Similarly, while I think Mr. Goldberg's correct that Trump's legal and factual defenses to the national security charges are thin-to-nonexistent, they'd likewise be novel. But if Trump were somehow to get them thrown out pretrial, or even were acquitted of them at trial (or, more likely, managed to hang the jury), that would be just another in his arsenal of outrages — and he'd have to stretch to claim that it absolves him of any responsibility relating to January 6th.

    My prediction is that the special counsel will indict Trump in the District of Columbia on the national security charges in a narrow, indeed modest, prosecution, but that he will decline to seek an indictment on the January 6th-related issues. And AG Garland will not overturn that declination decision.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jhc

      Great comment, Beldar.

      I've always held that prosecuting Trump for his efforts up to & including January 6th was likely to backfire on the current administration, once impeachment had failed. It was impeachment or nothing, in my view, even tho that meant Trump could escape the consequences of 10 times (wild guess) the culpability of Richard Nixon. Prosecution would only make a political martyr out of a scoundrel, I thought.

      And this part of your remarks: "Who wants to see Trump run again for POTUS on the campaign slogan that unlike Joe Biden, HE HAS BEEN ACQUITTED?!" reminds me of an anecdote Clifton Fadiman relayed about Malcom Muggeridge:

      Muggeridge had little time for politicians and admitted to Jack Paar, host of US television’s Tonight Show, that he had voted only once in his life. “On that occasion,” he said, “I just had to. There was this one candidate who had been committed to an asylum and upon discharge was issued a Certificate of Sanity. Well, now, how could I resist? What other politician anywhere has an actual medical report that he is sane? I simply had to support him!”

      (Clifton Fadiman. The Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes.)

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Stop and think, friends & neighbors: Why is it that we have special counsels?

    It's because of our commitment to the Rule of Law and, in particular, the rights of those accused of crimes by the government, whose life, liberty, and property may be in criminal jeopardy. When there is a particularly ripe and material and troubling conflict of interest within the Department of Justice (meaning both its political appointees and its career staff & prosecutors), the Attorney General may, and sometimes should, appoint a special counsel to continue all remaining investigation, to decide whether its target ought be charged publicly with any crimes, and if so, to prosecute those crimes in open court.

    If the internal conflict might arguably incline the DoJ, and in particular its political appointees, to either witch-hunt the innocent or white-wash the guilty, that conflict is substantially alleviated by bringing in someone from outside.

    And while it promotes good government and ethics and integrity, the beneficiary of the special counsel appointment is the TARGET. He's the one who'll be silently absolved, or publicly prosecuted, by an outsider instead of a political appointee. He's more likely to get all the process he's due, in the investigation and, if there are charges, in court, if the decisions about his case are made by an unconflicted and presumably therefore unbiased prosecutor.

    What Republican public officials OUGHT to be saying about Trump and the special counsel, then, is this:

    I congratulate Attorney General Garland for recognizing that in connection with the ongoing national security and election interference investigations targeted toward former President Trump, all of the grounds specified in the special counsel regulations, 28 C.F.R. part 600, have been met. He made the right decision by appointing a special counsel.

    And I congratulate former President Trump, who now has the best available assurance, consistent with the Rule of Law and our current federal statutes and regulations, that all further investigation, and any resulting prosecutions or decisions NOT to prosecute, will be made by the newly appointed special counsel rather than by political appointees of the Biden Administration.

    Let fair and impartial justice be done, for ours is a government of laws and not of persons.

    Collapse
    1. Retired Prosecutor

      Not to nit pick, but he's a special counsel -- still in the DOJ chain-of-command, not an independent counsel, and there is a significant difference. But it was the correct call in my view.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

        @Retired Prosecutor: I never said otherwise, so I don't know what nit you're picking. I assure you that I know the special counsel reg backwards and forwards, and knew as well of the wolf in wolf's clothing, the independent counsel statute. I stand by every detail I wrote above. Which one troubled you?

        There IS no such thing as a prosecution independent of the DoJ anymore. My comment describes a special counsel as giving Trump "the best available assurance, consistent with the Rule of Law and OUR CURRENT federal statutes and regulations." And I stick by that. Do you disagree?

        Collapse
        1. Retired Prosecutor

          It was the correct call and I don't disagree with you at all. I just think the "insulation" the statute provides is more apparent than real. But it was Garland's best move in this situation.

          I spent my 40 year prosecution career in the California trial and appellate courts. Unlike you, I have no experience in Federal criminal proceedings. While I have substantial experience in the U.S.D.C. and Ninth Circuit, it was section 2254 habeas litigation. For instance, in only one of my hundreds of cases, did we proceed to trial via indictment, rather than information. But if they need any help drafting that Mar-a-Lago indictment, I'm here to do it pro bono.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

            The insulation that the reg provides is meaningful — but far from complete. Yet it's the best available now that the independent counsel statute has lapsed. (If it hadn't lapsed, odds are very high that the current SCOTUS would agree 6/3 with Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson and strike it down as violative of separation of powers.)

            The special counsel reports to the AG and is indeed in a chain of command below the AG. But it's not the regular chain of command.

            Biden could fire Garland tomorrow because he doesn't think Garland's pushing hard enough on Trump, and the reg wouldn't prevent that. But the one prior time in our national history when a POTUS fired an AG over an investigation into a sitting POTUS, the "Saturday Night Massacre," it was an utter failure and instead led to the only presidential resignation in our history.

            Garland could fire Jack Smith tomorrow because he doesn't think Smith's pushing hard enough — but he'd have to tell Congress he'd done so, and why.

            Likewise, Garland could override either a decision to prosecute, or not to prosecute, by Smith; but there again, he'd (eventually) have to tell Congress.

            If the investigation were instead being conducted by one of the U.S. Attorneys (see, e.g., the US Attorney for the District of Maryland's successful investigation and prosecution of VPOTUS Agnew), or by DoJ's public integrity unit or some other ad hoc assemblage within DoJ's Washington HQ, those checks on the untrammeled discretion of the Attorney General (a political appointee) wouldn't exist. If the AG moves to actively limit the power granted him by the special counsel regulations as invoked by the order appointing Smith, the world is going to find out about that.

            There may be stronger disinfectants available — the lapsed independent counsel statute was one, arguably (but so was Godzilla) — but here, sunshine is being used as the preferred disinfectant. I'm good with that, actually.

            If I can't persuade you that the insulation provided by the special counsel regulations is meaningful and nontrivial, I'm glad we at least agree about AG Garland's exercise of discretion in this instance to appoint one, and I'm likewise an eager volunteer, pro bono, if Special Counsel Smith wants to crowd-source this. I suspect he won't. ;-)

            (My own post-judicial clerkship experience, btw, is as a civil trial lawyer in the state and federal courts, and the pro bono criminal work I've done has also been in federal habeas litigation. I claim neither familiarity or expertise on when federal prosecutors proceed via indictment and when by information!)

            Thanks for the civil exchange, and Happy Thanksgiving to you & yours!

            Collapse
  7. Georges

    There are indeed loftier reasons than losing elections to dump M Trump. But that will do.
    If some can be persuaded of the loftier reasons so much the better.

    One thing I find alarming is the duration of investigations into M Trump’s actions.
    What is taking so long?
    We have been hearing for years (sic) “we’ve got him now! This time for sure!” followed by … crickets.
    Surely M Trump is the most investigated person on the planet.
    Memo to DOJ et al: if you’ve got a case against M Trump then file charges and bring him to trial.
    Stop screwing around.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    LOL, "quiet".

    Based on repeated past experience, you know what always happens after key Republicans privately grumble about Trump? They publicly support him.

    And just stop and think for a moment about the asymmetric battle Trump is going to be in soon: his opponents will see that their rival has been indicted for multiple felonies and instead of using this against their primary opponent they will be forced to defend Trump.

    This is the cost of lies. This is Republicans paying the price for not convicting Trump the first time and defending his crimes when he colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election. This is the price they are paying for responding to his elections lies with, "many people have concerns".

    Trump's lies--and the GOP's support of them--have made him untouchable.

    Wake me up when one--just one--recently elected Republican at the federal level says, "if Trump wins the nomination I will not support him in the general". That is the only thing that actually hurts Trump. Everything else is meaningless finger-wagging.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Rdoconnell

      If you're wrong I hope you own up to it.

      But I don't know if that's your style.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Same to you of course.

        The only difference is that Republicans benefit from predicting Trump will go away when he doesn't because it keeps some remaining normal people in the GOP voting base e.g. the extra 5% of non-Trump voters Youngkin needed to put him over the top.

        I don't gain anything by being wrong, on the other hand.

        Motivated reasoning is surely something to always be on the lookout for after all...

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Rdoconnell

          So you don't think Jonah is saying what he actually believes? He's just trying to keep the normies in the GOP?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            Jonah? I don't recall Jonah Goldberg making any predictions about Trump either way.

            The only TD writer I've seen with prognostications is Catoggio, who believes pretty much as I do. We're both just looking at the facts.

            Collapse
  9. Nmazzapica

    great...indicting Trump may be the lawful decision, but if they do, it will rally republicans and make him the nominee.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jhc

      At this point, it seems obvious that making Trump the Republican nominee is the Democrats' strategy. How better to win again in '24?

      I would prefer that the Democratic party treated Trump as Liz Cheney treats Trump: as a danger to our political order. But I don't expect the Democrats to do that. Look at the success they had with the subtle ads backing MAGA candidates in the election just past.

      Collapse
    2. Jim S

      As a Democrat I would argue that’s a feature, not a bug.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

        😂 Yeah, I was going to say "..and?".

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      That is at best a secondary concern.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    I'd like to think that part of the reason Republicans aren't as prone to outrage over the special prosecutor is because Trump made fools of them with the Mar-a-Lago search. Trump eagerly whipped up the outrage in order to occupy the spotlight and garner support. When more information came to light about what led up the search and clear evidence he was in possession of classified material, it was impossible to contradict and defending Trump was untenable.
    He's pulled this before, rallying people around him when he gets into a controversy, creating a narrative before all the details are out. It's actually the story of his presidency: Trump does something outrageous, supporters defend him, supporters dismiss evidence saying "You can't say this was the bad interpretation because it could also be explained by x, y, z!" Trump gets into another controversy, supporters repeat defense despite growing pattern of incidents better explained by malfeasance than exceptions previously outlined.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Being made a fool didn't stop them before. I think the only possible thing that can move the needle with Trump and the GOP is election results. That's why they will all 100% support him if he wins the nom.

      (And as I and others like Catoggio point out, there's a very real danger that if Trump loses the nom then he will blow up the GOP, which he could easily do. From a purely statistical standpoint, Trump winning the nomination has the highest odds of a Republican winning the WH in 2024).

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        O,W.L.

        Just like chemo blows up a cancer patient's body while (hopefully) eradicating a cancer, the GOP would be wise to forfeit the presidency in 2024 if Trump walks rather than continue to live with this cancer where a Hail Mary could squeak out an electoral win for the presidency but their wins in Congress, and now in State races, are frittered away.

        If he does do a third party bid, which is questionable because the organization needed to get on the ballot everywhere is a huge lift, the Republicans should write off the presidency and use their considerable money and organizational acumen to focus on winning majorities in Congress and in states in order to "check the librul agenda" or some such nonsense. 2024 was always a long shot for them anyway as it's typically the incumbent's to lose. Joe Biden is only vulnerable because of his age--any other president would be able to point to a lot of accomplishments and be re-elected without a lot of drama. (Assuming the economy isn't a flaming wreck and interest rates at 10% by then, that is)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Its a huge lift, but remember that $100 million Trump raised for the midterms? Yeah, he spent about $1.7m of it, nice guy that he is. And he has a political organization and tens of millions of Republicans on his mailing lists.

          In other words, we may have to adjust our thinking. Traditionally a third party candidate doesn't have 10s of millions to throw at the problem but Trump certainly does. The mitigating factor here is that Trump's personal universe is probably like the one shown in the Chernobyl TV series times ten: anybody with even the slightest brain would have abandoned him.

          The other factor is the timing: he may not have enough time after he loses the GOP nomination to get it all working based on filing deadlines.

          Hence what we're likely to see is a hostage situation: Trump tells him, Georgia-call style, that unless the GOP clears the field, he will blow them up. Based on the recent past, this has every chance of working. His power over the GOP is totally asymmetrical...

          Collapse
          1. Retired Prosecutor

            Trump simply doesn't have the organizational chops to run third party, and the manner in which he would do it would be absolutely problematic. If and when he ascertains he is not going to be the nominee, much valuable time will have passed and he will have additional barriers.

            As an example, Ross Perot kicked off his 1992 third party campaign BEFORE any of the primaries, and thus did not have to contend with "sore loser" laws. Getting on the ballot in the remainder of those states would require widespread organization, a difficult proposition for Trump whilst in decline.

            Perot employed professionals Democrat Hamilton Jordan and Republican Ed Rollins, to manage his campaign; Trump would undoubtedly employ sycophants for those roles.

            If Trump does anything, it will be to simply urge his cult members to sit out 2024 and wait for Godot.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Jonathan

        I agree Trump would likely run as an indy and give Biden (or whoever) the presidency. But I think that’d be a good thing. Republicans and their voters would find him toxic. Joe Biden would continue his cringy public decline. Come 2028 (2026 for the GOP) both parties would be able to move on from this unending, inane national argument over Donald Trump and the one Democrat who managed to campaign as politically moderate enough to beat him.

        Collapse
        1. The Widow’s Son

          Sore loser laws would keep him off the ballot in many states, but he wouldn’t care so long as it took down the Republican nominee to bolster his argument that He should have been the nominee.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Jonathan

            That’s basically what I’m rooting for. He’s bad for conservatism and bad for progressivism. The country needs to turn off the Trump Show and politicians need to stop trying to emulate him.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Yep.

          Collapse
Load More