Who’d believe that two liberal-left newspapers might keep former President Donald Trump out of the slammer?
This reporter is not the one. But it’s true. I love reading The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other conservative publications. They can be biased and they often get harsh criticism from their critics. They will occasionally produce honest journalism every once in awhile.
I’ve written previouslyHow the Post conducted an amazing investigative report, quoting respected and impartial lawyers that Trump was not evidently guilty of any crime on Jan. 6. None.
The Post took every major accusation tossed by Trump’s political enemies—including Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.—and had an answer for each and every charge.
Did he encourage the crowd to riot or not? The Post didn’t think so. Did he know that many people were going to attack police officers and smash their way into the Capitol building when he told them to march to it? The response: “[T]here is no evidence that he knew they were going to storm the building.”
What about the pressure he put on Vice President Mike Pence to overrule Congress’ decision to approve Joe Biden as president, one of his most controversial actions?
Former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason told the Post: “The key in pretty much all these crimes would be proving corrupt intent, because Trump is going to come in and say, when he was pressuring Pence, ‘I was told by my advisers that he had this legal authority, and I was just repeating that’.”
Eliason added, “That could be pretty difficult [for a prosecutor] to overcome.”
A prosecutor might find it difficult to overcome the fact that Democrats have been challenging Republican presidential winners since 2000. Beginning with George W. Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential race, Democrats have contested three Republican victories in the 21st century, with two Democrat House members opposing Trump’s victory on the grounds that the Russians had illegally interfered in our elections.
Democrats are however trying to use the House Select Committee, whose sole purpose it is to find out Jan. 6th events, to prosecute the former President and his advisors for a crime that they have yet to uncover.
A big problem facing the former president is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s committee may poison the well with its report that is scheduled to be released close to the off-year elections.
In a lead front-page story in the New York Times, the reader is told that the committee is employing prosecutorial techniques “typically used against mobsters and terrorists” as it seeks to “develop evidence that could prompt a criminal case” against Trump and his allies.
“In what its members see as the best opportunity to hold Mr. Trump and his team accountable,” the Times continues, “the committee—which has no authority to pursue criminal charges—is using what powers it has in expansive ways in hopes of pressuring Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to use the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute them.”
“Sentence First—verdict afterward” is not apparently a notion confined to the Queen in “Alice in Wonderland.” Her view of justice has been wholly embraced by Pelosi’s Democrat-stacked panel.
Cheney, the vice chair of the committee had already delivered her verdict long before the investigation was over. What Trump asked Pence to do, she wrote in the Wall Street Journal, was not only “unconstitutional” but “illegal.”
Pence could have supported Trump, and the Supreme Court would likely have ruled his actions unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of legal experts agree that the vice president is not authorized to overturn the Electoral College votes. It was legal and constitutional for the president not to tell Pence to follow a policy that some of his key advisors thought was lawful. (See Randall Eliason’s supporting view above.)
According to many who heard Cheney speak about Trump late last year, she was more of a vindictive accuser than an impartial observer and was moving to have him tried. Couldn’t he be charged, she argued, with obstructing Congress while it was counting the electoral votes that would remove him from the White House? (Informed sources tell this reporter she’s still maneuvering to get him behind bars.)
The committee has been hostile to Trump sympathizers since its inception. Pelosi is able to appoint eight members of the committee without consulting any Republican. The minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, can appoint five, but only with the speaker’s consent. Pelosi selected two Republicans for the select committee: Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R.Ill., and Cheney. They have been closely following the House leader.
Here’s a perfect example of how Cheney is tilting the committee against Trump and her own party. On July 21, 2020, Pelosi blocked two of McCarthy’s choices, Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, each of whom supported Trump’s decision to contest the election, which they had every legal right to do. Cheney had a chance here to partially reingratiate herself with fellow Republicans by coming to the defense of McCarthy’s two picks.
Cheney could have told Pelosi that the panel would be seen as far less partisan by both the public and her GOP colleagues if she’d reconsider her decision to block two of Trump’s most vigorous and effective supporters. She could have stressed that his people need to understand that the committee isn’t the lynch mob she strongly suspects it has become.
She could have argued that Democrats would still outnumber Republicans by an eight-to-five margin. Pelosi would be aware that she had a nine to four majority. This is because Cheney, who has a fervent anti-Trumpism, could be counted to align with the speaker on any important issue. Cheney, however was not in a charitable spirit for her party nor for elementary fairness.
She rushed to issue a statement on the Capitol steps, remarking: “I agree with what the speaker has done.” It’s hard to get more partisan on behalf of the Democrats and more anti-Republican than that.
The select committee should investigate many more than Trump and his advisers. However, they must also evaluate their actions. There are other questions that must be answered.
Did federal employees act as agents provocateurs and urged those present at the rally to enter the Capitol on Jan. 6? The video that was released is incriminating. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) asked Attorney General Merrick Garland whether this accusation was true. Garland completely ignored the question.
Fourteen Republican House members also made a compelling case that many of those convicted in connection to the Jan. 6, attacks did not engage or commit violence, had never been convicted of a crime, and were denied standard medical treatment and access lawyers after their arrests.
Many of them told lawmakers that they were held in solitary confinement for several long months. These charges should be pursued.
Jordan also expressed concern that the select committee should do more than just focus on Trump. He’s a big supporter of the former president but he’s not opposed to a fair inquiry. Since Jordan had been blocked from asking questions of any witness when Pelosi threw him off the committee McCarthy had appointed him to, he said he hoped that the Democrats would actually find out why there wasn’t a proper security presence that day.
“And frankly,” he added, “only the speaker can answer that question, so let’s see if the Democrats bring that up.”
That’s also a critical question that deserves an answer. But does anyone think the select committee’s report will be honest, thorough and fair, as every American should desire, if Pelosi and Cheney are running the show?
This piece was originally published in Newsmax.
The Daily Signal is open to all perspectives. Nothing here should be taken to mean that The Heritage Foundation views are represented.
You have an opinion on this article? Please email to share your thoughts. [email protected] and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Include the article’s URL or headline, as well as your name and hometown.
