“Donald Trump has been on the move his whole life,” Watters told viewers after describing the supposed clemency that Democrats had offered these inmates. “Golf. Gatherings. Movement. Action. Sunlight. Fresh air. Freedom. It’s not about rights. It’s torture.
He played a clip from a podcast hosted by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen — who is expected to testify against Trump in the Manhattan hush-hush case — and moaned about the unfairness of the situation.
“The star witness, who went to prison for lying,” Watters said, “is torturing Trump and bossing the judge around.”
In fact, both of these things happen in equal measure when Cohen says things on his podcast. That is, neither happens, for obvious reasons.
But Watters was only building on his central point: that the Manhattan case was simply the result of a personal vendetta against Trump and not, under his own interpretation of state statutes, a violation of the law.
“There’s nothing wrong with the nondisclosure agreement,” Watters said on camera. Then: “Can you believe Democrats still can’t overcome the 2016 election?” It’s now a crime to beat Hillary.”
It was also the text on the bottom third of the screen: “IT IS NOW A CRIME TO BEAT HILLARY.” »
We cannot assess in real time whether or not Watters believes what he says. It seems hard to believe that any adult human being would think that Trump having to spend a few hours a day in court because a grand jury indicted him on criminal charges is akin to the torture that “the Democrats were obsessed.” according to Watters’ account. But Watters’ record of adapting to reality is, to say the least, mixed. It’s safe to assume, however, that he thinks this angle is the most effective in both defending Trump and putting the left on his heels.
He is not alone in raising the idea that Trump’s indictments stem solely from a desire for retaliation among Democrats or an interest in sidelining Trump during the campaign. (This complaint by Trump and others is itself greatly exaggerated, given Trump’s approach to campaigning.) But it conflates (usually intentionally) two things: Democrats’ dislike of Trump and what trump actually did.
Trump, Watters and the Republicans generally try to ignore or downplay this second part, but it is the most important element here. Consider Trump’s first impeachment, one that originated in his efforts to leverage his power to pressure Ukraine into helping his re-election bid. As soon as rumors about his actions began to emerge, House Democrats seized on those actions, as they did with a number of other investigations that ultimately went nowhere. But this one did – because there was ample evidence that Trump did what he was accused of.
Compare that with the effort by House Republicans to impeach President Biden. They, too, have a partisan desire to embarrass or obstruct the president. What they don’t have is any meaningful evidence to prove their case (and it’s not for lack of trying). They didn’t like it, but not the goods. So that was it.
Or consider the observation made by an anonymous Trump administration official whose interview with the FBI was made public Monday. In November 2021, the official met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago to discuss the government’s request that the former president return documents he took with him when he left the White House.
“Whatever you have, give it all back,” the official told Trump, according to a redacted summary of his interview with the Bureau. “Let them come here and collect everything. Don’t give them a noble reason to charge you, because they will.
In other words: they’re looking for reasons to catch you. Don’t give it to them. (Trump offered a “strange ‘you’re the man’ response” to this advice, the official said.)
So, are there grounds for Trump’s accusations? Of course. Trump’s lawyer paid an adult film actress $130,000 to keep his story secret before the election, and was reimbursed in 2017. Trump had documents marked classified at Mar-a-Lago. He actually tried to block Joe Biden’s electoral victory. He tried to get Georgian authorities to overturn the state’s election results. Were these things criminal? Juries will decide – but he did.
Trump is helped here by another dynamic: the desire of his allies to characterize his questionable actions as innocent. Watters spent a lot of time trying to explain campaign finance law in a way favorable to Trump; it wasn’t very convincing. The bottom line, however, is that paying adult film actresses to bury stories of alleged affairs is just par for the course for prominent figures. A legal defense perhaps, but certainly not a moral one.
Hours before Watters’ show, “Fox & Friends” host Ainsley Earhardt dug a little deeper on this idea.
“Does this set a precedent for other people wanting to run for president? she was worried. “What if they had done something like this in the past? She gave an example of a slippery slope: if someone “paid a girl when she was 30, then that was election interference.”
The short answer is no, of course: If you’re not actively running for office, you’re not subject to campaign finance rules. But also, is Earhardt — who positions her Christian faith as a central part of her identity — really worried that men who have tried to cover up allegations of extramarital affairs with porn stars could be dissuaded from running for president ? Is that the problem? That this unacceptably narrows the field of possible leaders of the country?
Trump has long benefited from his allies excusing or downplaying his behavior and comments. Tuesday marks the fourth anniversary of his asking at a press conference if we couldn’t inject people with light or disinfectant to fight the coronavirus – comments misphrased as saying people should inject themselves with bleach, but rightly dismissed as impractical and bizarre. Watters, like many others, dismissed these comments not by defending them but by criticizing their exaggerated criticisms.
For almost nine years now, Trump has been the driving force of the political right. Over time, he and his allies developed robust tactics to dismiss or sideline critics. We now see them deployed in a much more difficult context: against a criminal justice system that relies on distilling truth from fiction.
Watters’ tortured analogies might convince viewers to remain politically loyal to Trump, but – thanks to Trump’s own actions – the criminal process will move forward regardless.
washingtonpost
