21
votes
Mike Pence reads the Donald Trump indictment - He ‘can’t defend’ the conduct but thinks the case is also political
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Opinion | Mike Pence Reads the Trump Indictment
- Authors
- The Editorial Board
- Published
- Jun 13 2023
- Word count
- 64 words
There's a temptation to roll your eyes at Pence here and it's justified, but it's also important to read between the lines. Pence is the Republican establishment and he's trying to walk a line here which allows him to somehow pry the MAGA vote away from Trump and capture it for himself. What we're seeing here is a major candidate (and however clownish Pence is, he is a major player in national Republican politics) recognizing that there is a rift forming in the Republican Party.
It is, of course, absurd on its face. If Trump's conduct can't be defended then, pretty much by definition, the case isn't political. Either that, or Pence is saying that all political leaders should be above the law and that the violation of that imagined norm is a partisan act.... not a great look.
But internal consistency doesn't matter here. This is Clinton-esq triangulation and what matters is if it works. Personally, I don't think Pence stands a chance. Trump's appeal to the GOP base is that his raw awfulness made their own horribleness socially permissible. Pence can't replicate that and so anything he says that diminishes Trump in the public eye will be unacceptable to them.
This is what I was coming to say and you've said better. I hope he (and all the others trying to do the same) is unable to thread this needle and it contributes to the implosion of the GOP as it exists today.
Power shouldn’t grant you carte blanche to pay so little attention to rules that you don’t even consider them. What’s the conclusion we’d draw from his implication that it should be handled under the table and that he’d “clean house” in the DOJ? That these rules are formalities at best for current or former office-holders? If anything, I would think that going around the legal process would draw more ire about the systems of govt accountability.
IMO!
The only thing political here is that the one indicted was once President. I get why that side is trying to pin it on Biden. It's twofold. If they can (1) successfully (in the court of public opinion) argue that the President can dictate what the DOJ does, then (2) they have established (in their minds) that they may do just that when they're in charge.
A rhetorical question appears! If POTUS directing DOJ to arrest opponents for political reasons is acceptable, why didn't they indict HRC when the last guy was holding the reigns? Oh yeah, because they didn't have any evidence. As if that would have stopped them if a sitting POTUS could actually charge political opposition with crimes willy nilly.
I'm all too used to the facile, sophist arguments, accusations, and whataboutisms Republicans keep putting up in their defense, but I'm not swayed by them. To act as if what Trump has done is not egregious is simply ignorant or deceitful.
All the GOP candidates need to leave the space open for pardoning Trump, regardless of whether they're going to do it or not. Well, clearly Chris Christie don't give a f anymore, but I can't imagine even he seriously thinks he has a chance.
If any of the candidates have any hope of being the GOP candidate (they don't, but clearly they want to try), they need the Trump base to think that they'll pardon Trump. It's very critical none of them close that door politically.
I’ve seen this sentiment so much, admitting the crime happened but still calling it a political witch-hunt.
It’s obnoxious.
Paywall-free link