New York Times columnist and the supposedly conservative half of PBS NewsHour’s weekly Friday Brooks and Capehart panel was dismayed that even “supposedly mature and moderate” Republicans were decrying President Trump’s latest indictment as “selective prosecution.” Washington Post columnist and pinch hitter Ruth Marcus went even further, labelling it “sickening.”
Host Geoff Bennett led Brooks with an unrelated question about the trial being held in Florida which would mean the jury pool will be far less liberal than in New York City, “it’s harder for him to make a convincing argument that he’s being railroaded when it’s happening in — on his home turf, as I said?”
Brooks pleaded ignorant, citing is lack of law school experience and turned the conversation back to the political reaction, “If you’re running against Donald Trump for president, your job is to take this day and say, ‘see, that guy’s not qualified to be president.’ That’s like, simple.”
Unfortunately for Brooks that has not happened, “Does Ron DeSantis do that? No. Does Tim Scott do that? No. They’re all — they’re all jumping on the, it’s prosecutive — it’s weaponizing the justice system. They’re jumping on that, Mike Lee in the Senate. Glenn Youngkin, the supposedly mature and moderate governor of Virginia, he was like ‘selective prosecution.’
Earlier in the show, Bennett had on law professor and former Bush official Jamil Jaffer who argued that it could be possible to compare Trump’s case to Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server. Nevertheless, Brooks continued lamenting about how “he’s using this as a political gift, which, for the time being, it seems to be, at least in the Republican Party.”
Marcus then replied that Trump’s reaction was predictable, “But the really sickening thing is what you say about the rest of the party rallying around him. If— I know — we all know why they’re doing it. We all know they’re doing it not because they believe it, but because they understand it to be in their political self-interest.”
As for the claim itself, Marcus fantasized that:
If I had a superpower right now, I would wield it to ban the word ‘weaponization,’ because what’s going on here is the opposite of the weaponization of the Justice Department. Merrick Garland, the attorney general, stepped aside from this case. He brought in a career prosecutor to take a look at it. The weaponization of the Justice Department happened under the former guy, not under this guy.
How many Democratic presidential candidates were indicted under “the former guy?” Zero.
This segment was sponsored by viewers like you.
Here is a transcript for the June 9 show:
PBS NewsHour
6/9/2023
7:29 PM ET
GEOFF BENNETT: What about that, that it makes it harder for Donald Trump to make the argument — of course, he’ll make the argument — but it’s harder for him to make a convincing argument that he’s being railroaded when it’s happening in — on his home turf, as I said?
DAVID BROOKS: You went to law school. I didn’t. But I don’t know how you get a fair jury. Like, does anybody in this country not have an opinion about Donald Trump? So I don’t know how that’s going to work.
He’s going to make the argument. And from the judgment from today, a lot of people are going to accept the argument. We looked at the tweets already. If you’re running against Donald Trump for president, your job is to take this day and say, “see, that guy’s not qualified to be president.” That’s like, simple.
Does Ron DeSantis do that? No. Does Tim Scott do that? No. They’re all — they’re all jumping on the, it’s prosecutive — it’s weaponizing the justice system. They’re jumping on that, Mike Lee in the Senate. Glenn Youngkin, the supposedly mature and moderate governor of Virginia, he was like “selective prosecution.”
And so the party is rallying around. And one of the things Donald Trump has been having trouble doing is raising money. And the thing he knows that can help him raise money is getting indicted. And so he got indicted in New York, and he raised like — something like $12 million.
As soon as the indictment comes down, he’s got a video, he’s got the direct mail. He’s making hay while the sun shines. And so he’s using this as a political gift, which, for the time being, it seems to be, at least in the Republican Party.
RUTH MARCUS: But we knew he would. But the really sickening thing is what you say about the rest of the party rallying around him.
If— I know — we all know why they’re doing it. We all know they’re doing it not because they believe it, but because they understand it to be in their political self-interest.
But, boy, if I had a superpower right now, I would wield it to ban the word “weaponization,” because what’s going on here is the opposite of the weaponization of the Justice Department. Merrick Garland, the attorney general, stepped aside from this case. He brought in a career prosecutor to take a look at it.
The weaponization of the Justice Department happened under the former guy, not under this guy.