To say Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have an ax to grind against Donald Trump would be the understatement of the century. If any more proof was needed, Bernstein made the outrageous claim on CNN’s Friday morning New Day that Donald Trump’s actions in the leadup to and during January 6 were worse than Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy.
Host John Berman asked the two aged reporters about the odds of the DOJ prosecuting Trump after the January 6 Hearings, “What do you think Merrick Garland might do, and if he does nothing, is there accountability?”
Bernstein responded, “We don't know what Merrick Garland is going to do, and as Bob just indicated there is a tremendous weight on his shoulders, because this is worse than Watergate.”
So far so normal. Watergate has long been the standard for presidential scandal, from Iran-Contra all the way to Trump’s impeachments, and many investigative journalists dream of finding the story that is “worse than Watergate.”
But Bernstein went farther, accusing Trump of a very specific crime:
There is no question about his seditious actions. The last sedition we had in this country, on any kind of scale, was Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy. And Trump even outdid Jefferson Davis. He committed the United States, under him, as the chief officer of the United States government, he committed it to trying to stage a illegal coup. So that gives real power to Merrick Garland to bring about an indictment, if he chooses to do it.
Just think about this comparison for a minute. Bernstein is seriously comparing Donald Trump’s — admittedly legally dubious — efforts to prevent the electoral college results from being certified and to be sent back to the states for recertification with the aim of remaining in office, to the unilateral secession of eleven states with the primary aim of preserving the institution of slavery.
Following Bernstein’s logic, what that would make Trump supporters? Are they also engaged in sedition by the very act of supporting the man politically?
Oddly enough, Bernstein’s argument surprisingly was refuted earlier on New Day, by former Federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin in a discussion with former House impeachment lead counsel Daniel Goldman.
When Goldman claimed that Trump should be prosecuted for conspiracy to overturn an election, Toobin cautioned against this, saying, “I just think as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, you can't charge the President of the United States with trying to overturn an election where he is acting in public, where he has a constitutional authority to tell Mike Pence what to do. Um — I just don't think any prosecutor would and frankly should do that.”
Goldman fired back, “You don't think that you should charge someone with trying to use his personal — his, his — uh, public authority to try to overturn an election?. . .Last week the entire second hearing was about how Donald Trump knew The Big Lie was a lie.”
Toobin held his ground, “He was told that, but he was also being told by John Eastman and — uh, Rudy Giuliani, you have good arguments, go make them. I mean — they may be crazy, but — I mean — he was hearing those arguments and they are real lawyers. . .we need more facts.”
If Toobin of all people is advising that even charging Trump with conspiracy is a bridge too far at the moment, maybe Bernstein should shy away from calling him a traitor.
This ludicrous comparison was made possible by Chevrolet and Discover. Their contact information is linked.
Click “Expand” to see the relevant transcript.
CNN’s New Day
06/17/22
07:10:47 AM ETJEFFREY TOOBIN: And — you know — if you believe that — um, they were involved not just in trying to overturn the election but inciting violence, that to me is — is the core of any potential criminal case. And — and, I think as the hearings continue next week, what the focus is going to be, appropriately, is — you know, we know about the riots, and we know about the Oath Keepers and everybody who was assaulting the Capitol, what, if anything, was the connection between the people in the White House and the rioters? That's the core of the potential legal liability that Eastman and potentially Trump have.
DANIEL GOLDMAN: So I take a slightly different view of it. I think that's right, I think you would have to make more of a connection if you're going to charge obstructing Congress, essentially, on the counting of the votes. I think the easier charge, though not necessarily in terms of a prosecution, but the more likely charge against Donald Trump is not necessarily narrowly related to January 6th but is the broader conspiracy to overturn the election. Because you don't have to show that — you wouldn’t need to show the same nexus between Trump's actions and the violence and the insurrection and the invasion of the Capitol on January 6th. You could just basically broaden it out and say he schemed with others to try to overturn the election which, by the way, Bob Mueller charged the two groups of Russians with that exact same charge. So it's certainly within recent precedent.
TOOBIN: I — um, legally — as a technical legal matter, I think you're right. I just think as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, you can't charge the President of the United States with trying to overturn an election where he is acting in public, where he has a constitutional authority to tell Mike Pence what to do. Um — I just don't think any prosecutor would and frankly should do that. However, if you can prove that Donald Trump is inciting violence, is a direct threat to the lives of all the people, all the cops, Pence himself, that's a criminal case. I don't think that that case you're describing, while may be legally sufficient, is one prosecutors would ever bring.
GOLDMAN: You don't think that you should charge someone with trying to use his personal — his, his — uh, public authority to try to overturn an election?
TOOBIN: No. No, I don't. I, I — I mean, you know — overturn — it means — you know — using legal arguments. I just don't think that’s gonna be —
GOLDMAN: That he knew were false?
TOOBIN: Well, that has not been proven —
GOLDMAN: That he knew were wrong.
TOOBIN: — I mean, whether he knew they were false or not.
GOLDMAN: Last week the entire second hearing was about how Donald Trump knew The Big Lie was a lie.TOOBIN: He was told that, but he was also being told by John Eastman and — uh, Rudy Giuliani, you have good arguments, go make them. I mean — they may be crazy, but — I mean — he was hearing those arguments and they are real lawyers. So, anyway —
GOLDMAN: Giuliani no longer is.
TOOBIN: — we need more facts.
(...)
08:11:45 AM ET
JOHN BERMAN: You know, history is one type of accountability. But the other type, you just brought up, is possible prosecution here. You gentlemen have more reporting tentacles around Washington than any combination of humans on Earth. I mean — Carl, what do you think Merrick Garland might do, and if he does nothing, is there accountability?
CARL BERNSTEIN: We don't know what Merrick Garland is going to do, and as Bob just indicated there is a tremendous weight on his shoulders, because this is worse than Watergate. In Watergate, we had a criminal President of the United States, who tried to undermine the electoral system. Here we have a criminal president, Donald Trump, but not only tried to — uh, to undermine the electoral system, tried to undermine the basic transfer of power from one president to another, and staged — attempted to stage — a coup, a coup the likes of which you see in banana republics, in authoritarian dictatorships. There’s never been anything like this in our history, so now the Justice Department now has to make a decision because it is very clear that the president, Donald Trump, violated the law. No question. There is no question about his seditious actions.
The last sedition we had in this country, on any kind of scale, was Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy. And Trump even outdid Jefferson Davis. He committed the United States, under him, as the chief officer of the United States government, he committed it to trying to stage a illegal coup. So that gives real power to Merrick Garland to bring about an indictment, if he chooses to do it.
The policy of the Justice Department, going back a long time, is that it would not indict a sitting President. This was not now. It’s not now about a sitting President, it’s about a former President who illegally conspired to violate the law, and the Constitution of the United States, so it’s a different decision than the Nixon case, in which the grand jury, which wanted to charge Richard Nixon with a crime, named him instead as an unindicted co-conspirator.
But Garland has a real chance here to send a message to the country and to the world that we are more than just a nation of laws, that we are a nation that believes and requires the continuity of the President of the United States above all else, because without that continuity, what Donald Trump attempted to do was to stop in its tracks democracy itself in this country.
