CNN This Morning’s panel attempted to malign Republicans on Tuesday, questioning if bodysnatchers caused Republicans’ “factual misstatements” regarding the indictment of former President Donald Trump. After asking Florida’s Republican Representative Bryon Donalds to speak on the subject, Van Jones and John Miller attacked his perspective, claiming that Republicans were following a script and had stopped caring about national security.
Jones called Republicans “really far down the rabbit hole,” and asserted that they were apathetic to endangered servicemen:
There used to be – there’s some kind of invasion of the bodysnatchers happening here. Republicans used to care about national security. You had a Republican congressperson who doesn't care about U.S. service people possibly being put at - in harm's way, doesn't care that methods, and means, and fortunes may be jeopardized. Doesn't care, is just going to defend Donald Trump no matter what he does, and that I think is the problem that we have.
Republican commentator Scott Jennings countered Jones and stopped him from painting all Republicans as irrational and insensitive. He explained Republicans’ distrust of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, and how this affected their views of the indictment:
You hearing the concerns about Jack Smith, it’s absolutely true on the Bob McDonald case, and a lot of Republicans been mad about that case for a long time. Number two, he talked about the fact that there’s no trust with a one-sided argument. I mean, you’re - if you talk to the average Republican right now, if you said, ‘hey, the Justice Department says this or the FBI says that,’ immediately they are going to say, ‘Oh, well, consider - consider the source.’ There is just no trust. And when he is saying it's a one-sided argument, and you don't know everything that Donald Trump might say, that's going to give a lot of Republicans something to hang their hat on.
Miller agreed that Republicans distrusted the FBI and DOJ but claimed it was because they followed a script. He asserted any doubts regarding Trump’s guilt were illogical, stating, “It is actually crystal clear.”
Regarding the argument that Biden also kept documents, he added: “They had classified documents. What - the core of this case, if you read the indictment, is the obstructive efforts to hide, conceal and thwart the ability to enforce the national archives' abilities to get those records back, and this is way more simple than we make it out to be.”
While many believed the verdict to be clear-cut, including several Republicans, many others did not and were waiting to hear Trump’s defense. The purpose of a trial was to sift through both sides and hopefully arrive at an objective verdict. However, CNN already reached its verdict and even wanted to ensure prosecutors could impanel a jury that would find Trump guilty.
Just because many Republicans disagreed with CNN’s predetermined conclusion does not imply an invasion of bodysnatchers or a deep-rooted indifference to national security.
Flex Seal sponsored CNN’s anti-Republican Coverage.
The Transcript is below, click "expand" to read.
CNN This Morning
6/13/2023
8:35 AMVAN JONES: The only thing I say, if you are a U.S. congressperson and the argument you’re making is there are top-secret documents that are hidden in a bathroom, but it’s a bathroom that is hard to get into, you’re really far down the rabbit hole here guy.
There used to be – there’s some kind of invasion of the bodysnatchers happening here. Republicans used to care about national security. You had a Republican congressperson who doesn't care about U.S. service people possibly being put at - in harm's way, doesn't care that methods, and means, and fortunes may be jeopardized. Doesn't care, is just going to defend Donald Trump no matter what he does, and that I think is the problem that we have.
Everything that he said avoided the fundamental fact that he would not as a congressperson keep top-secret documents in his restroom no matter who was guarding the restroom, and he knows that. This is what we're dealing with.
PHIL MATTINGLY: Scott, you got notes, and I can see you like nodding at certain points during - out of the corner of my eye. What - what was your takeaway?
SCOTT JENNINGS: You know, I think that Congressman Donalds is making one of the more coherent pushbacks that you would hear from Republicans. I’ve seen a lot of people on TV. I think he pretty well captured the Republican zeitgeist right now.
And there’s a difference between legal exoneration and political exoneration. And what he is doing is prosecuting the public case for a political exoneration. You hearing the concerns about Jack Smith, it’s absolutely true on the Bob McDonald case, and a lot of Republicans been mad about that case for a long time. Number two, he talked about the fact that there’s no trust with a one-sided argument.
I mean, you’re - if you talk to the average Republican right now, if you said, ‘hey, the Justice Department says this or the FBI says that,’ immediately they are going to say, ‘Oh, well, consider - consider the source.’ There is just no trust. And when he is saying it's a one-sided argument, and you don't know everything that Donald Trump might say, that's going to give a lot of Republicans something to hang their hat on.
Now, why is that important? Because it may be forever before, or never before we actually get to a trial for them to put on an actual defense. So, the public political exoneration of part of this is so vital because it protects them from having to deal with the facts of what is in the actual indictment.
I think you’re going to continue to hear attacks on Jack Smith. I’m hearing that ramp up more and more. And – and Donalds, of course, is one of the leading surrogates for Donald Trump; I expect to see him out there more and more. But if what - if that conversation you just had, that is the exact conversation you’d have with a Republican on any random street corner of middle America right now.
JOHN MILLER: And I think there’s a reason for that. Which is what we’ve heard that conversation from other Republican leaders who’ve spoken publically about this. These are set talking points.
I think there’s two things notable in what we just heard because I have heard them before, which is, one, it was a factual misstatement of what the Presidential Records Act says. To everybody that we've advised this morning to go read the 49-page indictment, I say go read the Presidential Records Act. You Google it. It's right there. It doesn't say that. It is actually crystal clear, which is the president's records, at the stroke of 12 noon when the new president is sworn in, becomes the property of the government, and there is no license to have two years to kind of go through them. That doesn't exist.
The second part is the Biden/Pence comparison. They had classified documents. What - the core of this case, if you read the indictment, is the obstructive efforts to hide, conceal and thwart the ability to enforce the national archives' abilities to get those records back, and this is way more simple than we make it out to be.
