#blunt
A tiny ray of hope regarding the media and their treating of all-things-Trump with kid gloves
Finally, a Sunday anchor puts his foot down on Espionagegate
By Jennifer Rubin
Given my fervent criticism of mainstream media interviewers for going soft on Republicans carrying water for defeated former president Donald Trump, who is under investigation for possible violation of the Espionage Act, it’s only fair to point out appropriately tough, take-no-prisoners performances.
On Sunday, that came from George Stephanopoulos on ABC News’s “This Week” in an interview with retiring Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). His upcoming retirement is noteworthy since he should have zero reason to fear Trump’s wrath or prostrate himself in front of the MAGA crowd. And yet he did.
Here’s the exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Was he right to take these documents to Mar-a-Lago?
SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO): Well, I think we need to know more about the documents.
One of the things I was concerned about when I heard about this so-called raid or seizing of these documents was, why hadn’t the Intelligence Committee that I’ve been on for my time in the Senate and time in the House, why hadn’t we heard anything about this, in fact, if the administration was concerned that there was a national security problem? ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Senator, that’s --
BLUNT: -- if there’s a problem, the Oversight Committee should have been told.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's a fair point and we'll find out why they weren't or what was going on. It was probably to protect the criminal investigation.
But setting that aside, whether or not these documents were classified, was it right for the president to take these government documents which he is supposed to turn over to the National Archives down to Mar-a-Lago?BLUNT: It was -- you should be careful with classified documents. I’ve had access to documents like that for a long time. I’m incredibly careful.
I was wondering as I was listening to that discussion if the same things were said when Secretary Clinton had documents, when Director Comey had documents, they had them on the Internet which is much more dangerous than having them in a box somewhere.
But everybody needs to be more careful about how these documents --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, you're still not answering --
BLUNT: We need to be sure we don’t characterize them differently.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you’re still not -- you're not answering the question. You were critical of Senator Clinton who actually turned over what she had, turned over all her devices. What we have here is a situation where the president did not turn over these documents.
Can you say whether that was right -- or right or wrong? Do you believe it was right for the president to take those documents to Mar-a-Lago?
BLUNT: He should have turned the documents over and apparently had turned a number of documents over, George. What I wonder about is why this could go on for almost two years and less than 100 days before the election, suddenly, we're talking about this rather than the economy or inflation or even the student loan program you and I were going to talk about today?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, it went on because the president didn’t turn over the documents, correct? He was asked several times. He didn’t turn them over. He was subpoenaed, he didn’t respond to the subpoena. . . .
BLUNT: I understand he turned over a lot of documents. He should have turned over all of them. I imagine he knows that very well now as well.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, he hasn’t said that. He said he did nothing wrong.
Several aspects of this deserve attention.
First, why in the world would a supposedly “mainstream” Republican such as Blunt humiliate himself by going to bat for someone caught with documents allegedly containing some of the nation’s top secrets? It’s incomprehensible enough that any elected official would engage in such behavior, but for someone months from retirement it’s virtually incomprehensible. At this stage Trump cannot “do” anything to Blunt, and yet the tribal loyalty, the refusal to level with the base and the contempt for voters’ intelligence remains. Servility becomes an unbreakable habit at some point. [emphasis mine]
[This point about servility becoming a habit is an important one, and may help to explain the success of fascism broadly. I am reminded of Hannah Arendt's 1963 work, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. She concluded that Eichmann, the Nazi who organized the transportation of millions of people to Nazi concentration camps, wasn't himself evil, but rather just a simple-minded bureaucrat blindly doing what he was told; he was, in Rubin's parlance, merely unremarkably, habitually servile. Although it sounds almost like an excuse or a forgiveness -- of Eichmann or Blunt or any other Trump cultist -- it is instead extremely alarming, as it suggests that a single evil person, one in millions, is all it takes to produce a horror such as Nazi Germany or the American Republican Party. An important part of stoping fascism is not merely taking out the Trumps and Hitlers, but also combatting the habit of servility, which is easier said than done, since it appears to be a common human habit, especially among the dimmer bulbs on the tree.]
Second, after Blunt’s interview, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) came on. Asked about Blunt’s response, Sanders pulled no punches. “Well, my take is there’s something a little bit absurd when it appears that we have a former president who was taking highly classified documents to his own residence,” he said. “I mean, it’s just incomprehensible to me. But then again, when we talk about President Trump, it’s — there’s a lot of incomprehensible things.” More Democrats should put pressure on Republicans to end their deceitful defense of Trump — and more hosts should ask them about it. Indeed, every lawmaker and every candidate on the ballot this November owes voters his or her candor on a topic that cuts to the heart of danger when cult figures operate with impunity.
Third, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, previously a Trump ally, also got asked. And here, Republicans, is your model answer: “It shouldn’t be a hard thing to say, you know, so I’ll say it, George, so you see that a Republican can say it. That’s wrong … for you to take top-secret, classified documents back to your house.” Christie added, “When I was U.S. attorney, it was wrong for me to do; when I was governor, it was wrong for me to do. And when you’re president, it’s wrong for you to do.” Any Republican who cannot say the same fails the fundamental test of fitness for office.
Fourth, given that so many are not willing to follow Christie’s example, the media has an obligation to question them as to their ability to live up to their oaths if elected. That in and of itself is a serious issue for November. If you’re not willing to declare that certain actions by former government officials are beyond the pale — such as illegally retaining national secrets, refusing to give them back, making misleading statements about keeping them, and stirring up a violent feeding frenzy that paints a target on the back of law enforcement officers — then you cannot sincerely uphold the oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” [emphasis mine]
Frankly, the question of fitness for office should have been a major focus of coverage as soon as Republicans took Trump’s side in the “big lie” and refused to impeach or even investigate him. Now, they declare their determination to investigate the attorney general and the president’s son. No national party that contemplates such a betrayal of the country’s interests should escape scrutiny — and no respectable media outlet should treat the GOP as a normal party. [emphasis mine]
#USA #Politics #Media #Stephanopoulos #Espionagegate #Blunt
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/29/roy-blunt-republicans-trump-wrongdoing/
