Watch GOP witnesses struggle to answer for Trump's vow to be a dictator
During the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan invited several witnesses to testify, including former Trump attorney James Trusty, Trump ally Robert Costello, and the executive director of right-wing activist group America First Legal, Gene Hamilton. All three testified that the numerous legal cases against Donald Trump amounted to a weaponization of our government to practice “lawfare,” which the GOP has bandied about since Trump was indicted four times last summer. Since the facts of the cases against Trump are allegedly damning, the MAGA rationalization seems to be that they are simply political revenge. Democratic Rep. John Garamendi used his time during the hearing to shove this hypocrisy back in the GOP’s face. He began by directing a question toward the Democratic witness at the hearing, former General Counsel of the Army of the United States Jill Wine-Banks. He asked her whether or not statements made by Trump—including various public threats to “appoint” a prosecutor to go after President Joe Biden (if Trump were elected), as well as threats to use the FBI to go after his political enemies—would be considered “lawfare.” “I believe it would,” Wine-Banks responded. “That is definitely a violation of everything that the Department of Justice stands for. It is lawfare. You need to have some evidence to begin an investigation. And the president himself has no role in directing who the Department of Justice will investigate or prosecute.” Garamendi then asked the three “lawfare” extraordinaires whether they would disagree that those things are inappropriate for a president to say. “I don't accept the premises fully, so I'm having a hard time,“ Trusty responded. When pressed by Garamedi, he just said, “I don’t have an answer for you.” Funny, he seemed to have answers for everything else. Costello initially tried to sidestep the answer, saying, “I don't think that's a yes or no question.” Garamendi pushed, and Costello admitted it was “not appropriate.” Finally, Hamilton answered: “Like my colleague, Mr. Trusty, I reject the premise of the question,” before attempting to bloviate about something else. “We’ll move on,” said Garamendi. Hamilton’s inability to give a straight answer is regrettable, considering he used the term “lawfare” no less than six times during his statement to the subcommittee. Garamendi then asked the witnesses if any of them wanted to weigh in on Trump’s vow to be a dictator just for one day, were he to be elected in 2024. “It would be inappropriate,” Wine-Banks said. Garamendi asked Hamilton if he wanted to weigh in, to which a butt-hurt Hamilton responded, “You didn't want to hear me a second ago, so why are you asking me now?” Trusty responded that he thought it was “humorous,” but when pressed to give a real answer, he responded, “It's not an issue. He served for four years as president. I don't remember a dictatorship breaking out.” YouTube Video Campaign Action
JoriPress
During the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan invited several witnesses to testify, including former Trump attorney James Trusty, Trump ally Robert Costello, and the executive director of right-wing activist group America First Legal, Gene Hamilton.
All three testified that the numerous legal cases against Donald Trump amounted to a weaponization of our government to practice “lawfare,” which the GOP has bandied about since Trump was indicted four times last summer. Since the facts of the cases against Trump are allegedly damning, the MAGA rationalization seems to be that they are simply political revenge.
Democratic Rep. John Garamendi used his time during the hearing to shove this hypocrisy back in the GOP’s face. He began by directing a question toward the Democratic witness at the hearing, former General Counsel of the Army of the United States Jill Wine-Banks. He asked her whether or not statements made by Trump—including various public threats to “appoint” a prosecutor to go after President Joe Biden (if Trump were elected), as well as threats to use the FBI to go after his political enemies—would be considered “lawfare.”
“I believe it would,” Wine-Banks responded. “That is definitely a violation of everything that the Department of Justice stands for. It is lawfare. You need to have some evidence to begin an investigation. And the president himself has no role in directing who the Department of Justice will investigate or prosecute.”
Garamendi then asked the three “lawfare” extraordinaires whether they would disagree that those things are inappropriate for a president to say.
“I don't accept the premises fully, so I'm having a hard time,“ Trusty responded. When pressed by Garamedi, he just said, “I don’t have an answer for you.”
Funny, he seemed to have answers for everything else.
Costello initially tried to sidestep the answer, saying, “I don't think that's a yes or no question.” Garamendi pushed, and Costello admitted it was “not appropriate.”
Finally, Hamilton answered: “Like my colleague, Mr. Trusty, I reject the premise of the question,” before attempting to bloviate about something else.
“We’ll move on,” said Garamendi.
Hamilton’s inability to give a straight answer is regrettable, considering he used the term “lawfare” no less than six times during his statement to the subcommittee.
Garamendi then asked the witnesses if any of them wanted to weigh in on Trump’s vow to be a dictator just for one day, were he to be elected in 2024.
“It would be inappropriate,” Wine-Banks said.
Garamendi asked Hamilton if he wanted to weigh in, to which a butt-hurt Hamilton responded, “You didn't want to hear me a second ago, so why are you asking me now?”
Trusty responded that he thought it was “humorous,” but when pressed to give a real answer, he responded, “It's not an issue. He served for four years as president. I don't remember a dictatorship breaking out.”
Campaign Action
