Amid unrest in Los Angeles, Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans have largely stuck to specific talking points, each of which is burdened by the same flaw: The president’s pardons for Jan. 6 criminals, including convicted felons who violently clashed with law enforcement.
Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, for example, told CNN this past weekend that he has a problem with protesters in California “attacking law enforcement,” which was a perfectly sensible sentiment. Of course, it naturally led many observers to note that many Jan. 6 rioters went to prison for attacking law enforcement, and the incumbent Republican president gave them all pardons.
Around the same time, U.S. Customs and Border Protection used its social media platform to issue a statement that read, “Let this be clear: Anyone who assaults or impedes a federal law enforcement officer or agent in the performance of their duties will be arrested and swiftly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Attack a cop, and life long consequences will follow!” FBI Director Kash Patel added in a statement of his own: “Hit a cop, you’re going to jail.”
There was nothing wrong with the statements, except for the degree to which they were undercut by Trump’s pardons for Jan. 6 rioters.
The president himself told reporters this week, “Nobody’s going to spit on our police officers.” Unfortunately for Trump, he put this principle aside while pardoning violent felons who did a lot more than just spit on police officers.
It was against this backdrop that House Speaker Mike Johnson was pressed on the obvious contradiction. Newsweek reported:
CNN’s Manu Raju asked Johnson whether he thinks it’s ‘hypocritical’ for Trump to condemn the anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles for clashing with law enforcement when Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of everyone charged in the deadly Capitol riot, many of whom were convicted of beating or impeding law enforcement. ‘Look, no, I think there’s a clear distinction between those two,’ Johnson said.
Pressed on what he sees as the difference, the Louisiana Republican added, “Everybody wants me to relitigate January 6, I’m not going to do that. There’s a very clear distinction between the two. The people who broke the law and destroyed property [on January 6] were met with the proper consequences on that.”
Of course, what the House speaker neglected to mention is that after the Jan. 6 criminals “were met with the proper consequences,” his party’s president decided to undo those consequences. The next day, Attorney General Pam Bondi was pressed on the same point, and she struggled, too. Reporter: "This administration has talked a lot about defending law enforcement…but you've been criticized for having a double standard with the president pardoning all these people who attacked police officers on Jan. 6."Bondi: "Well, this is very different." Republicans have had several days to come up with some compelling talking points on this. Evidently, they can’t think of anything.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
