What Is Lindsey Graham Doing to Try to Prevent 'Riots' If Trump Is Charged With a Crime?
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
"Trump and I, we've had a hell of a journey," Lindsey Graham said last year on the floor of the United States Senate. "All I can say is, count me out. Enough is enough. I've tried to be helpful." That was back in January 2021. He was speaking late in the night of January 6. He seemed to be a bit shook-up. A few weeks later, though, he was down at Mar-a-Lago for a weekend of golf and undoubtedly classy meals with the aforementioned Trump, Donald J. One wonders what Trump said to Graham to convince him that their journey together was not, in fact, over. How did Trump assure Graham that he was not out?
The question comes to mind on this late-summer Monday because Graham showcased the previous night just how much Trump can count him in. He jumped on Fox News to offer the following: "Most Republicans, including me, believe when it comes to Trump, there is no law. It's all about getting him. There's a double-standard when it comes to Trump," he told Benghazi chief investigator-turned-Fox stand-in Trey Gowdy, before embarking on a soliloquy about how the FBI is in the tank for Hunter Biden. "If there's a prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information, after the Clinton debacle which you presided over and did a hell of a good job, there'll be riots in the streets."
The subtext of the Hunter Biden rage is the notion that Trump lost the election in some significant part because we didn't get a proper serving of stories about Hunter's laptop in the week leading up to the big day. Some may find it ironic to see that episode placed alongside the saga of Hillary Clinton's email protocol, considering then-FBI Director James Comey provided regular public statements on that ongoing investigation—a breach of Justice Department protocol—in the lead-up to 2016, a phenomenon that actually did likely swing the election.
But more to the point, you will notice there isn't much engagement with the actual facts of the case here. Why grapple with questions about what Trump actually did when you can just say, Hunter! Hillary! on your way to the real message: If Trump is charged with a crime, there will be a violent response from some of his supporters. Graham's spokesman, Kevin Bishop, told the Washington Post that his comments in this interview were "predicting/forecasting what he thinks will happen." As the Post's Philip Bump mentioned, though, most of us are aware that some individuals or groups who support Trump may react this way if he's charged. What's the point of bringing it up here, except to try to sway the decision on whether Trump is indicted? Also, Graham surrounded this "prediction" with a bunch of rhetoric suggesting the investigation is grossly unfair—rhetorical justification for the kind of anger that would send people into the street.
"There literally will be riots in the street," Graham said elsewhere in the interview, "I worry about our country." With his worry in mind, and assuming Graham wants to avoid the outcome under discussion here, we reached out to Bishop by email. "What is the senator doing to try to prevent this scenario?" we asked. We'll let you know if he gets back to us.
Surely, one way to "bring down the temperature"—a phrase we've been hearing, very sincerely, from Trumpworld in recent weeks—would be to go on television and point out that the Feds worked for months and months to get Trump to return his stash of documents before they made the decision to send in FBI agents. Those agents were executing a search warrant approved by a federal magistrate judge based on a sworn affidavit providing evidence that rose to the level of probable cause, Graham could say. We've seen some reporting that indicates some of the documents in question were quite serious, but even the most skeptical among us should wait for a clearer picture before blasting everyone involved as hopelessly corrupt.
What seems more likely is that Graham's prescription for bringing down the temperature is for Trump not to be charged with a crime—even if there turns out to be ample evidence his behavior was very illegal and very serious—because it will make his supporters mad and some may react badly. This is an argument that Trump should be above the law, that it doesn't apply to him, that he should be able to do whatever he wants and avoid repercussions because his devotees will respond to the application of the law with violence. Sounds like some "semi-fascism" at the very least, and it came the night before Trump spent his Monday "Truthing" about how either he should be installed as president now or a mulligan election should be held immediately. Trump also shared a clip of Graham's comments without further remark. Could we maybe get a "Don't Riot" message from the big guy? No? I suppose it was awfully hard to get one the last time around.
If you argue against prosecuting Trump because his fans will think it's a sham prosecution and/or will react with violence, you are surrendering to his ongoing assault on reality. Do we operate on the notion that an observable reality exists, and in it Trump may be charged with a crime based on his behavior in that reality? If so, that some people believe other things in their heads is not really germane. That doesn't mean Trump should be charged for some petty offense, but the law is not the law if some people can break it and avoid the consequences because they've fed their followers such toxic fantasies that some among them carry the implied threat of violent force.
You Might Also Like
