Carl Bernstein Claims Trump’s Actions On January 6 ‘Outdid Jefferson Davis’

The understatement for the century would be to claim that Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, and Bob Woodward are enraged by Donald Trump. If any more proof was needed, Bernstein made the outrageous claim on CNN’s Friday morning Day of the New that Donald Trump’s actions in the leadup to and during January 6 were worse than Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy.

Host John Berman asked the two aged reporters about the odds of the DOJ prosecuting Trump after the January 6 Hearings, “What do you think Merrick Garland might do, and if he does nothing, is there accountability?” 

Bernstein responded, “We don’t know what Merrick Garland is going to do, and as Bob just indicated there is a tremendous weight on his shoulders, because It’s worse than Watergate.”

So far, so good. Watergate has long been the standard for presidential scandal, from Iran-Contra all the way to Trump’s impeachments, and many investigative journalists dream of finding the story that is “worse than Watergate.”

Bernstein took it a step further and accused Trump of committing a specific crime. 

It is clear that he was a seditious man. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, was the last act of sedition in the country. Trump was even more successful than Jefferson Davis.As the United States’ chief officer, Garland committed them to trying to organize an illegal coup. Merrick Garland is therefore able to file an indictment if he so chooses. 

This is a great comparison. Bernstein is seriously comparing Donald Trump’s — admittedly legally dubious — efforts to prevent the electoral college results from being certified and to be sent back to the states for recertification with the aim of remaining in office, to the unilateral secession of eleven states with the primary aim of preserving the institution of slavery. 

Following Bernstein’s logic, what that would make Trump supporters? Is it possible that they are also involved in the sedition of simply supporting Trump politically? 

Oddly enough, Bernstein’s argument surprisingly was refuted earlier on Day of the NewJeffrey Toobin, a former Federal prosecutor in discussion with Daniel Goldman, former House Impeachment Lead Counsel.

When Goldman claimed that Trump should be prosecuted for conspiracy to overturn an election, Toobin cautioned against this, saying, “I just think as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, you can’t charge the President of the United States with trying to overturn an election where he is acting in public, where he has a constitutional authority to tell Mike Pence what to do. Um — I just don’t think any prosecutor would and frankly should do that.”

Goldman fired back, “You don’t think that you should charge someone with trying to use his personal — his, his — uh,  public authority to try to overturn an election?. . .Last week the entire second hearing was about how Donald Trump knew The Big Lie was a lie.”

Toobin held his ground, “He was told that, but he was also being told by John Eastman and — uh, Rudy Giuliani, you have good arguments, go make them. I mean — they may be crazy, but — I mean — he was hearing those arguments and they are real lawyers. . We need to know more.”

Perhaps Toobin, of all peoples, is suggesting that Trump should be charged with conspiracies. Bernstein might not hesitate to call him a traitor.

This absurdity was allowed by Chevrolet Explore. You can find their contact information here.

Click “Expand” to see the relevant transcript.  

CNN’s Day of the New
06/17/22
07:10.47 am ET

JEFFREY TOOBIN: And — you know — if you believe that — um, they were involved not just in trying to overturn the election but inciting violence, that to me is — is the core of any potential criminal case. And — and, I think as the hearings continue next week, what the focus is going to be, appropriately, is — you know, we know about the riots, and we know about the Oath Keepers and everybody who was assaulting the Capitol, what, if anything, was the connection between the people in the White House and the rioters? This is the heart of any potential legal liability Eastman or Trump may have.

DANIEL GOLDMAN (Disagreement): I have a different perspective. It’s true. You would need to prove a more direct connection if you want to accuse Congress of obstruction, basically, in the count of votes. Although the easiest charge is less likely to result in a prosecution, I believe that the most probable charge against Donald Trump, although it may not be as serious, is the conspiracy to defeat the election. Because you don’t have to show that — you wouldn’t need to show the same nexus between Trump’s actions and the violence and the insurrection and the invasion of the Capitol on January 6th. This could simply be expanded to say that Trump plotted with others to attempt to defeat the election. Bob Mueller was charged with this exact charge. This is a recent precedent. 

TOOBIN: I — um, legally — as a technical legal matter, I think you’re right. The President of the United States cannot be charged with trying to change an election. He is not acting in public. Mike Pence has constitutional authority. Um — I just don’t think any prosecutor would and frankly should do that. If you are able to prove Donald Trump inciting violence and is a threat to all of the victims, the police, Pence, then that is a criminal case. Although it may not be legal enough, I doubt that the case you are describing would warrant prosecution.

GOLDMAN: You don’t think that you should charge someone with trying to use his personal — his, his — uh,  public authority to try to overturn an election? 

TOOBIN: No. NO, no. I, I — I mean, you know — overturn —  it means — you know — using legal arguments. I just don’t think that’s gonna be —  

GOLDMAN – That he believed were false 

TOOBIN: Well, that has not been proven — 

GOLDMAN: He knew that he was wrong.

TOOBIN: — I mean, whether he knew they were false or not.

GOLDMAN: The entire second hearing last week was all about Donald Trump’s knowledge of The Big Lie. 

TOOBIN: He was told that, but he was also being told by John Eastman and — uh, Rudy Giuliani, you have good arguments, go make them. I mean — they may be crazy, but — I mean — he was hearing those arguments and they are real lawyers. So, anyway — 

GOLDMAN – Giuliani has resigned.

TOOBIN: — we need more facts.

(…)

08:11:45 ET

JOHNBERMAN: History is only one form of accountability. The other kind of accountability, which you brought up, could be prosecution. Your gentlemen have greater reporting reach around Washington than all other humans. I mean — Carl, what do you think Merrick Garland might do, and if he does nothing, is there accountability? 

CARL BERNSTEIN Watergate was a case in which a corrupt President of the United States attempted to subvert our electoral system. Here we have a criminal president, Donald Trump, but not only tried to — uh, to undermine the electoral system, tried to undermine the basic transfer of power from one president to another, and staged — attempted to stage — a coup, a coup the likes of which you see in banana republics, in authoritarian dictatorships. There’s never been anything like this in our history, so now the Justice Department now has to make a decision because it is very clear that the president, Donald Trump, violated the law. No question. His seditious behavior is unambiguous.

Jefferson Davis was our last major sedition on any scale. He was President of Confederacy. Trump was even more successful than Jefferson Davis. As the United States’ chief officer, Trump committed them to illegal coup attempts. Merrick Garland is therefore able to file an indictment if he so chooses. 

Since long ago, the Justice Department has maintained a policy that would not indict an incumbent President. It was not the case now. It’s not now about a sitting President, it’s about a former President who illegally conspired to violate the law, and the Constitution of the United States, so it’s a different decision than the Nixon case, in which the grand jury, which wanted to charge Richard Nixon with a crime, named him instead as an unindicted co-conspirator. 

Garland is able to communicate to America and the entire world that the United States is more than a country of laws. That we believe in the United States President and that it must continue to be a country that does not stop at democracy.