We need to look beyond current political affairs and focus on the people who are doing more than the minimum. Everyone has their bad takes. Everybody can have a bad view. There are times when a bad take is so pure it makes you want to stop and acknowledge the pundit’s dedication to terrible punditry.
With this in mind, I want to acknowledge Jennifer Rubin. Washington Postcolumnist and Queen Of The Bad Takes.
Taking the 5th is their prerogative, but it’s voters’ prerogative to hold it against them as evidence that they are putting themselves above the interests of the country.https://t.co/zZwGXEufPd
— Jennifer “Pro-privacy” Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) August 17, 2022
In a piece titled “Taking the Fifth should disqualify a politician from taking office,” Rubin has beautifully perfected her craft. We have taken note of Rubin’s ability to absolutely embarrass herself before when even outlets like POLITICO have to point out how ridiculous she is, but this particular take is just a stellar example of just how broken she is.
Donald Trump invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 400 times in New York’s investigation into his business’s finances. Of course, the defeated former president and alleged mishandler of classified material has every right to avoid self-incrimination, but that doesn’t mean he’s protected from adverse judgment, either from the jury in this civil suit or from voters.
It’s a brilliant opening. She actually says “This is all perfectly legal, but I think he should be punished for the very act of invoking his rights.” You’d be hard-pressed to find a take that undermines your own argument while advancing it further in the same two sentences.
While she continues to criticize herself, she calls for Trump’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment to be further punished (between the last quote below and here, Lawrence Tribe, a progressive law philosopher, is heavily quoted, which has been known for saying some very wild things). It’s an entire column dedicated to the absolutely insane idea that you wanting to exercise your rights should be held against you forever.
True, the Constitution spells out no disqualifications for federal office, other than conviction through impeachment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars a person from office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” But voters certainly should consider the underlying conflict when a candidate for office takes the Fifth, especially when the issue goes to the core of our democracy.
Trump’s supporters might argue that he has never been convicted. However, voters can draw their own conclusions regarding Trump’s underlying behavior and his refusal to testify. As Norman Eisen, who served as co-counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment hearings, puts it, there is a “bond” between an official and the people of the nation, which is “created by election or appointment and also cemented by the oath of office.” Just as a civil jury can draw an adverse conclusion from Trump’s refusal to answer questions, “it should be disqualifying for Trump if he seeks to run again.”
Admittedly, it’s not an unheard of idea. Since years, Democrats have been fighting against gun ownership, freedom of speech and religion. The most maligned right is the Fifth Amendment’s right to not incriminate yourself – it’s not an admission of guilt. Oftentimes, it’s to keep prosecutors/the government from being able to use your words or actions against you in order to find more charges to press. It’s a level of protection.
Trump feels the government is out to get him, so of course, he’s not going to give them more ammo. But that’s disqualifying to the Rubins of the world, who want nothing short of Trump openly admitting to committing countless crimes and attempting to overthrow the government and install himself Supreme Dictator Forever.
Let’s raise a glass to Rubin who has so many contributions to Bad Punditry and has far exceeded our expectations.