By
Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s ties to her party have weakened in recent years, as evidenced by the Alaska Republican’s willingness to vote to convict Donald Trump as part of his second impeachment trial. With this mind, it’s easy to understand why the senator appears to feel vindicated this week.
Just hours after special counsel Jack Smith’s latest indictment was unsealed, the Alaskan wrote online, “In early 2021, I voted to impeach former President Trump based on clear evidence that he attempted to overturn the 2020 election after losing it. Additional evidence presented since then, including by the January 6 Commission, has only reinforced that the former President played a key role in instigating the riots, resulting in physical violence and desecration of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
But it was Murkowski’s conclusion that stood out for me: “I encourage everyone to read the indictment, to understand the very serious allegations being made in this case.”
She’s not the only one thinking along these lines. The editorial page of The Kansas City Star published some related advice on Tuesday. “Republicans, our democracy depends on your willingness to read the Trump indictment,” the headline read.
Please read it. We refer, of course, to the 45-page indictment that explains exactly what Donald J. Trump did to overthrow our democracy. ... Even if you are among those who say yes, he committed serious crimes and you’ll happily vote for him anyway, you still owe it to your country to acquaint yourself with what crimes it is that you’re willing to overlook. ... If you don’t trust us to characterize what it says, read it for yourself.
The Star’s editors added, “If you are right that this is a political prosecution, or that if he did do something wrong it was nothing serious, or was in any case nothing others haven’t done, then this 45 pages will do nothing to challenge that view. If you’re not right, then don’t you want to know that?”
In theory, this seems like a relatively modest ask. The indictment isn’t that long, and it’s written as a “speaking indictment” — which means it doesn’t just identify the charges, it also explains them. What’s more, for those who are unable to read the document for whatever reason, folks can listen to MSNBC’s Ali Velshi read the whole thing in podcast form.
Also note, one need not be a legal expert to understand the indictment. As The New York Times’ Charles Blow explained in his new column, “The federal indictment issued this week against Donald Trump for his efforts to steal the 2020 presidential election has a literary quality to it. It reads like a movie script.”
But in practice, it’s tough to be optimistic in light of the Republican Party’s recent aversion to learning through the written word. GOP officials freely admitted, for example, that they didn’t read Trump’s first federal indictment, which suggests it’s unlikely they’ll read his second federal indictment.
As we discussed in June, Republicans also didn’t read the Mueller report. Or the Durham report. Or the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings on the Russia scandal. Or the Justice Department inspector general’s report on the investigation into the Russia scandal.
While we’re at it, let’s not forget that Trump’s allies also condemned the contents of the former president’s indictment in New York before it was unsealed, suggesting they didn’t feel the need to read it, either.
Stepping back, this pattern reinforces concerns that much of Republican Party is simply indifferent to whether Trump committed crimes or not: If GOP officials cared about the merits of these cases, they’d obviously want to take the time to at least familiarize themselves with the allegations themselves, especially since the indictments are short and readable.
But this also poses a challenge for rank-and-file voters who ostensibly want to know the truth: Are they prepared to trust those making assessments of documents they haven’t bothered to read?