By
Scrutinizing the Republicans who scrambled to defend Donald Trump in wake of his latest indictment, a New York Times analysis noted, “Few if any of them bothered to wait to read the indictment.”
This is demonstrably true. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy slammed the indictment as a “grave injustice” nearly a full day before the California Republican had any idea what it said. Similarly, Sen. Ted Cruz told his podcast listeners, “This indictment is garbage,” long before it was unsealed. The Texan — a Harvard Law school graduate and a former state solicitor general — was condemning a legal document he had not read and knew effectively nothing about.
Donald Trump is set to appear in court on Tuesday at 3 p.m. ET. Follow our live blog for the latest updates and analysis in his classified documents case.
There were, however, other conservatives who preferred a more literate approach. John Bolton, who served as Trump’s White House national security advisor, wrote on Twitter, “All American voters should read the full text of the Trump indictment, and then consult their own consciences.”
The editorial board of National Review, which I nearly always disagree with, added on Saturday:
[I]t is impossible to read the indictment against Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case and not be appalled at the way he handled classified documents as an ex-president, and responded to the attempt by federal authorities to reclaim them.
The editors’ use of the word “read” stood out for me, because it struck me as emblematic of a larger point: Republicans are counting on the public not to read the Trump indictment, as part of a broader assumption that the public will avoid reading all sorts of things.
Or put another way, an amazing amount of the GOP’s strategy, especially since the dawn of the Trump era, is based on a simple assumption: Their base won’t actually read relevant documents, which makes it vastly easier for them to lie more or less with impunity about documents party officials haven't read, either.
Take former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia scandal, for example. It’s easy to forget that one House Republican — former Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan — publicly endorsed Trump’s impeachment in 2019. Asked why, the then-congressman said that he, unlike most of his GOP colleagues, actually read Mueller’s findings.
At the time, it was a refreshing change of pace. Sen. Lindsey Graham conceded he hadn’t read the Mueller report, despite the fact that he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. Several of his Republican colleagues, including fellow South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, said they hadn’t read it, either.
Their incuriosity was difficult to defend. A sitting president of the United States was the subject of a criminal investigation, as part of an international scandal of historic significance. A former FBI director — a lifelong Republican — prepared a report that was released to the public. Even months later, GOP lawmakers who were eager to defend Trump and dismiss the underlying scandal, couldn’t be bothered to read it.
But just as importantly, they assumed the public wouldn’t read it, either, and there’s reason to believe those assumptions were rooted in fact.
It wasn’t an isolated incident. By all appearances, Trump and many of his allies and supporters didn’t read 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.
Put it this way: When one side of an argument encourages people to read original source materials, and the other does not, that’s a big hint about who has the substance on their side.