'Outrageous': Watergate prosecutor unloads on Jim Jordan's 'lawfare' against Trump trial
May 15, 2024
Former prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks tore into Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) over his "weaponization of government" hearing that rapidly devolved into a forum to attack former President Donald Trump's one-time attorney and fixer Michael Cohen, the key witness in the Manhattan criminal hush money trial against the former president.
Wine-Banks, who served as a prosecutor in the Watergate trials, tried to outline for Jordan's committee why Trump was indicted for hoarding classified information in a separate Justice Department case, whereas President Joe Biden was not — and came away disgusted with the whole proceeding, as she explained to MSNBC's Jason Johnson.
"First off, just talk about what your testimony was in this hearing, and second ... what purpose did the Republicans really think they're accomplishing with this sort of, you know, C-SPAN marathon of a hearing that nobody else is going to pay attention to?"
ALSO READ: Judge rejects Fox News-inspired Georgia man who rained hate on school administrator
"Well, first, let me say, Jason, you're making me relive one of the worst days of my life," said Wine-Banks. "It's so hard to sit there and not respond to the nonsense that's going on, the three Republican witnesses, but maybe especially [former Cohen lawyer Robert] Costello. It was painful, and to me, it was so obvious that on this day they picked to assassinate the character of Michael Cohen. It was outrageous, everything he said."
"My testimony related to, they have called this hearing a lawfare weaponization of government," Wine-Banks. "And honestly, other than Lawfare Blog, I had to look up what 'lawfare' meant. And it meant using the institutions of government to take down an opponent. And to me, this hearing was actually lawfare. They were doing it to hurt the ongoing trial, to interfere in this particular trial. My testimony was more about the fact that it used to be that facts mattered and that the distinctions between the indictment decisions of the special counsel for Mr. Trump and for President Biden are based on not a different standard, but on different facts. And that if anyone would pay attention to the facts ... it left you no decision except to indict Mr. Trump, because Mr. Trump not only concealed, he hid, he obstructed. Those are the reasons that the aggravating factors lead to an indictment."
"And so ... my point was no one is above the law, including a former president," she added. "And that the differences in decisions have nothing to do with the Department of Justice cheating or showing a bias. It has to do with the facts that apply to the standard. So the standard's the same, there's no weaponization. And I thought that the testimony attacking Michael Cohen was completely unfair."
Watch the video below or at the link here.
Leave a Comment
Related Post