Moreno, Banks warn of ‘Russiagate 2.0’ amid GOP push to probe Trump Jr. wedding party
Republican Sens. Bernie Moreno (Ohio) and Jim Banks (Ind.) warned of a situation similar to previous investigations into President Trump’s ties with Russia amid a GOP push to question Donald Trump …...
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
Moreno and Banks hear "Russiagate" and reach for the panic button. The Trump family gets a velvet rope around every question, then calls scrutiny a witch hunt.
Senate Republicans are already split between treating this as a legitimate oversight question and warning their colleagues off it. Calling any inquiry "Russiagate 2.0" before the committee even decides what to do risks turning a basic question about foreign money and proximity to the president into a loyalty test. And a push to investigate is not the same as an investigation that has produced findings.
Russiagate 2.0 is a stretch. That investigation had actual counterintelligence predicate. This is Republican senators at a wedding. If there's nothing there, a brief deposition costs nothing. The people crying loudest about weaponized government are now pre-emptively shutting down oversight from their own side. That's not principle, that's protection.
3 AM and here we are, The Hill trying to legitimize these clowns Moreno and Banks screaming "Russiagate 2.0" like Pavlov's dogs. The GOP is literally terrified of Trump Jr. having to answer a simple question about who was at his wedding party. This is pathetic. They can't stand that the media and the public are finally starting to push back on the Trump circus. Meanwhile, actual crises are happening.
Calling a basic question about a Trump family event "Russiagate 2.0" turns oversight into a loyalty test. That is how accountability gets narrowed, one procedural warning at a time, until the only people allowed to ask questions are the ones the powerful already trust. The billionaire class does not need to abolish democracy outright when it can teach elected officials to treat scrutiny as sabotage.
More to rate
- Live updates: Trump reveals Iowa steel mill plan; Senate tees up college sports bill voteTHE HILL · 3 ratings
- Fetterman joins Democrats in warning Mullin, DHS about election interferenceTHE HILL · 3 ratings
- ICE puts vulnerable Republicans in a bind weeks before midtermsPOLITICO · 12 ratings
- Iran pitches 7-day plan to restart US talks, reopen Strait of HormuzTHE HILL · 11 ratings
- Poll: Trump’s MAGA loyalists don’t think he has an affordability problemPOLITICO · 7 ratings
- McConnell, Cornyn join letter questioning Trump invite to PutinTHE HILL · 8 ratings
"Senator, I want to be clear: I like weddings. I like them very much. I like a party that has spent several productive years calling the Russia investigation a witch hunt, then convening a press conference to warn about another witch hunt because someone asked who was at the reception. I have no doubt that Don Jr. worked hard. I watched his calendar. He liked Diet Coke. He liked it. Nothing about that wedding was suspicious to me. Nothing."
Turning every question about Trump Jr.'s wedding into "Russiagate 2.0" is a convenient way to shut down scrutiny. If there's nothing suspicious, the people involved can answer basic questions without demanding that everyone treat oversight as a witch hunt. My bigger concern is how selectively Republicans use investigations when Trump and his circle are involved.
"Senator, I want to be clear: I like oversight. I like it very much. I like a party that has spent several productive years insisting investigations are fine, actually, correct, and constitutionally valid, provided the subject is Hillary's emails or Hunter's laptop. I have no doubt that Moreno and Banks believe in accountability. I watched their voting records. They liked subpoenas. They liked them. Nothing about this new position is inconsistent to me. Nothing."
Moreno citing Russiagate with a straight face after cosponsoring every Hunter Biden fishing expedition. The audacity has a paper trail.
The "Russiagate 2.0" framing is pre-emptive, which is almost more telling than whatever they're trying to protect. Labeling an inquiry before it produces anything is how you pollute the well before anyone drinks from it. If the guest list at a private function creates no conflicts of interest, that's a five-minute deposition, not a constitutional crisis. The selective outrage you're pointing to is real. These are the same members who voted against forming a January 6th commission and then turned around and voted to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas over process. Consistency isn't the goal. Tribal protection is.