Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a stalwart conservative, went head to head with CNN host Dana Bash on Sunday in an intense verbal skirmish over former President Trump’s federal indictment. The indictment concerns Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, a charge Jordan argued was purely political.
“Look at the seven-year track record, Dana,” Jordan said, expressing his opinion that this was just another arrow shot by left-leaning detractors to impede Trump’s potential return to political life. For those tracking this ongoing saga, Jordan’s words strike a resonant chord.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍Rep. Jim Jordan clashes with CNN host in heated exchange about Trump indictment https://t.co/Ch9YiWNiJI
— Susann Hartwig (@HartwigSusann) June 12, 2023
The crux of the argument revolved around the president’s power to declassify information, a right that Jordan emphasized multiple times during the segment. He cited the Supreme Court case Navy v. Egan as a legal precedent, suggesting that “The president’s ability to classify and control access to national security information flows from the Constitution. He decides.”
Bash fired back by probing Jordan on an element of the indictment that alleged Trump shared a plan of attack, which Trump described as “highly confidential” and “secret,” with unauthorized individuals. Bash stated, “That means the plan Trump allegedly showed was not declassified.”
But Jordan would not be swayed, affirming the clear distinction between Trump saying he could declassify it and saying he didn’t. He pointed out that an audio recording of Trump stating, “As president, I could have declassified it,” didn’t equate to him confessing that he didn’t declassify it.
Despite Jordan’s lucid clarification, Bash unyieldingly argued that Jordan’s defense didn’t make sense. Yet it’s worth noting that Jordan’s rebuttal was based on legal interpretation. This detail seemed conveniently ignored in the heat of the moment.
Bash shifted tactics, trying to corner Jordan on the alleged obstruction aspect of the indictment. However, Jordan stood his ground, firmly stating that obstruction requires an underlying crime, which he insisted was not present in this case.
This heated conversation provides a glaring example of the biased media environment where a conservative representative has to push back against an onslaught of loaded questions. As a seasoned political veteran, Rep. Jordan maintained his stance, steadfastly defending Trump based on the law and the Constitution.
The path ahead is uncertain as Trump faces arraignment in a Miami federal courthouse on Tuesday. Yet, the clarity of Jordan’s conviction is a beacon of principled conservatism, reflecting the strong faith in the rule of law that forms the bedrock of our great nation. The fight is far from over for Trump supporters and advocates of fairness in politics.