Editorial: Trump's not above the law, regardless of what Rep. Dan Bishop may want
CBC Editorial: Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024; #8905
The following is the opinion of Capitol Broadcasting Company
North Carolina congressman Dan Bishop seems to quake in fear at immigrants – all illegal aliens to him – at the border seeking entry into the United States. He calls Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas an “unremitting” liar.
While Bishop – who is running to be North Carolina’s attorney general -- may not like the policies that Mayorkas and his boss President Joe Biden employ in seeking to manage the border, they don’t amount to impeachable offenses.
That’s not just our opinion. It is shared -- as of Tuesday – by a majority of Bishop’s fellow members in the U.S. House of Representatives.
But if Bishop is so concerned about who tells the truth and who lies, why was he the only North Carolinian among more than 60 co-sponsors of a resolution concluding that Trump “did not engage in insurrection”?
This is an effort to influence courts and state elections officials around the nation where they are considering whether Trump is eligible to hold office in accord with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that bars insurrectionists.
It is worth noting Bishop’s stand is contrary to former Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, a conservative Republican who voted to impeach Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrectionist riot at the Capitol aimed at stopping the rightful certification of Biden’s election as president.
In the three years since that attack, more than 1,265 defendants have been charged with offenses ranging from seditious conspiracy and assault to destruction and theft of government property – 123 of those with deadly weapons and causing serious harm to law enforcement officers. More than half of those charged have pleaded guilty.
For someone who is a lawyer, Bishop should understand and have the discretion to leave the kinds of judicial determinations he demands in this frivolous resolution to local, state and federal courts. They are the appropriate arenas for such.
For someone seeking election to a public office that provides representation for all state government agencies (including the State Board of Elections) in legal matters -- and also may initiate court proceedings on behalf of the state, its various agencies and its citizens -- he should understand the kind of malicious meddling he seeks with this resolution. He should have the discretion to avoid conflicts of interest that might arise.
This latest reflexively partisan and injudicious act does little to recommend him to the statewide office he seeks. North Carolina voters beware.
Capitol Broadcasting Company's Opinion Section seeks a broad range of comments and letters to the editor. Our Comments beside each opinion column offer the opportunity to engage in a dialogue about this article. In addition, we invite you to write a letter to the editor about this or any other opinion articles. Here are some tips on submissions >> SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
