Vivek Ramaswamy’s Wobbly Last Stand

“I think that the government hasn’t told us the truth, the entirety of what happened on Jan. 6, and I think we deserve to know,” he said. “Answer openly: How many FBI informants and how many federal agents were in the field? Answer openly what the video footage was. Just release all the video footage. Why selectively release some video footage but not others? I think that that breeds distrust.”

He went on in this vein — eventually denouncing “the deep state,” arguing that we should dismantle the FBI — but it was all just as vague and airy. He suggested that the people present had been entrapped, citing the FBI’s conduct in connection with a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, but the comparison was plainly silly.

About 140 people have been convicted of federal charges at trials in connection with the siege of the Capitol. Over 700 people have pleaded guilty to various charges, including more than 200 people who admitted to committing felonies like assaulting police officers.

Did hundreds of people really plead guilty in open court after being entrapped by the government?

“Well,” Ramaswamy said, “I think hundreds of people pled guilty under false circumstances” as a result of “Brady rule violations that otherwise could have been corrected.”

The goalposts had immediately shifted in very Ramaswamy-like fashion; in fact, we were on an entirely different field. We were no longer talking about the unprecedented and absurd government entrapment scheme that he had casually floated. We were now talking about alleged discovery violations on the part of the prosecutors. I was on the verge of a headache.

The so-called Brady rule requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence in their possession to criminal defendants, but Ramaswamy suggested that prosecutors had violated this rule because they did not produce the full cache of video from the Capitol police to all of the Jan. 6 defendants.

I told him that as a former federal prosecutor, I had some familiarity with the disclosure obligations under the law and that, even as he described it, the argument seemed plainly wrong as a legal matter. The Capitol police are a part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch, and in any event, there is no real reason to believe that the video is actually exculpatory given the nature of the charges.

“Whether you believe that as a legal matter or at least as a moral belief —” he began.

“It’s not a belief,” I interjected.

Perhaps sensing the conversation was getting away from him, Ramaswamy then tried to convince me that we were actually not that far apart in our views. “I share your opinion,” he then began to say.

“You don’t share” it, I told him. “You’re wrong about the law.”

“I think the Supreme Court [would] agree with me 6-3 on this,” he said.

“That’s an imaginary case,” I explained. “The law currently — you are wrong about.”

“Well, I think that the Jan. 6 defendants should bring this case,” he responded. “I think it should find its way all the way to the Supreme Court, which is why I’m bringing it up.” In fact, multiple Jan. 6 defendants have made this argument; no judge has agreed. Within seconds, we had begun talking over one another.

The exchange was not hostile but hollow. I happened to know something about the subject. He did not, but he also did not care. He had made up his mind — or, at least, was committed to the bit.

We had, in an instant, encountered one of the fundamental problems with Ramaswamy’s campaign pitch. He has said that he wants to promote a culture of open dialogue and debate that has supposedly been lost in American society, that he wants “TRUTH.” And he is right that the two things are linked in political thought: A culture of free expression and debate is supposed to facilitate the discovery of truths — even, and perhaps most importantly, uncomfortable ones.

But heated discussions and obnoxious debates are not, by themselves, guarantors of truth. Someone at some point in the discussion has to actually know what they are talking about, and the participants have to be both honest and willing to change their minds. If those conditions are not met, all you are left with is a formula for endless argument and outrage.