SPARE ME THE BS (I’ve got things to do).
- Podcaster Jennifer Welch called for investigations and possible trials involving Trump’s children, explicitly naming Barron and Tiffany, as well as Jared Kushner.
- During a public discussion with former CNN reporter Jim Acosta, Welch demanded investigations; Acosta suggested, ‘Lock some of them up, maybe?’
- Welch spoke of confiscating money if wrongdoing were proved, without identifying specific criminal allegations against Barron or Tiffany in the cited exchange.
LAY IT ON ME (I’ve got time).
Apparently criticizing Donald Trump is no longer enough for progressive podcaster Jennifer Welch. Now she’s talking about investigating his children, including Barron and Tiffany Trump.
And when former CNN journalist Jim Acosta joined the discussion, he had a suggestion: ‘Lock some of them up, maybe?’ Well, there’s a cheerful family conversation.
The remarks came at a Politics and Prose event in Washington where Welch was promoting Not Today, Fascists. Acosta interviewed her about political activism, the administration and her frustration with Democratic officials.
Welch complained that Democrats had not confronted Trump aggressively enough, even criticizing Bernie Sanders for supporting Marco Rubio’s confirmation as secretary of state. Imagine being so angry that Bernie Sanders starts looking insufficiently liberal.
As the conversation turned to Jared Kushner’s business activities and diplomacy, Welch expanded the discussion to the president’s family.
‘I want Barron, Jared, I’m gonna throw Tiffany in,’ she said, before including other Trump relatives. She demanded that all be investigated.
Jared Kushner is a former senior White House adviser with international business dealings that have attracted public scrutiny. But what specific offense was Welch alleging against Barron Trump or Tiffany Trump? The remarks quoted from the event did not identify one.
Welch said she wanted trials and wanted money confiscated if theft or improper conduct were proved. But asking for trials without describing the alleged offense is a strange way to talk about due process. Normally investigators find evidence, prosecutors decide on charges and courts determine guilt — not the other way around.
There’s an interesting distinction buried in Welch’s list of prospective defendants, and it begins with Jared Kushner.
Trump’s son-in-law has faced substantial congressional scrutiny over his financial dealings in the Middle East. His investment firm, Affinity Partners, received a $2 billion commitment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund after he left the first Trump administration. Congressional Democrats have questioned whether his government relationships helped attract that investment.
And that scrutiny hasn’t gone away. In April, Rep. Jamie Raskin opened a new investigation into Kushner’s overlapping diplomatic activities and foreign-backed business interests. A government watchdog also recently filed suit challenging the legality of Kushner’s role as an unpaid presidential envoy.
Kushner’s lawyers have disputed the allegations surrounding his government service, and the existence of congressional investigations does not establish criminal wrongdoing. But at least there’s a documented controversy involving government service, foreign money and possible conflicts of interest.
Now explain Barron Trump.
Or Tiffany Trump.
Welch didn’t identify a suspicious transaction, an abused government position or even a specific allegation against either one. She simply added their names to the list. Apparently, when you’re assembling a political prosecution wish list, being related to Donald Trump is enough to earn an audition.
And Welch’s comments weren’t some spontaneous departure from her usual political rhetoric.
During a January appearance with Acosta, she argued that Democrats returning to power should aggressively pursue Trump and his associates, promising to uncover documents, telephone calls and evidence of alleged misconduct. Acosta went further, suggesting Democrats should consider expanding the Supreme Court to overcome the immunity ruling protecting certain presidential acts.
That’s a remarkable amount of prosecutorial ambition for two people conducting political interviews.
Welch has also made clear that she has no intention of moderating her language. In an October NPR interview promoting Not Today, Fascists, she explained that the title was deliberately confrontational and that she wanted to identify the people she was attacking by name.
She’s certainly living up to that promise.
But there’s a difference between confronting powerful officials over documented financial dealings and casually tossing the president’s children into a conversation about criminal trials.
The real story here isn’t merely that Jennifer Welch dislikes Donald Trump. She has built a successful media career telling audiences precisely that.
It’s how easily a discussion about one family member’s legitimate business controversies became a demand to investigate relatives whose alleged offenses weren’t even identified.
And Jim Acosta, rather than asking what Barron or Tiffany supposedly did, contributed the evening’s suggestion about locking people up.
Perhaps that would have been a useful moment for a follow-up question.
DBS WIRE SOURCES (I’ve got all day).
- Twitchy — Welch and Trump family remarks
- Mediaite — Welch and Acosta exchange
- Fox News — Welch’s earlier Vance remarks
- Texas Public Radio — Welch interview
- House Judiciary Democrats — Kushner investigation
- Associated Press — Lawsuit challenging Kushner’s envoy role
- Just the News — Welch and Acosta’s January remarks
