We're still in the early fallout of the Mueller Report, and there are basically two camps of reaction: those who have been following the news and those who haven't. Both of those camps are, of course, split into partisan groups, but the point is there's a difference between the headline and the article.
The headline from the Barr Summary (public) of the Mueller Report (not public yet) is that the Trump campaign is cleared of collusion with Russia and that no further charges like obstruction of justice are coming. Case closed. End of story. Move on with your lives.
The article is deeper than that. For a "witch hunt," this investigation certainly found a lot of witches in Trump's inner circle. There was a lot of smoke, even if there was no smoking arsonist. The Barr Summary quotes the Mueller Report as having essentially shrugged its shoulders at the issue of obstruction of justice: You decide, because it could go either way. The investigations into Trump circles in New York will continue, and legal experts have long pointed to those as perhaps the most damning or potentially worrisome for the President.
It's also important to note that this was not an effort in futility or a waste of expenses. Clearing someone is just as important as the opposite, and this was certainly a case that required an investigation to prove or disprove connections. Just because no fire was found does not mean the firefighters shouldn't have checked out the alarm.
Let's break down what we know a different way.
GOP: Witch hunt! Waste of money! Complete exoneration!
Why they're right: On the biggest questions of the Mueller Report, the President was cleared. There was no damning proof of Russian collusion and he will not have to continue with the Sword of Mueller hanging over his head. Those are all big deals. The question of "legitimacy" about this president has been resolved, and it was answered the way the GOP would like. The GOP is far less likely to work with Democrats on investigations, far more likely to decry further inquiries as politically motivated, and far more likely to appear to a skeptical public as correct. It's a big win for them.
Why they're wrong: Somehow in all of this the GOP has not bothered to do anything about Russian interference in our elections. That did happen, even if Trump wasn't involved in it. The investigation found several admitted criminals in Manafort, Gates, Flynn, and (not admitted, facing trial later) Stone. Also, Mueller was quoted in the Barr Summary as saying this was not an exoneration of Trump on the obstruction accusation, but we don't know enough details on what Mueller said about that issue and nuance/follow-up is not a thing American News does well.
Democrats: Investigations will continue! Barr was not a fair arbiter! What does Mueller actually say?
Why they're right: There are legitimate courses of investigation for the wider Trump circle that haven't been investigated in the two years of GOP control of both House and Senate — both essentially abdicated their oversight role, and only now is the House doing any real Congressional inquiries. We still don't know what the Mueller Report says — we're relying on someone Trump appointed after Jeff Sessions wouldn't put his thumb on the scale as Trump wanted (widely reported).
Why they're wrong: While there are still a lot of unanswered questions about links between the Trump campaign and Russian nationals, that's a dead end politically. At this point, it appears to be desperate and grasping at straws. Barr was probably fair enough in that he wouldn't dramatically twist Mueller's words in a way that could be easily disproven if the real report ever leaked. The President isn't going anywhere, and now he has a "I won" sticker from the Mueller Report.
On the Impeachment Issue
I've done a lot of studying and reading about the issue of impeachment. There are two "courts," essentially: Legal courts and impeachment. You can be acquitted and still be impeached. You can be in legal trouble and not be impeached. Impeachment was not designed to be a court drama — it was designed to be a congressional one.
However, I think the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton taught both sides a lot of lessons. The biggest lesson can be summed by this quote from The Wire, a show I have never actually watched: "When you come at the king, you best not miss." Essentially, if you're gunning for the biggest fish, you only get one shot. Starr had one shot at Bill Clinton, and he blew it. The GOP lost big-time politically and the same was true for Starr (who didn't have the best track record afterward as a college president at Baylor University during their major scandal).
Another lesson from the Bill Clinton impeachment is that the standard for presidential impeachment has become equated with the legal standard. Impeachment now has a much higher standard than it was intended to have. It's hard to make the argument that presidents should be removed from office unless you meet a high bar. And the general public understands court proceedings (thanks, daytime and primetime television!) more than they understand the intent behind impeachment. Maybe that's not exactly it, either, but the point is that these days a smoking gun or clear, undeniable evidence is needed. Remember: Nixon wasn't impeached; he resigned before either side could make the actual case.
Finally, there's one more lesson from the Clinton impeachment. Parties in control of Congress matters. In 1998, the GOP had control of the House and Senate — opposite party control. Nixon during the end of his presidency was dealing with opposite party control. Trump has had same party control for the first two years of his presidency and only now has lost the House. The Democrats never had enough power to push impeachment hard and still don't with only one chamber.
If Democrats wanted to make an impeachment case, they needed a damning Mueller Report. They didn't get it. If they still wanted to make an impeachment argument, hell, there's a lot of meat on the bone with the emoluments clause, the behavior and actions of a sitting president, the Southern District of New York cases, the campaign finance violations through Michael Cohen, the paying off of porn actresses for affairs he committed, putting children in cages, siding with white supremacists in the aftermath of Charlottesville, used religion as a determining factor in immigration, and many others. There are plenty of impeachable offenses — "high crimes and misdemeanors" — that, if the parties were switched, the GOP would make great hay out of. But without GOP cooperation, that's not going to happen. And the Mueller results essentially put the kibosh on GOP cooperation ever. If you come at the king, you best not miss. And what we know of the Mueller Report is that the Democrats probably would miss, so they'll have to back off the king for now.
Other Thoughts
• In writing this piece, I was inspired to go back and read what I'd written in past years. My favorite line, from September 2017: "A cynical version of me would expect the Mueller investigation to wrap up in December 2018, one month after the midterms." I was so close. Just a few months off. Good guess, past me!
• I still don't understand why certain plea agreements were made if bigger fish were not to be fried. Flynn, in particular, doesn't make sense without higher aims. Manafort's plea agreement (which he broke by continuing to communicate with Trump officials), too. Hopefully the actual Mueller Report will shed light on this.
• I still want to know more about the Trump Tower meeting.
• Avoid television news for a week on the Mueller issue, folks. Do yourself a favor and skip the spin. Go for a hike! It's nice outside!
Television News and the Lost Gatekeeper
When people think of the news media, the first thing that often comes to mind is television news. The mental image is Anderson Cooper standing in front of a government building or natural disaster, maybe one of the Wallaces sitting down with a newsmaker, or an ever-growing number of panelists each proclaiming their Two Minutes Hate. Television news has lost its way. They've all forgotten the basics of news.
Recently, Empire actor Jussie Smollett said he was assaulted by a MAGA hat-wearing duo that used racial slurs and more. CNN and others were all over it, giving plenty of attention to the fourth-highest billed actor on a moderately watched show making unproven claims. A smart media source would wait it out — report that he said he was attacked, but don't go all-in until verification from the police or an outside source. Instead, morning shows and 24-hour news were all too happy to grant Smollett a national audience and a sympathetic ear. They didn't play it safe, and the result was they got burned.
On the same day Smollett's story unraveled, these stations were ignoring major news taking place. Namely, that a U.S. House race almost assuredly was won through rampant, admitted, unabashed election fraud. The man who would be North Carolina's 9th district representative paid for a campaign official who used absentee ballots in a scheme to install Republicans in office. The first major public hearing on this issue was taking place, and CNN and MSNBC and FOX News were nowhere to be found. In fact, at 11 p.m. on the same day as that public hearing, there is no mention of the North Carolina election fraud on any of those three websites. CNN had it as their top story for a few hours in mid-afternoon, but it quickly came off. NBC News had it on their site at 11 p.m., but it was the 10th-highest ranked story on the page.
An early lesson in journalism school is to identify what makes a story newsworthy. Although the exact number depends on the journalism book, there are eight common "news criteria" or factors of news judgment. These often include timeliness (how recent news is), impact/importance, prominence (also called celebrity), proximity (how close news is), conflict (I've written before about how this might be the most problematic), unusual/human interest, currency (zeitgeist/what's cool in the moment) and necessity (what needs to be told).
In chasing conflict and minor celebrity, television news media ignored actual election fraud that affected an actual election — and a seat in the House of Representatives.
One of the principle roles of journalism is to be a gatekeeper — a proper editor/editorial board decides what is most newsworthy. NPR did a lengthy segment on the North Carolina election fraud story with reporters on the scene. Good gatekeeping can be done, but it takes effort, experience and wisdom. Television news, too often, is taking the easy way out and abdicating its gatekeeper role.
Clarence Thomas and Libel Law
One of the stalwart cases of mass communication law is under attack, and it's mostly gone unnoticed. When President Trump spouted repeatedly over the last few years that libel law should be changed, no one noticed because... he spouts repeatedly about a lot of things that never happen. But that all changed this week when Justice Clarence Thomas joined in on Trump's side.
The case in question is New York Times v. Sullivan, which was decided more than 50 years ago. The short version of the decision is that public figures have a higher burden for proving libel than non-public figures.
For example, if the New York Times writes that "John Doe, a steelworker in Pittsburgh, Pa., is a drug addict," that's a libel case in favor of John Doe (A local radio station lost a libel case when they mistakenly called a private citizen a porn star — the person in question wasn't a public figure). But if they write "Senator John Doe is committing insider trading," it's a different case — Sen. Doe would have to prove a) that it's false and b) essentially that the Times was targeting him and knew that the story was false or that they were reckless with regard to the truth.
I'm concerned about a chilling effect if public figures are given more leeway to allege media discrimination in court. Imagine what a politician with deep pocketbooks (Trump, Bloomberg, etc.) would do if they didn't have to prove actual malice. I can — they'd sue over any story/publication that makes them look bad. Media companies are not built to win repeated, costly legal wars. I can tell you that by experience: My paper was sued one time frivolously and even the cost to dismiss that baseless lawsuit was nearly the cost of one of my employees' salaries for a year.
I am, perhaps, relieved by the fact that Clarence Thomas is the most far right member of the Supreme Court — he made Justice Scalia look liberal by comparison. So one Justice of nine is not necessarily the bursting of the dam on this issue. However, the Supreme Court now leans right. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito are positioned close to Thomas. Justice Gorsuch is not far off. The "swing" vote would be right-leaning Chief Justice Roberts. It's not unfathomable to imagine, which is frightening.
Summary Judgments
This was a really well-written story about what happens when video game personalities turn out to be predators. • • • And from their sister site, there's another well-written story that reveals sexual assault allegations against a prominent voice actor. I particularly liked the "missing stair" analogy — Everyone who knows about it tells people they know, but those who are new or don't have connections will trip on it every time. Such was the case with the voice actor in question. • • • Another devastating story: a personal account of what it is like to make the decision to have a late abortion. Late abortions are exceedingly rare and almost always have a devastating diagnosis attached. I don't know any of my readers' views on the thorny subject. Articles like this are important to read despite how difficult they are to choose to read. • • • I mentioned the gatekeeper aspect of journalism earlier, and I was really surprised and impressed by the near-universal decision not to name the New Zealand mosque attacker. His name is out there and easy to find if you want, but I didn't see any news site publish it (especially you, CNN and FOX News). I honestly thought maybe news media had developed an ability to make better news decisions. Then, literally the entire next week of news was "Trump picks fight with Ghost of John McCain." SIGH. • • • I haven't gone for a run or a walk since the half marathon. I told my mom that it's like when you eat so much of one thing that you can't eat it again for a while. I reached my limit and beyond with the half marathon and have lost my motivation for the time being. • • • Not a kid story, but Alyson and I were talking about those Facebook posts where people are all "If you deny Jesus, he'll deny you! Share this post or you're going to burn in hell because you didn't share a meme!" I made the comment that if that were true, "God is love, but he isn't above pettiness." We both cracked up.
