The press created Russiagate and now they must deal with the consequences
Why did the press think the day of reckoning would never come for them?
Yesterday it was all about the Mueller report and the Barr letter.
Today the news and commentary seems to be focusing more on the press itself: will the MSM ever own up to the magnitude of their mistake/lies (I very much doubt it)? How much has their coverage of Russiagate damaged their reputation, and with whom? And do they even recognize how much this has damaged their reputation? What will their next move be?
And on and on and on—for a few examples, see this, this, this, this, and this from Matt Taibbi (who is most definitely not a Trump-supporter in any way). And the MSM tries gamely but ridiculously to defend itself here, here, and in what is perhaps my favorite headline of all: “Trump Is Bullying the Media Into Falsely Exonerating Him of Russia Corruption.”
But the question I want to tackle right now is why did they do it? Why the nonstop incessant seemingly-interminable beating of the “Trump is guilty of collusion and there is evidence” drum? Why did the media stick their collective necks out on such shaky-to-nonexistent evidence, knowing how tenuous it was, and that the day of reckoning might indeed come?
I offer the following reasons, not mutually exclusive (although some are):
(1) They truly thought Mueller would find collusion, either because they really believed Trump colluded with Russia, or because they thought Mueller was partisan enough to find collusion where none existed.
(2) It was a kind of political tulip mania, a contagion that spread throughout their ranks, a wishful thinking squared and then cubed.
(3) They didn’t think of the future at all. There was only the eternal-seeming present, in which this story fed their own Trump-hatred and drove ratings. Their audience craved it, and so did they.
(4) They figured that if the day of reckoning and Trump’s exoneration ever came, they could spin it to their advantage (or at least deflect it), as they had done so many times before with so many other stories.
(5) They thought Trump would make many many more missteps, and one of those missteps might intervene to cause his downfall independently of this. And meanwhile, they had a great and ongoing story to keep them going.
(6) They were gearing this to Congress, and thought that a combination of all the Democrats and a significant number of Republicans would believe the story and impeach Trump or even impeach and convict him, even before Mueller was finished.
(7) I actually think this last one is the most important: Watergate.
Watergate turns out to have been the worst thing that ever happened to the press in my lifetime, although they probably think it was the best and the high point. It gave them not just delusions of grandeur but an actual example of their power to bring down the mighty with their metaphorical pens instead of swords.
Watergate was many things, but one of them was a triumph for the press. The press hated Nixon prior to Watergate, and in Watergate several elements came together: an actual wrongdoing with actual evidence of related wrongdoings by the president, an FBI informant with his own agenda, a GOP willing to take the high road and convince its own president to resign or be thrown out, and a public unjaded by all that’s happened since.
The press also became heroes, not only in their own eyes but generally. A movie was made in which Woodward was played by Robert Redford in his handsome prime, and Bernstein was played by the less-comely but still very popular Dustin Hoffman. Who could ask for anything more?
Only a few of today’s journalists were around back then (except as little children), but you better believe that Watergate was not lost on them nor was it lost on their professors at journalism school or school in general. The narrative was so compelling that I’m virtually certain that one of the main things that drove them in Russiagate was the desire for a repeat. They believed they had the ingredients, or at least the most important ingredients to them: a Republican president they hated, informants in the FBI and elsewhere, tales of secret machinations by the administration, and Republicans in Congress who they thought could be rather easily persuaded to turn on that president.
The fact that Russiagate was actually the un-Watergate probably did not even cross their minds. This was the reverse Watergate, the Watergate in which the president was not the perp, and the instruments of intelligence and justice were weaponized against him rather than that he made a blocked attempt to enlist them against his enemies. In the un-Watergate, the press – instead of being able to successfully cast itself as the bold uncoverer of the terrible truth about the president – has been revealed to have been mainly in the business of amplifying lies about the president.
[Neo is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at the new neo.]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
8) They were told to do this.. again and again and again by their owners.
I think this is the simplest and most likely explanation.
The combination of law and family therapy never seemed more appropriate.
The simple answer to all this psychobabblepap can be expressed now in three simple words.
Four More Years.
“Why did the press think the day of reckoning would never come for them?”
The answer is actually extremely simple (and somewhat logical).
They knew that collusion was bullshit. But that didn’t matter. That was just the EXCUSE for a special counsel.
What they were COUNTING ON, was that a special counsel with unlimited power would find all kinds of other crimes, and they could get rid of him, and after that if anybody asked why they hadn’t proved collusion the answer would have been, “He’s in jail anyway so why waste more time.”
It actually was somewhat logical at the time. Because let’s face it. If a special counsel investigated 90% of current politicians – including Saint Obama and Hillary, they would be in prison the rest of their lives.
They ASSUMED that they’d be able to get rid of him without actual collusion having to be proved.
Obviously, they were catastrophically wrong.
And this just stands as testament to the fact that the single biggest mistake that Trump made in his entire campaign and Presidency was named Jeff Sessions.
An additional factor in this analysis is that the press failed to drive down Trump’s approval number, which have remained steady. Without those number dropping significantly below 30%, there is now way enough Republicans would have backed impeachment.
It looks like Sessions was an early element of the “Insurance Policy” after all.
After his election Trump had to wade through the Swamp looking for creatures to populate his administration. The Swamp habitat is toxic to normal Americans.
I did not see Chuck Schumer in the picture. Where is Chuck? Is he preoccupied with the Maxine ‘Inpeach 45’ ralley?
The correct pronunciation is “Impeeb foti-fi”. 😉
Number 3, didn’t think of the future at all, is a huge part of what happened. In general, the left is terrible at that.
More specifically, the press works in a world where yesterday and tomorrow are non-existent. There is only now. The current story. The current news cycle. The latest tweet. The next attempt to grab some clicks.
Even the old newspapers only lasted a day, then became fish wrap. The news has always been more about the now than about the long game, or careful thought.
Their finances also suggest that, for the industry, now is more important. Worry about the future when it’s the future…for now, we need life rafts!
This the press’s cover-up of Water Closet, where Clinton profited, Obama spied, Establishment colluded, and DNC denied democracy, which segued into a multi-trimester warlock hunt and witch trial. It has also been an effective veil, in conjunction with rabid diversity (i.e. color judgment), lifted over the liberalization of selective-child policy under the planned parenthood protocol for social progress and Twilight Amendment to The Constitution. The press has been hoisted by a series of unforced errors for partisan and “independent” gain.
It’s a bit of everything you’ve listed. I disagree how you’ve weighted the Watergate angle.
Some in the press were foolish enough to believe the FBI/CIA sham, others are cynical and devious and think the public at large are stupid idiots with short term memories that they can easily manipulate. All of the younger ones generally think that even if they are caught fabricating stories that other more powerful people in the biz have their backs – and in the event that they may get fired – they will be rehired by Big Media after falling on their swords for The Cause.
That last bit? It’s an incestuous feedback loop. Leftist journalists do get rehired after what should ethically be a career ending piece of propaganda. So, why hold back? Damn the morals involved here. Everyone is doing it. And in the cloistered world they inhabit, everyone IS doing it.
But we, the public, see them moving about in their journalistic fishbowl. Amidst their myopia they’ve forgotten that the public watches and remembers.
No evidence. No collusion. Begs the question, when did the ” team ” finally decide there was nothing there? At what point was this effort just about getting a few scalps to show it all wasn’t for naught?
Why didn’t the SC announce the collusion and Russia! allegations to be unprovable 6 or 7 months ago?… before the freaking midterms? I think we all know the answer.
I have big problems with people being persecuted solely because of who they associated with. In the end, this was used to do an end run on probable cause. And the process seems to effectively circumvent peoples constitutional rights.
I am not supporting people breaking the law, I do not like witch hunts.
Did I miss something? Just what are the consequences the press faces? I would say none at all. The most radical outlets cater to an audience that despises Trump and and will continue their reading/viewing habits waiting breathlessly for more Trump scandals in the making. Lawsuits are out of the question and as long as the ad revenue continues at the current level they will follow along with what ever Nadler, Schiff and Waters provide
Nothing will likely happen, as you say, BUT… there’s a RICO angle , IMO… a conspiracy of major networks to drive ratings and reap profit from advertisers based on higher ratings. Do a little digging and I betcha there are emails, from producers to execs, etc, saying how the coverage was delivering huge ratings and to keep it up, regardless…
That theory worked for MSNBC but failed miserably at CNN. CNN lost its viewership and totally destroyed its reputation.
MarkS:
Actually, we don’t know what the long-term consequences will be for the press. Maybe it’ll all be fine for them, although at the moment they’re dealing with quite a bit of criticism even from some people not on the right. Maybe only a few more people will start distrusting the MSM. Maybe more than that. We don’t know. But this post is really about why the press seemed to act as though they were immune from bad consequences and could throw caution to the winds.
There needs to be an active campaign to beat the crap out of media for this.
Perhaps the greatest blow to CNN, MSNBC and even FNC is the loss of revenue from Cord cutters. Cable subscribers pay these channels whether they watch them or not.
For CNN probably not much, I mean you can’t go past the bottom in ratings.
I suspect the “journalists” never thought it would get this far. If they annoyed him at every turn, DJT would cave (like all run-of-the-mill politicians) and crawl off. Eventually he’d decide the whole thing wasn’t as much fun as he’d anticipated, and resign. It’s not like he’d suffer by leaving office; he wouldn’t miss the big airplane—he already has a nicer one—or crowds of autograph-seekers. And after resignation, it wouldn’t matter if any of the accusations were provable or even likely.
Of course they badly misread him; Trump’s certainly no run-of-the-miller.
In any case, there are no consequences. Anybody with more brainpower than a sea urchin already knew that our press is useless, so loss of non-existent credibility is not a risk. And legal repercussions are pretty much out of the question since conservatives aren’t going to try to strangle the 1st Amendment just to hound a press which thoroughly deserves it.
The press participated, gladly and maliciously, but wasn’t it the Democrats and Clinton and Obama operatives who created this sorry chapter of American anti-democracy?
I doubt they’ll lose a single advertiser. They’ll charge on with SDNY or some other nonsense.
This is their jihad. Although PDJT seems to be trashing them pretty good. Kind of like Israel just did to hamas.
Let the internet kill the printed trash masters off quickly.
SDNY looks pretty dead.
The chief anti-Trumper there is resigning “for personal reasons” and the much-touted investigation into the Avenatti/Stormy Daniels mess seems to have ended with Avenatti being charged.
If there’s going to be any continuation of the “investigations”, it will probably be in the House Judiciary Committee or Intelligence Committee. (Nadler and Schiff will have to arm wrestle for it.)
Well that is good news, hope it turns out that way.
“But the question I want to tackle right now is why did they do it?”
Simple answer, because they could. They could because the corrupt GOPe would help them instead of opposing them. They simply want power and Trump prevents them from exercising the raw power they worked to accumulate.
They all believed they could find crimes committed by Trump. They could not imagine anyone was clean. After all, in their world everyone is guilty.
Russiagate was NOT created by the press. It was created by high ranking officials within the Obama Administration, in both the DOJ and the intelligence community. What the press did was to function as a propaganda organ for the liberal Progressive establishment. Like lemmings, the leadership and many members of the professional news media went right along with the narrative supplied to them, via their email and fax machines, by the Progressive elite.
As to consequences, there won’t be any. In a society where weird, fringe lifestyles now dominate television programing, the customer base of the MSM just won’t care. Just as the fans of professional wrestling didn’t care that it was scripted and totally bogus, as long as it was entertaining. The modern MSM has become the professional wrestling of the news business. They have made the conscious determination that they are in the entertainment business, not the news business.
For the last two years, the media has been claiming that Trump/Russia collusion unquestionably exists. They told their viewership that the proof was out there, just like an episode of the X-Files. And, now that no evidence of collusion has been presented, they are mow stating that Mueller is engaged in a cover-up or just didn’t do a good enough job uncovering the evidence. The new mantra is “The Truth Is STILL Out There”.
Agreed, the Press just ran with it like a Golden Retriever with a stick on a beach.
Dogs are honorable, loyal companions. Please don’t denigrate dogs by comparing them to the press.
You are absolutely correct and I do apologize to all of our 4 legged friends, but I couldn’t think of anything slimy and belly dragging enough that could get up that kind of speed.
This is about the Mainstream Media propagandists’ infantile and pathological hatred of Trump, specifically, and, conservatives, more broadly; their self-congratulatory vanity and egotism, with attendant messianic fantasies of being white knights, slaying the Trump “dragon;” and, their gleeful and dutiful water-carrying fealty towards the Dhimmi-crats and their orthodoxies, with attendant narrative-crafting and perpetuation, to advance that agenda. That’s it.
The reason only a few people comment here is that the newest comments go on the bottom. This website would be much more successful if they change their comment section system.
There are lots of good things about this antiquated comment system.
For example, no edits or deleting.
That takes money and more money than you might think and somehow I doubt the Prof. is getting rich off of this. The Prof. has looked at “upgrading” in the past to something like Disqus, but he polled the community and from what I can remember the poll showed a pretty resounding negative to that idea. Personally, I don’t mind, I just learned to use the “Preview” button and do a little self editing.
I usually read all the comments, from what I am seeing, it appears lots of other people do the same.
Gallup’s annual media trust survey has shown that a majority of Americans have not trusted the media since 2005, yet it doesn’t matter to the media. CNN’s viewership is down dramatically because most Americans don’t want 20 hours a day of Trump-bashing.
The primary reason few comment here is they are not equipped to do so. While many topics are popular, the perspective is that of a lawyer or someone of trained or occupational background, from police officer to college professor…or perhaps an employee in a topical field.
The commentator is expected to be polite and knowledgeable about the subject matter.
Times v. Sullivan plays a role. They think they are bulletproof.
Frankly I think that most of this can be explained by the simple explanation that modern leftist ideology is closer to an acquired delusional disorder than anything else.
We can’t ignore what came before this; the Journolist listserver that let all these activists actually conspire to MAKE the news tell the story THEY wanted it to be.
They believed they could do it again. Why not as they have done it over and over. Every election for the most part. Each one they won gave them the info they needed to make the next one more controlled and controllable. The reason not all elections get that attention is because they all aren’t that important.
The Hillary/Trump election was a “must win” for them so they threw everything they had into it and the polls seemed to tell them they had it won.
When that was not the case, they looked for who to blame when they found that it was THEM or the voters and that the deplorables had beaten them they blew a fuse and refused to believe it and those that did believe it decided to try and make it not have been. They probably weren’t really trying to take Trump down so much as to make his entire presidency one of ill repute forever more and that Hillary had to blame to share for it. For if she was to blame then they were also to blame for having pushed here forward as being the best and smartest all these years. And their pride would not let them accept that in the history books.
So they tried to change the history and accordingly made such a hash of it that this will go down and the era of the elite news stepping on it’s toes and almost bringing the country down with it as it collapsed in front of the world.
Our entire system of news gathering and vetting and corroboration (tho it was never all that thorough) has not been shown to be an empty glass that purported to be such excellent vintage bottled well and preserved for history to take in unchanged.
We now know that they will do whatever they wish and that there are no governors of their actions. No one watchdogs for them and that we must provide our own and can never trust them even again.
I’m skeptical as to whether the press will face any real consequences, except perhaps the reelection of Trump.
New Neo: They truly thought Mueller would find collusion, either because they really believed Trump colluded with Russia, or because they thought Mueller was partisan enough to find collusion where none existed.
Barr’s letter is not Mueller’s report.
What the letter asserts is that Russia interfered in the election (including by hacking and releasing Democratic emails), and tried to infiltrate the Trump campaign. Mueller did not establish that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with Russian agents; but some members of the Trump campaign, rather than informing the FBI of such attempts at infiltration, lied about their contacts with Russian agents. On obstruction, “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
There is still a lot that is unknown. Not “establishing” a conspiracy may mean there is insufficient evidence for an indictment, but doesn’t necessary mean there was no evidence. That Trump long denied Russian interference in the election is worrisome enough. That Trump lied about his business interests in Russia is especially concerning.
While it’s unlikely that Russia would have trusted the Twitter-prone U.S. president with direct communications, that doesn’t mean their interests were not aligned. Trump may think the Russians have dirt on him, or that he can make a lot of money in Russia. This is speculation of course, but consistent with Barr’s letter.
A more complete understanding may be had when the report becomes available, but apparently the Republican leadership is averse to disclosure. Presumably, they’ll drag it out while their minions repeat the “complete and total exoneration” tagline, even though that is directly contradicted by Barr’s letter.
Oh Puhleeezse. They’ve already started two memes. 1. That Mueller, previously the Savior of America and Hillary, is now a Putin stooge. 2. That President Trump is guilty, guilty I say, of Obstruction of Justice because, well, uh, the very DEFINITION of Justice is that he end up in jail, so if Trump’s not in jail, he’s obstructed it. Somehow. With Russia’s help.
Didn’t the summary state that there was evidence of collusion?
ConradCA: Didn’t the summary state that there was evidence of collusion?
Barr quoted the report as saying “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” That doesn’t say whether there is or isn’t evidence, only that the evidence is not sufficient to establish conspiracy or coordination. That’s why people want to see the actual report.
And, when a person wins in a criminal trial, the lawyers write that the person was found “not guilty.” Normal people can and do call that “exhonerated.”
Both the Mueller Report and the Barr Letter are written in lawyer dialect, not ordinary parlance. Trying to exploit this difference is predictably a losing game.
Valerie: And, when a person wins in a criminal trial, the lawyers write that the person was found “not guilty.” Normal people can and do call that “exhonerated.”
That Mueller reportedly did not establish conspiracy or coordination is certainly significant. But we don’t know the facts of the case either. If Trump were being blackmailed by Russia, for instance, he wouldn’t be charged with a crime, but it would certainly be of public interest. If he were trying to work a deal to build Trump Tower Moscow, which would require Putin’s approval, while running for president and claiming he didn’t have business with Russia, that would certainly be of public interest.
Similarly, Clinton was “exonerated” of having committed a crime during the email imbroglio, but her behavior was certainly of public interest.
Valerie: Both the Mueller Report and the Barr Letter are written in lawyer dialect, not ordinary parlance.
Oh, you’ve read the Mueller report then? In any case, Mueller reportedly did not exonerate the president on obstruction.
Obstruction of what exactly? If there is no crime there can not be obstruction.
Also, in the United States you only have to be “exonerated” if you are actually charged with a crime, otherwise not being charged is exoneration. You know that Innocent until PROVEN Guilty thing. Delusional accusations, bias suspicion, and politically motivated innuendo do not require exoneration. In the US you are either Charged or you are innocent, period.
Mueller’s unprofessional and unethical political innuendo be damned. Either there was evidence of obstruction, which should have been indicted or there was not. Since the investigation ended without indictment and has been reviewed for weeks by the DOJ, including Rod Reinstein who agreed there was no basis for charging obstruction that is all the “exoneration” needed in a free society.
Gremlin: Obstruction of what exactly? If there is no crime there can not be obstruction.
The government doesn’t have to prove an underlying crime to charge obstruction. That’s rather the point.
Gremlin: You know that Innocent until PROVEN Guilty thing.
Just because the president is not charged doesn’t mean there is not a public interest in any wrongdoing.
Mueller specifically indicated his report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction. That suggests there is evidence he impeded the investigation. While it may not constitute a crime, it may still constitute wrongdoing. Until the report is released, there is no way to know.
Addition to the list of hacks, just for research purposes!
https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/27/61-hacks-peddled-russian-collusion-never-trusted/
@Zachriel
“The government doesn’t have to prove an underlying crime to charge obstruction. That’s rather the point.”
No the point is that the government didn’t charge obstruction. Your “whataboutism” arguments aside. (Which btw, are really beneath you from knowing you here.)
“Just because the president is not charged doesn’t mean there is not a public interest in any wrongdoing.”
Uhhh, yes it does, because indictment is the way we charge with wrongdoing.
“Mueller specifically indicated his report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction.”
First of all Mueller’s statement was unprofessional, unethical, and should be investigated by the bar, because it was bluntly and purely political. Also, a Special Council doesn’t have the authority to exonerate or convict, they recommend and indict, period. Mueller’s “no decision” on Obstruction was a political stunt to throw a bone to the rabid psycho’s.
“That suggests there is evidence he impeded the investigation.”
Actually, it would suggest just the opposite.
“While it may not constitute a crime”
Then it is irrelevant, otherwise the Special Council should have sought an indictment, since they did not, end of story.
“Until the report is released, there is no way to know.”
Actually yes there is a way to know…was there in indictment? Answer: Nope! Case closed. Your side lost deal with it and move on.
Gremlin1974: No the point is that the government didn’t charge obstruction.
That’s not what you said. You said, “Obstruction of what exactly? If there is no crime there can not be obstruction.” You can obstruct even if there is no crime, such as if you wrongly think that your business partner committed a crime, then lied or hid evidence to impede the investigation. Even if they exonerate your partner, you can be charged with obstruction.
Gremlin1974: Uhhh, yes it does, because indictment is the way we charge with wrongdoing.
That’s not correct. There are administrative punishments, and in the case of officers of the United States, impeachment. For instance, Clinton wasn’t charged in the email imbroglio because the government couldn’t show the elements of scienter and bad faith which, according to the Supreme Court, must be present. But that doesn’t mean she wouldn’t be subject to administrative punishment, up to and including being fired. And because she was a public official, that’s a public matter.
Gremlin1974: First of all Mueller’s statement was unprofessional, unethical, and should be investigated by the bar, because it was bluntly and purely political.
That would be Barr, you mean. Mueller’s report has not been released, and that information is certainly something that must be provided to the Attorney General, and presumably to the House of Representatives which acts as prosecutor in impeachment proceedings.
Gremlin1974: Actually, it would suggest just the opposite.
Barr’s letter referred to “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions. That indicates there is evidence of obstruction.
Gremlin1974: Then it is irrelevant, otherwise the Special Council should have sought an indictment, since they did not, end of story.
That is incorrect. The Justice Department policy is to not indict the president. That responsibility falls to the House of Representatives which acts as prosecutor in impeachment proceedings.
“That would be Barr, you mean.”
No, Mueller, because there is no reason to believe, other than delusional conspiracy theory, that AG Barr is or would misreporting or lying.
Also, rarely are these reports released in whole and has already been stated repeatedly there are actually laws that forbid release of certain parts of the report. The AG has already promised to release as much a possible. Only delusional conspiracy theorist actually believe something is being hidden.
As far as Hillary not being charged, your assertions are ignorant at best, since anyone who actually listened to Comey’s speech that he gave heard him lay out a pretty much open and shut case against her, and then say…..”well but we aren’t gonna do anything about it.
“That indicates there is evidence of obstruction.”
Nope, it indicates that there are “difficult issues of law and fact. It in no way indicates evidence of obstruction other than in delusional fevered dreams of leftist.
“The Justice Department policy is to not indict the president.”
Also, not true, there could have been a sealed indictment to activate after Trump’s time in office.
What this comes down to is simple speculation and wishful thinking my people of questionable mental stability, that is not backed up by anything close to a fact.
Gremlin: No, Mueller, because there is no reason to believe, other than delusional conspiracy theory, that AG Barr is or would misreporting or lying.
It’s Barr who put the information in the public domain. Internally, it is entirely appropriate to discuss the evidence for and against an obstruction charge.
Gremlin: Also, rarely are these reports released in whole and has already been stated repeatedly there are actually laws that forbid release of certain parts of the report.
Some information will have to be redacted, however, the Congress has a right to the information so that they can make an informed decision, if necessary, about impeachment.
Gremlin: anyone who actually listened to Comey’s speech that he gave heard him lay out a pretty much open and shut case against her
The law requires the government show bad faith and scienter, which was lacking in this case.
Gremlin: Nope, it indicates that there are “difficult issues of law and fact. It in no way indicates evidence of obstruction
What part of “fact” don’t you understand? If there were no evidence of obstruction, then there would be no “difficult issues”.
Gremlin: Also, not true, there could have been a sealed indictment to activate after Trump’s time in office.
Current Department of Justice policy is that a sitting president can’t be indicted, sealed or otherwise. In any case, we’ll have to wait for the report to find out the specifics.