Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

Facebook: Digby Parton

@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)

thedigbyblog at gmail
satniteflix at gmail
publius.gaius at gmail
tpostsully at gmail
Spockosbrain at gmail
Richardein at me.com


Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic

Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Wednesday, May 15, 2019

The "where there's smoke there's fire" gambit

by digby

My Salon column this morning:

When President Trump's new attorney general, William Barr, announced at his first congressional hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he believed "spying" on Trump's 2016 campaign "had occurred," Democrats on the committee and many in the press seemed to be shocked. In fact, Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, asked Barr if he'd like to use another word, suggesting that the use of such an explosive term would "cause everyone in the cable news ecosystem to freak out." Barr declined and declared that he would be taking a look at the genesis of the investigation, saying, "I just want to satisfy myself that there were no abuse of law enforcement or intelligence powers."

Since Trump's incessant whining and complaining about the investigation is so common that people no longer take it very seriously, and only the most diehard right-wingers watch Fox News, a lot of people were taken aback by Barr's use of the word "spying." I don't think they realized what this strategy of "investigating the investigators" really amounts to. Neither did they fully recognize that Barr was not acting in good faith but rather as a hardcore right-wing partisan.

In retrospect, that should have been obvious from the beginning, and not just because Barr sent a memo to the White House (long before he was officially being considered as attorney general) explaining that the president cannot be subject to obstruction of justice laws. I'm referring to the fact that in Barr's previous tenure as attorney general, under George H.W. Bush, he tasked the U.S. attorney in Arkansas with digging up Whitewater dirt on then-candidate Bill Clinton during the 1992 presidential campaign.

As the legendary Gene Lyons noted in the Arkansas Times back in 2016, that U.S. attorney knew that the story was bunk as well as inappropriate and refused to proceed, telling Barr he would not be a party to such an overtly political act, and pointing out that "even media questions about such an investigation … all too often publicly purport to legitimize what can’t be proven.“ Indeed they do.

That investigation didn't proceed under Barr, but he'd set the wheels in motion for a series of pseudo-investigations that continued through all eight years of the Clinton administration. And what that U.S. attorney said was actually the point of the whole exercise. Republicans knew it didn't matter if the investigations of the president were based upon serious suspicion of illegal activity. It was the narrative that mattered. They didn't need to have a serious scandal like Watergate or Iran-Contra. They could the same model to leverage and pump up trivial or mundane events into major stories.

There were endless congressional hearings by the Republican majority in both houses of Congress and multiple independent counsels, all creating hysterical headlines which finally culminated in the Lewinsky affair and Clinton's impeachment. It was a right-wing production all the way. And it was highly effective. Clinton survived but the Republicans learned this was a useful way to keep their base engaged, particularly when the driver of right-wing politics during the 1990s, talk radio, was joined by the new powerhouse, Fox News.

Barack Obama was a harder nut to crack, but Republicans did their best. When the GOP took over the Congress in 2010 it immediately trumped up the so-called IRS scandal, alleging that the agency was targeting Tea Party groups for tax audits. There was also "Fast and Furious" about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms losing track of some guns, one of which ended up killing a federal officer. (The Second Amendment absolutists who refuse even to allow the government to track the guns of suspected terrorists never saw the irony in their hysteria about these particular guns falling into the wrong hands.)

And then there was Benghazi. That event, although tragic, was barely a blip in the history of U.S. foreign policy mishaps. But it spawned 10 investigations, six of those by Republican-controlled House committees and the others by the FBI, the State Department Inspector General and the Senate Intelligence Committee. In one of the most revealing comments ever made by a Republican official, then-House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., actually admitted that the reason they did it was purely political.

Benghazi didn't really hurt Hillary Clinton but it pointed the way toward the notorious "email scandal" that dominated the campaign — largely due to the media's longstanding obsession with Clinton scandals going all the way back to those heady days of Whitewater. We all know the result of that.

When Donald Trump started his term facing the most serious presidential scandal in history, however, Republicans had a problem. It was the FBI, the most revered police agency in the country, that had uncovered it, which made their usual character assassination a little bit risky. As we discovered, that didn't stop them. They went after the FBI as if the whole bureau was full of Clintons, not sparing even a thought for what conservatives had always held out as a sacred institution. For two years the president, his Fox News supporters and Republican allies in Congress built the "deep state" conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, which holds that the FBI was out to get Donald Trump during the campaign, and when he heroically succeeded despite it all, they set out to overthrow him in an illegal coup. (One has to wonder why, if that was so, the conspirators didn't make sure their Russia evidence got out during the campaign. Republicans don't seem to see that big hole in their story.)

Now that Republicans have a congenial attorney general, they are using the power of the Department of Justice against itself. In addition to the two ongoing probes into the origins of the Russia case — along with the Mueller report, which goes into these questions in great depth — Barr has announced yet another "investigation into the investigation," as well as some kind of cross-agency inquiry with the CIA and the director of national intelligence. It's a wonder the Department of Justice will have time to do anything else.

The effect of this isn't necessarily to put FBI officials in jail, although that's not out of the question. The point is to mainstream the counter-narrative. Here's a good example of how that works:

Beyond the public relations there are serious issues at stake with all this, as Salon's Amanda Marcotte points out in this analysis of Barr's latest moves. And there can be no doubt about the chilling effect these investigations will have on FBI and intelligence officials throughout the government. They will think hard before they take another close look at Donald Trump's crimes going forward.

On a political level, Republicans are running a familiar game which nobody should toss off as mere partisan warfare. It's a crucial aspect of Trump's re-election strategy. If they can engage the mainstream media and throw everything they have at it, they may succeed at confusing the public and convincing them that all this smoke they're blowing means there must be a fire.