Category Archives: Media

What They Missed

Media, Politics

When the history of the “Resistance” is written, Friday, February 16, 2018 will be seen as a red letter day.  The indictment of 13 Russians and the organizations they created to intervene in the 2016 presidential election was important for a number of reasons, most of which were adequately reported on cable news throughout the afternoon and evening.

  • In contrast to the slipshod effort by Republican members of Congress to discredit Robert Mueller, including the Nunes memorandum, the professional and meticulous manner in which the Special Counsel and his team developed the case against the Russians put to bed any argument this was a “witch hunt.”
  • Rod Rosenstein’s decision to announce the indictments sent a strong message that he will not be any part of shutting down the Mueller investigation, and equally important, any move by Trump to remove Rosenstein would represent a clear case of obstruction of justice.
  • National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster’s comments at the Munich Security Conference that “the evidence (of Russian meddling in the 2016 election) is now incontrovertible and in the public domain, whereas in the past it was difficult to attribute,” speaks volumes.  While the information may have only recently become publicly available, is there any doubt the same information from which Mueller gleaned evidence for the indictment was also available to Donald Trump’s national security team?  They said as much at a Congressional briefing this week.  McMaster, therefore, has confirmed that Trump is guilty of violating his oath to protect the nation from foreign enemies.  It no longer matters if the campaign colluded with the Russians.  Trump will forever be known as the first occupant of the oval office to consciously elect to do nothing while the United States continues to be under attack by a foreign adversary.
  • The detail about the offenses which led to the indictments was a clear message to anyone who is yet to be interviewed by Mueller or his team that the Counsel’s office already knows who did what, how and when.  Perjury is not an option.
  • Nothing Robert Mueller does is unintentional.  The grand jury voted on the indictments in early February.  Yet Mueller asked the court to seal the indictments until yesterday.  One has to believe he wanted to send a message to those who, over the past two weeks, used the Nunes memo to discredit the investigation.  Was Mueller playing them?  “Here is how easily I can make you look like a fool.  You might want to think twice before trying that again.”

Not a bad day’s work, but there is one message which the mainstream media missed.  Maybe because it was intended for an audience of one, Donald Trump.  In paragraph #98 of the indictment, under the title “Forfeiture Allegation,” Mueller notifies the indicted Russians, “Upon conviction of the offenses charged, defendants shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the offenses of conviction.”

Remember, the investigation is not just about possible collusion during the 2016 campaign.  Mueller’s office is examining any illegal activity which might involve Russian interaction, including but not limited to Russian financing of Trump properties.   After all, Junior already confessed at a 2008 real estate seminar Russia was an “important source” of financing for the family business.  Imagine if Mueller includes the forfeiture clause in indictments against Trump and the Trump organization. Could Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago and other properties soon belong to the U.S. treasury?

Here’s an idea.  The General Services Administration is looking for a new location for the FBI headquarters,  currently housed in the J. Edgar Hoover Building.  How about the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue?  Of course, the perfect irony would be to rename it the Robert S. Mueller III Building.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Fee-FISA-Fo-Fum

Media

 

Magicians must love the mainstream media.  Magic depends on misdirection.  “LOOK HERE!  Because we don’t want you to watch what we are doing OVER THERE!”  If and when there is a second sequel to the film Now You See Me, the “Four Horsemen” will be played by Donald Trump, Devin Nunes, Paul Ryan and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Their latest act is the release of a memo which suggests the FBI and Department of Justice tricked the judges charged under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to issue a warrant to listen into conversations of Carter Page, a one-time foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign.  And right on cue, most media outlooks assumed the purpose of their performance was to discredit individuals associated with the investigation into Russian meddling into the 2016 elections.  All afternoon, the question on cable news and in digital editions of virtually every newspaper was, “Will Donald Trump use the memo to justify firing Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel?  And by extension, name a new deputy attorney general who will shut down the investigation?”

Yet everyone admits there is nothing in the memo which incriminates either Rosenstein or Mueller.  The target of the memo is the FISA warrant itself.  C’mon folks.  All of the cable news networks have very qualified legal correspondents with years of experience as prosecutors and/or defense lawyers.  What do you do when the opposition has a “smoking gun?”  You attempt to discredit the evidence in hopes the jury will never see it.

This was not the White House’s first attempt to cast a shadow over the entire FISA process.  On January 11, 2018, Trump tweeted:

House votes on controversial FISA ACT today. This is the act that may have been used, with the help of the discredited and phony Dossier, to so badly surveil and abuse the Trump Campaign by the previous administration and others.

I will admit I have no hard evidence for what I am about to suggest except what has been reported about how Trump spends his so-called “executive time.”  CNN reported on January 17, 2018, “executive time” is spent largely talking on the phone with advisors, lawmakers and staff.  Axios reporter Jonathan Swan described “executive time” as a rebranding of the mornings Trump spends in the residence (rather than the Oval Office) watching TV, tweeting and making phone calls.

One thing we have learned from presidential historians, the occupant of the White House does not change patterns of behavior on inauguration day.  They tend to conduct business in the same manner in which they behaved in their former lives.  Therefore, “executive time” was most likely something Trump did in his private life and as a candidate.  Which leads to only one conclusion.

There are two types of people in Washington this morning.  Those claiming the original FISA warrant and the three renewals were politically motivated and, this is key, have NOT seen the underlying documentation.  This includes Devin Nunes.  And those who suggest the memo is inaccurate and (drum role) actually have the security clearance to have read that documentation.

Remember, the impetus for the warrant was partially evidence from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that Americans were intercepted talking to Russians who were under surveillance.  The FISA warrant allowed direct surveillance of Carter Page, including conversations with other Americans.  Individuals who have seen the warrant and possibly some of the products of the subsequent surveillance, know who is has been on the other end of Page’s conversations.  One can only guess who those individuals might be.  But if any are either members of the Trump campaign or Donald, himself, as his defense attorney, I would do whatever I could to ensure that evidence never sees the light of day.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Why Insult the Mentally Ill?

Media, Politics

 

Pundits on both sides are having a field day with the release of Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury.  Many, including MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, claim it adds to what he and others had been hearing from Trump’s inner circle and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Trump allies have attacked the book as “fiction” or “garbage,” but most have not challenged specific excerpts.  (Perhaps they believe Wolff  actually does have them on tape whether he does or not.)

No one has enjoyed Wolff’s throwing gasoline on an already dysfunctional West Wing more than I have, but there is one thing I wish was not part of the conversation, attempts to assess Donald Trump’s mental stability.  Last night, there finally emerged a voice of reason.  Dr. Allen Francis, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Medical College appeared on The Beat with Ari Melber (MSNBC) and urged viewers not to confuse loutish behavior and unenlightened tweets with mental illness.

This was not the first time Dr. Francis raised this point.  In a February 14, 2017 letter to the editor of the New York Times, Francis wrote:

Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely. Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump’s attack on democracy. He can, and should, be appropriately denounced for his ignorance, incompetence, impulsivity and pursuit of dictatorial powers.

In other words, not only is labeling Trump “mentally unstable” inaccurate, it masks the fact that the conman-in-chief is a despicable human being by choice, not due to any biological dysfunction.  He is not losing it.  He is the same Trump he has always been.

So let’s get off the mental instability bandwagon and focus on the damage he is doing to the the nation, the Constitution, the institutions which are the foundation of a democratic society and the rule of law.

POSTSCRIPT: NOW A WARNING?

Some of you may recognize the title of this postscript as a quote by Madeline Ashton (Meryl Streep) from the film Death Becomes Her.  Last night on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Michael Wolff related a conversation he had with his publisher about the size of the first-run of Fire and Fury.  Wolff thought the book was “old news” and would have limited readership.  In his mind, the only contribution he made was to pull together in one place a more detailed and sourced chronicle of what has dribbled out from major news outlets over the past year.  And what every member of the White House press corps already knew was worse than the tidbits which had made the papers and cable news.

If this is true, then Wolff’s book is as much an indictment of the press as it is of the Trump administration.  If, in fact, White House correspondents were aware members of Trump’s own inner circle believed he was unfit for the job of president of the United States, why did they wait for Wolff to fire the first volley and then take the heat?  In the Colbert interview, Wolff responded, “I’m the only person who was willing to say this because I’m the only one who doesn’t have to go back.”  In contrast, members of the White House press corps feared losing future access to Trump and senior administration officials.

Let me get this straight.  You know the center of national power is dysfunctional and you’re more worried about your job than the national interest.  The fourth estate may not be, as Trump calls it, “the enemy of the people,” but failing to pursue stories which are in the national interest doesn’t make it our ally either.  Again, I ask, where are the next Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee, who will risk not just their jobs but everything to ensure the people stay informed?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Social Media and the Next Election

Media

Most of our assumptions have outlived their uselessness.

~Marshall McLuhan

As many of you know, my day job involves helping individuals and organizations approach life and business from a more creative perspective.  At the core of our methodology is the need to suspend judgment, those assumptions and biases which represent barriers to previously unexplored avenues of inquiry and analysis.

I could not help but think about what assumptions lay behind the Tweeter-in Chief devoting his first day back in Washington to a flood of provocative, questionably factual and in some cases inane 240-character pronouncements.  Surely, he cannot believe any of his “enemies and haters” will be swayed by the same narcissistic pontifications which are at the core of their belief he is unfit for office.

The argument, of course, is Twitter is the perfect method of communication in an era when Americans have increasingly short attention spans.   But what if that assumption is wrong.  What if the majority of voters are insulted because candidates think their constituents are swayed by platitudes rather than facts and cogent arguments.  What if the majority of voters put the same faith in Twitter feeds that they do in advertisements which promise they will become part of an awesome social experience if only they drink the right beer or brush their teeth with the right toothpaste.

Please note, I refer to the “majority of voters.”  Why?  Because I know there are living, breathing Americans who actually believe it is cool to say, “Dilly! Dilly!” much less “Make American Great Again.”  Why waste valuable time trying to convince them otherwise.  What I do know is a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction  in which the country is going.  They do not agree with the economic, environmental, international and social policies of the current administration and the GOP Congress.  These voters are open to alternatives, but refuse to blindly accept a different national agenda without knowing why it represents an improvement over what is being offered by Trump and his minions.

This is why I personally choose to blog rather than tweet.  And what keeps me going, in particular, are comments from readers who refer to the research behind a post.  Consider the following example.  Following the mass shooting in Las Vegas, I published a post titled, “Just the Facts, Ma’am.”  It’s purpose was to demonstrate how failure to renew the ban on assault weapons in 2004 had statistically led to more mass shootings and resulting deaths than might otherwise have occurred.  To my surprise, a loyal reader who I knew was opposed to new gun control measures including the assault weapons ban, sent me the following email.

This was a well-done post, I appreciated all the metrics!

This is not to say Twitter and Facebook do not have their place.  Not as the vehicle for addressing complex issues.  But as “pointers” to places where interested voters can access fuller, more documented arguments in support of a policy or position.  Ranting about Congress failing to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) has done no good.  Instead, consider building a tsunami of public support for action on CHIP by linking voters to the research conducted by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.  In other words, Twitter and e-mails may raise awareness, but awareness is not enough.  What is needed in any movement are knowledgeable advocates and evangelists.  And that requires they be armed with more than 240-character slogans.

So, candidates in the 2018 mid-terms and those contemplating a run for the White House in 2020, put down your smartphones.  Don’t tweet; take the time to blog.  Don’t just tell us what we should be for; tell us WHY!

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

All Deliberate Speed

Media

 

The late Ben Bradlee has recently become a posthumous rock star.  He is the subject of a new HBO documentary.  And he is portrayed by Tom Hanks in The Post, a movie about the decision to print the Pentagon Papers which exposed the lies being told to the American people about the Vietnam War effort.  Dear readers, you may remember I too looked to Bradlee for guidance on inauguration day 2017.  At the time, I was concerned the press was playing into Donald Trump’s tiny hands every time they erred in reporting the news.  Nothing bolsters Trump’s constant cries of “fake news” like occasional inaccurate reporting.

In what should have been the culmination of the best week for the resistance, the mainstream media has done something unimaginable. Three times in five days, they have buttressed the liar-in-chief’s charge the press will do anything, including make up stories, to take him down.

  • ABC correspondent Brian Ross inaccurately reported Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with the Russians about lifting Obama imposed sanctions during the transition.
  • CNN inaccurately reported an email to Donald Junior with the location and password for accessing Wikileaks’ stolen DNC and John Podesta emails was sent on September 4, the same date Junior tweeted this information to his followers.  To their credit, the Washington Post pointed out the email was actually dated 10 days later.  But the later date undermined the time line CNN and others were using to build a case for collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.
  • Until today, no media outlet independently checked the veracity of the high school yearbook inscription from Republican senate candidate Roy Moore to Beverly Young Nelson. Although Nelson says she only added the date and location to Moore’s message, not divulging this information at the outset damages her credibility.  In a close race, any misstep can turn the tide.

In the first two cases, ABC and CNN preceded their scoops with the word “exclusive.”  In an effort to post a story before the competition, the only exclusive thing about their reporting is how exclusively irresponsible they are.

But here’s the good news.  The only people who really matter in this national horror story are Robert Mueller and his team.  So  I again remind all of you who keep asking how long are they going to take, the answer has and always will be, “As long as necessary to get it right.”  Despite claims by Paul Manafort’s attorneys Mueller has misinterpreted the facts in their client’s indictment, no one, and I repeat NO ONE, has argued any of the facts are wrong.

The term “all deliberate speed” was first introduced in the Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas which ended the “separate but equal” doctrine contained in the previous Plessy v. Ferguson decision.  Sadly, segregationists used the word “deliberate” to claim they were taking their time to make sure it was done correctly.  However, in this case, all deliberate speed is EXACTLY what we need.

As Ben Bradlee reminded Carl Bernstein and  Bob Woodward in All the President’s Men:

We’re under a lot of pressure, you know, and you put us there. Nothing’s riding on this except the, uh, first amendment to the Constitution, freedom of the press, and maybe the future of the country. 

Where is the next Ben Bradlee when he/she is so badly needed?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP