Off the Rails, Republicans, Tribalism

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decries “unhinged partisanship”

Mitch McConnell has a brazen, unwavering message to every Republican – from U.S. Senators to voters across the country. Get on board. This is where we make our stand. We lock arms with Trump and Fox News Channel and every other person, group, and institution that is with us.

McConnell, who knows a thing or two about unhinged partisanship, is reinforcing the party line.

This is tribal warfare. Republican leaders will put aside the nation’s welfare, fidelity to truth, defense of the Constitution, and commitment to the rule of law to dismiss the Mueller report. The courts must be packed with rightwing ideologues (to preempt any meaningful progressive policies in the foreseeable future); tax giveaways must be dished to corporations and the wealthiest Americans; and when the fiscal crisis finally comes,  there is a social safety net to defund.

This has been Bill Barr’s signal – from his 4-page summary of the Mueller report, to his news conference at Justice, to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This was Lindsay Graham’s signal, when he declared after the committee hearing, “I’m all good. I’m done with the Mueller report.”

These are the tribal chieftains  of the Grand Old Party – the ones a notch below Trump, but folks who are more entrenched; who play the game much better; who have been doing it for generations; and – along with others moving up in the hierarchy – will be doing it after Trump is gone.

And if Republican leaders stay on script — Attention to the Mueller report, concern with Presidential wrongdoing, commitment to traditional Congressional oversight are nothing more than unhinged partisanship — then this becomes an effective message for folks outside (or on the periphery of) the GOP tent. This message — repeated by party leaders and amplified by the mainstream media — will have far greater bandwidth than any Trump tweet or Fox News Channel broadcast.

Republicans who aren’t plugged into Hannity or Limbaugh; folks who voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016; low information voters, who don’t especially like Trump, but who don’t know why Congress can’t get anything done: they will hear a message that the dispute over the Mueller report is all just more bickering between the parties.

Mitch McConnell embraces the principle that bipartisanship harms the Republican agenda (see January 2011 quotation below). His signal to Republicans seeks to ensure that partisanship (which he is pretending to decry) is amplified. That intense partisan message helps Republicans muddy the waters regarding Trump and his Congressional enablers.

McConnell is a master of this game:

May 7, 2019 – on unhinged partisanship:

“This investigation went on for two years. It’s finally over. Many Americans were waiting to see how their elected officials would respond. With an exhaustive investigation complete, would the country finally unify to confront the real challenges before us? Would we finally be able to move on from partisan paralysis and breathless conspiracy theorizing? Or would we remain consumed by unhinged partisanship, and keep dividing ourselves to the point that Putin and his agents need only stand on the sidelines and watch as their job is done for them?”

March 24, 2019 – on Russian interference:

“It is deeply disturbing that the Obama administration was apparently insufficiently prepared to anticipate and counter these Russian threats,”McConnell said in a Senate floor speech. “It was hardly a secret prior to November 2016 that Putin’s Russia was not and is not our friend. And yet, for years, the previous administration ignored, excused and failed to confront Putin’s malign activities, both at home and abroad.”

Both former vice president Joe Biden and Obama White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough have accused McConnell of looking to soft-pedal their warnings about Russia interference before the election.

Date uncertain – on Russian interference: Here’s a quotation from Greg Miller’s book, The Apprentice, on McConnell’s role in squelching a bipartisan Congressional statement on intelligence officials’ conclusion that Russia was actively interfering with the 2016 election: “You’re trying to screw the Republican candidate,” declared Senator McConnell.

August 6, 2016 – on hijacking the Merrick Garland nomination:

“One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama, ‘You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy.’”

January 4, 2011 – on saying ‘No’ to every single Obama legislative initiative for eight years:

“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals,” McConnell says. “Because we thought—correctly, I think—that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.”

October 23, 2010 – on his paramount goal for the country after the 2008 election:

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

(Image: screen grab of McConnell’s remarks.)

2020 Democratic Primary, 2020 General Election, Democrats, Donald Trump, Off the Rails, Republicans

Democrats disagree about political strategy: Is Trump the problem or the GOP?

“I feel like the party went through this and the 2016 election showed that Trumpism isn’t just Donald Trump — it’s the entire Republican Congress, too. Until there is someone in the Republican Party who can stand up to Trump, then none of them are better than Trump.” — Rebecca Katz, Democratic strategist

(“Biden Thinks Trump is the Problem, Not All Republicans. Other Democrats Disagree,” Shane Goldmacher, New York Times, May 4, 2019)

Joe Biden is running on the conceit that Donald Trump is an aberration. And that he, Biden, can reach across the aisle to work with a cooperative Republican Party.

The former Vice President is either making a clever (if not quite factual) electoral pitch (which, while it may sound reassuring, is hardly something we can bank on), or he has a very short memory — because Joe Biden was there when Barack Obama was greeted with absolute, across-the-board opposition from the Republican Party.

Let’s recall:

Michael Grunwald, speaking of his book, “The New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era,” recounts a now familiar plot line for Time magazine (when the United States was poised to plunge into a depression):

It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”

Grunwald goes on to relate that Biden was aware of this scorched earth strategy:

Vice President Biden told me that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any bipartisan cooperation on major votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators who said, ‘Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ ” he recalled. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was, ‘For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’ ” Biden said. The Vice President said he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along those lines.

“So I promise you — and the President agreed with me — I never thought we were going to get Republican support,” Biden said.

Robert Draper’s book, “Do Not Ask What Good We Do,” describes the Republican strategizing at the January 20, 2009 meeting:

“The only way we’ll succeed is if we’re united,” Ryan told the others. “If we tear ourselves apart, we’re finished.” But, he added, he liked what he was hearing now. Everyone at the table sounded like a genuine conservative. It was a place to start.

“If you act like you’re the minority, you’re going to stay in the minority,” said Kevin McCarthy. “We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign.”

…

The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward: Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: “Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it — please?”)

Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.)

Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.)

Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.

“You will remember this day,” Newt Gingrich proclaimed to the others as they said goodbye. “You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown.”

Here is how Mitch McConnell summed up the strategy on everything Obama proposed:

“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals,” McConnell says. “Because we thought—correctly, I think—that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.”

Why?

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Want another example? There was Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi: the Republican never-ending cycle of hearings to politicize the deaths in 2012 of Americans at the Libyan embassy. Why? For political advantage, of course, as Kevin McCarthy (then House Majority Leader; now House Minority Leader) explained in an interview with Sean Hannity:

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?” McCarthy asked. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”

“I give you credit for that,” said Hannity. “I’ll give you credit where credit is due.”

The obstructionist strategy played out in the bipartisan negotiations leading to passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act in 2010, Obama’s major legislative accomplishment, without a solitary Republican vote in favor. Democrats made numerous compromises with Republicans (this is why we don’t have a public option*) before Republicans revealed their unanimous, remorseless opposition to ACA:

… [W]ith Obama’s blessing, the Senate …became the fulcrum for a potential grand bargain on health reform. Chairman Max Baucus, in the spring of 2009, signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working especially closely with Grassley, his dear friend and Republican counterpart, who had been deeply involved in crafting the Republican alternative to Clintoncare. Baucus and Grassley convened an informal group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the committee, which became known as the “Gang of Six.” They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

Baucus very deliberately started the talks with a template that was the core of the 1993-4 Republican plan, built around an individual mandate and exchanges with private insurers—much to the chagrin of many Democrats and liberals who wanted, if not a single-payer system, at least one with a public insurance option. Through the summer, the Gang of Six engaged in detailed discussions and negotiations to turn a template into a plan. But as the summer wore along, it became clear that something had changed; both Grassley and Enzi began to signal that participation in the talks—and their demands for changes in the evolving plan—would not translate into a bipartisan agreement.

What became clear before September, when the talks fell apart, is that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had warned both Grassley and Enzi that their futures in the Senate would be much dimmer if they moved toward a deal with the Democrats that would produce legislation to be signed by Barack Obama. They both listened to their leader. An early embrace by both of the framework turned to shrill anti-reform rhetoric by Grassley—talking, for example, about death panels that would kill grandma—and statements by Enzi that he was not going to sign on to a deal.

And, let’s not forget the Senate’s refusal to hold hearings for Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Mitch McConnell is especially pleased with himself for putting President Obama in his place: “One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama, ‘You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy.'”

When I asked McConnell how he felt about his legacy and Trump’s being so closely linked, he rejected the premise. “I don’t think so,” he said. “I think the most consequential call I made was before President Trump came to office.” I asked what he meant. “The decision not to fill the Scalia vacancy,” he said. “I think that’s the most consequential thing I’ve ever done.”

Remember: not a single Republican Senator moved a finger to ensure hearings for Obama’s choice (though there were ineffectual murmurs of complaint — I recall Senator Susan Collins murmuring — just like Jeff Flake and Bob Corker’s mild criticism of Trump, while voting consistently in support of Trump and the Republican leadership).

This, the Garland blockade, McConnell believes, will be his lasting legacy as Senate Majority Leader:

When I asked McConnell how he felt about his legacy and Trump’s being so closely linked, he rejected the premise. “I don’t think so,” he said. “I think the most consequential call I made was before President Trump came to office.” I asked what he meant. “The decision not to fill the Scalia vacancy,” he said. “I think that’s the most consequential thing I’ve ever done.”

Count me in the Democratic camp that thinks that Trump is only a symptom of an off-the-rails Republican Party.

*After posting this, I recalled Joe Lieberman’s threat to kill the public option. I don’t wish to let him off the hook for his misdeeds, but if Republicans hadn’t played Max Baucus for months on end with meaningless negotiations and compromises, the ACA would have passed with Ted Kennedy’s vote.

(Image: McConnell, Ryan, Trump, and Pence celebrating the Republican tax bill.)

Democrats, Income Inequality

Blue collar wages (inflation adjusted) finally recovered after Reagan era slide

Graph courtesy of Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. Blue collar wages hit a peak in the early ‘seventies. That was followed by a long slide downward, especially during the Reagan years and into the mid-nineties.

Sarah Jones at New York magazine reports that 40 Senate Democrats have introduced the PRO Act – Protecting the Right to Organize – to boost workers’ rights to organize, strike, and sue employers who violate those rights.

For the life of me, I don’t understand why Bill Clinton and Barack Obama weren’t all over legislation along these lines.


Donald Trump, Off the Rails, Republicans

Attorney General Barr’s disinformation campaign: the definitive assessment

Quote of the day from Benjamin Wittes, Editor in Chief of Lawfare, who reviews the Attorney General’s wrenching mischaracterizations to protect the President from March 24, when Barr sent his first letter to Congress, to yesterday’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Barr did not lie in any of these statements. He did not, as some people insist, commit perjury. I haven’t found a sentence he has written or said that cannot be defended as truthful on its own terms, if only in some literal sense. But it is possible to mislead without lying. One can be dishonest before Congress without perjury. And one can convey sweeping untruths without substantial factual misstatement. This is what Barr has been doing since that first letter. And it is utterly beneath the United States Department of Justice.

Wittes, who after initially granting Barr the benefit the doubt has concluded that his actions regarding the Mueller report have been catastrophic, analyzes “seven different layers of substantive misrepresentation, layers which build on one another into a dramatic rewriting of the president’s conduct—and of Mueller’s findings about the president’s conduct. It is worth unpacking and disentangling these misrepresentations, because each is mischievous on its own, but together they operate as a disinformation campaign being run by the senior leadership of the Justice Department.” (“The Catastrophic Performance of Bill Barr,” Benjamin Wittes, The Atlantic, May 2, 2019)

Years ago I recall hearing an expression, which was attributed to the speaker’s mother: ‘You can tell a lie with what you say and you can tell a lie with what you don’t say.’ Bill Barr, clever lawyer and ruthless political operative, has mastered the latter technique (albeit not altogether convincingly). I regard Benjamin Wittes’ analysis (as of this morning) as the definite assessment of Barr’s disinformation methodology vis-à-vis the Mueller report. I highly recommend spending a few minutes to read it. A couple of brief quotations hardly do the essay justice.

I’ll offer one more quote, where Wittes offers a link to another assessment (also worth a read):

The dishonesty only begins with the laughably selective quotation of Mueller’s report in Barr’s original letter, the scope of which Charlie Savage laid out in a remarkable New York Times article shortly after the full report was released. I urge people to look at Savage’s side-by-side quotations. The distortion of Mueller’s meaning across a range of areas is not subtle, and it’s not hard to understand why Mueller himself wrote to Barr saying that the attorney general’s letter “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions.”

(Image: Pinocchio via wikipedia.)


Off the Rails, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

Attorney General continues his coverup by dictating Terms of oversight to Congress

Quote of the day from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler:

“The witness is not going to tell the committee how to conduct its hearing, period.”

That was in response to the latest from the A.G., who is scheduled to appear before the Judiciary Committee this week. Barr says he’ll refuse to appear if a staff member is allowed to question him.

“Nadler, wants to allow all members of his panel at Thursday’s hearing to have one round of questioning of five minutes each, according to the source. He also wants to allow for a subsequent round of questioning of 30 minutes for each side, allowing both parties’ committee counsels to also engage in questioning during their respective turns — which has turned into a key sticking point for the Justice Department.”

“This is part of this massive resistance by the Trump administration,” Norman J. Ornstein, an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute, said Sunday. “It’s basically a middle finger to Congress and its powers, and we’re going to see what Congress does about it.”

Off the Rails, Republicans, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham averts his gaze from the Mueller Report

“I’m all good, I’m done with the Mueller report,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham in an interview with CNN in South Carolina. “We will have (Attorney General William) Barr come in and tell us about what he found. I made sure that Mueller was able to do his job without interference. The Mueller report is over for me. Done.”

Move along, folks. There’s nothing to see here.

Fun fact: Graham served as a House manager (aka prosecutor) during the Clinton impeachment. His point of view toward presidential wrongdoing was different than it is today:

“So the point I’m trying to make is, you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. … Because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office.”

Quotation from this video on Twitter:

April 27 update – Graham again as House manager:

“Article 3 of the impeachment against Richard Nixon … was based on the idea that Richard Nixon as president failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress. Congress was going through its oversight function …. When asked for information, Richard Nixon chose not to comply and the Congress back in that time said: You’re … becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with what we need to apply oversight to you. The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment, because he took the power … away from Congress. And he became the judge and jury.”

Quotation from this Twitter video:

(Image from wikipedia.)

2020 General Election, Democrats, Income Inequality, Republicans, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

“Democrats should court the economically anxious Trump voters who don’t exist”

While the headline, from an Eric Levitz post at New York magazine, expresses the point ironically, I am in complete agreement with the argument. Politics – and winning elections – is a pragmatic endeavor. Taking back the White House in 2020 is a crucial goal; disparaging voters who opted for Trump 2016 is not. A couple of key quotes:

“The politician and the public intellectual have two very different jobs. The latter is tasked with telling the best approximation of the truth they can muster — especially when said truth is uncomfortable or unpopular. We need political scientists willing to overturn our most cherished presumptions about actually existing democracy, historians eager to recover our republic’s most violently suppressed memories, and commentators who illuminate our collective complicity in contemporary injustice.
In certain contexts, on certain subjects, we need elected officials to do the same. But the politician’s primary vocation isn’t to speak truth to power — it is to win power, and then exercise it in a manner that advances the greater good. In a representative democracy, that typically means rallying the largest possible coalition behind you, your party, and its governing priorities. Depending on one’s definition of the greater good, that task may well involve a great deal of uncomfortable truth telling. But any politician who cares more about expressing (what she perceives in a given moment to be) the unvarnished truth than about using state power to improve people’s lives has chosen the wrong line of work.”

And:

“Many progressive policies and value propositions enjoy majoritarian support. But the percentage of Americans who hold the liberal position on each and every political question is tiny (as is the percentage that espouses uniformly conservative views). For progressives, there is no alternative to finding ways to make common cause with the unenlightened.”

(Image: Wage Inequality, Economic Policy Institute, from inequality.org)

Donald Trump, Off the Rails, Republicans, Tribalism

William Barr is first and foremost a tribal chieftain of the GOP

A post in two parts on William Barr’s shenanigans regarding the Mueller Report. [April 20 update: I’ve added a third part.]

  1. What did Barr do?

In William Barr’s notorious 4-page summary, he quotes from the Mueller report: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The complete sentence (Mueller Report, Introduction to Volume I, pp. 1-2) reads:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

From his summary letter on March 24, through his “spying” testimony before Congress last week, to his news conference an hour or so before releasing his redacted version of the Mueller report – Bill Barr’s intent to mislead and distract has been abundantly clear.

No fewer than five times in his news conference he says some variation of this: “In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign ‘collusion’ with the Russian government’s hacking.”

Those ‘other words,’ of course are a familiar Donald Trump refrain. Never mind that collusion – outside of anti-trust law – is not a legal concept Barr learned at the George Washington University Law School, or during his tenure as U.S. Attorney General, or anytime or anyplace else during his decades-long legal career in either government or private practice. It is a Trump talking point.

The Mueller Report, in contrast, clearly explains that “collusion” is not a federal crime and thus was not addressed at all in the investigation (Introduction to Volume I, p. 2):

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[ e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

Barr’s references to collusion include this statement from his news conference, which seeks to undermine the basis for the investigation and minimize Trump’s attempts to obstruct it with excuses about the President’s unsettled emotional state. Said Barr:

In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.


Barr throws up so much chaff here, it is hard to see or breathe. Yes, Trump was in “an unprecedented situation,” having won election with the aggressive covert assistance of the Russian government. “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systemic fashion.” (Introduction to Volume I, p. 1)

Yes, “federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct” with sufficient evidence of a national security threat to obtain a FISA warrant. Yes, there was “relentless speculation … about the President’s personal culpability,” based in great measure on the conduct in plain sight of Trump personally, and of Trump’s campaign and associates – and of their misdirection and lies to cover up their culpability. No, it is not a fact that “there was in fact no collusion.” And, grant that “the President was frustrated and angered,” does that earn him a pass on bad conduct?

Mueller’s report adds to abundant public evidence of Trump’s capacity for lying, which calls into question why we should be moved by references to the man’s “sincere belief.” While Barr’s assertion that “the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation,” is belied by the President’s refusal to sit down for an interview with the Special Counsel or to answer even in writing questions about obstruction of justice.

If the President “took no act in fact” that thwarted the investigation, it was not for lack of trying. For example, after firing Comey and learning learning that an obstruction-of-justice investigation into his own conduct had begun, Trump “attempted to remove the Special Counsel; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between the Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government.” (Volume II, II. Factual Results Of The Obstruction Investigation, L. Overarching Factual Issues, 2.b., p. 158)

Finally, “Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.” I’ll note, simply, that the Mueller Report has page after page of evidence of corrupt intent – and obstructive actions by the President of the United States.

2. What’s the point?

In my March 27 post, I suggested that Barr’s 4-page letter was designed to lock-in a false narrative prior to releasing the (redacted) Mueller report. The letter led to several days of reporting that Mueller had found no collusion, nor convincing evidence of obstruction. Barr’s news conference – an hour or so before release of the report – kept up the charade. Why bother, especially only an hour or two before folks could see for themselves that Barr was again spinning furiously?

Certainly Barr (as with many Trump associates inside and outside of government) knows how to play to an audience of one on TV. But far more significant to Barr was a much wider audience. Barr is acting as a prominent leader of the Republican Party (that is to say, his Tribe). He is signaling to Trump defenders – wherever they may be – that, regardless of how solid or extensive the evidence of corruption, instability, and wrongdoing is, the party line is unchanged: this was a witch hunt, his enemies spied on the president, they’ll use any means necessary to bring him down, and Trump defenders must continue to push back.

From Fox News Channel to Mitch McConnell to GOP Congressional backbenchers to the grassroots: Barr has a loud, proud message. He has stayed on message consistently, regardless of the logic or the facts. He has endured criticism and a diminishing reputation. So be it.

William Barr is demonstrating the remorseless tribal politics of the Republican Party circa 2019.

3. Barr as “Coverup-General” in the George H.W. Bush administration.

This just came to my attention, though it is hardly news, since it took place when Bill Barr served as A.G. the first time (1991-1993), under George H.W. Bush: he has a history of covering up for Republican presidents and cabinet members.

Noah Feldman at Bloomberg reviewed this history in January: “The most significant single act of Barr’s career in the Department of Justice was to advise President George H.W. Bush to pardon six officials from Ronald Reagan’s administration, including Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, for crimes associated with the Iran-Contra affair. At the time, Barr was — you guessed it — attorney general. His recommendation gave Bush the cover he needed to issue the pardons.”

Even before this episode, which garnered a banner page one headline in the New York Times, William Safire had dubbed Barr “the Coverup-General” (while the headline mocked him as The Patsy Prosecutor) for his role in resisting appointment of an independent counsel in yet another Bush administration scandal.

So, insofar as Barr has damaged his reputation (as I suggested above), it may be only because folks have poor memories that Barr’s reputation was not in tatters even before his shenanigans regarding Robert Mueller’s report. Certainly this history puts things in perspective.

(NPR and Slate also reported on this history earlier this year.)

Donald Trump, Off the Rails, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

Front page review: News of the Mueller report in American newspapers the morning after

Talking Points Memo displays an array of front pages from this morning’s newspapers, via Newseum, which has hundreds of examples (but requires a search and registration). As a quick look demonstrates, Bill Barr’s shilling for Donald Trump hasn’t found much success outside the conservative media bubble – but, in my view, Trump’s A.G. is savvy enough to have expected this. He achieved his purpose.


Donald Trump, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

Are Trump’s lies Strategic? Does he believe his own lies?

Benjamin Hart at New York magazine interviewed Daniel Dale, the Toronto Star reporter who has made a career of documenting Donald Trump’s lies (sometimes live on Twitter). Here are a couple of questions and answers that I found interesting:

After observing him so closely, do you think that’s true of most his lying —  that it’s strategic? Or is just a reflex because he’s been doing this his whole life?

I think most of it is nonstrategic. He says things like, “My father was born in Germany,” and you’re just like, “Why? What is the point of that?” I think something that distinguishes Trump from other political liars or dissemblers is how trivial and needless many of the lies are. These are not lies about him being caught in a scandal and trying to spin his way out, or where he’s trying to win some policy debate. A lot of it is just like Trump being Trump in ridiculous ways. To the extent that there’s a strategy, I think it’s often him just trying to escape a given ten seconds. Maggie Haberman has noted that he tries to escape or win a particular transactional exchange with no regard to what he said in the past, no regard to what he might have to say ten seconds or ten minutes in the future. He’s just trying to get out of the moment. It’s pretty remarkable to witness.

This is a question that comes up whenever we deal with someone who consistently doesn’t tell the truth: Do you think Trump believes most of his lies in the moment he tells them, or do you think he’s consciously aware that he’s not telling the truth?

A: There are a lot of cases where I feel like I can tell that he knows he’s making it up. And there’s some where he clearly knows. One example that comes to mind: At campaign rallies, for a while he’d be bashing the media and he would look to the cameras in the back of the room and point and be like, “Look at that, CNN just turned its camera off. You see, the red light just went on …”

Of course, that didn’t happen. That has never happened, to my knowledge. CNN has never angrily turned off its camera when he was criticizing CNN or the media. And so he’s literally looking his supporters in the eye and pointing at something in the room that is not happening and telling them that it’s happening. And so for people who say, “Oh, he believes all these, he’s just delusional,” I think there are cases like that where he’s clearly deliberately making it up.

(July 2015 photo via wikipedia.)