“The trial of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann crossed a critical threshold Friday (May 20),” Jonathan Turley writes at The Hill, “when a key witness uttered the name ‘Hillary Clinton’ in conjunction with a plan to spread the false Alfa Bank Russian collusion claim before the 2016 presidential election.”

The witness: Robby Mook, who managed Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign.

The revelation: According to Mook, Clinton personally approved the initial disinformation campaign that eventually became “Russiagate,” an attempt to explain/excuse Clinton’s poor performance and ultimate loss, and Donald Trump’s victory, as a function of Russian “meddling” in the election.

Sussmann is on trial for lying to the FBI — namely, misrepresenting himself as an independent actor rather than a Clinton campaign operative when he brought faked-up “evidence” of a communications channel running between the Trump campaign and Russia’s Alfa Bank to the bureau’s attention in 2016.

It was clear from the beginning that there wasn’t much substance to Russiagate. Its wild claims were held together with lots of duct tape and chewing gum, falling apart under even cursory examination, and the whole thing was finally revealed as a Seinfeld-like “show about nothing” in special counsel Robert Mueller’s 2019 report.

It was also clear from the beginning that it was a “pot calling the kettle black” situation, insofar as the Clinton campaign itself  “colluded” with Russian sources to get “dirt” on Trump, even as it accused him of doing the same to get “dirt” on her.

Those sources — tapped by former MI6 Russia Desk head Christopher Steele, on behalf of a firm (Fusion GPS)  acting as a Clinton campaign “deniability” cut-out — provided the content of the “Steele Dossier” the Clinton campaign later used to push the Russiagate scam.

It’s unlikely that Clinton will ever face criminal penalties or other severe consequences — beyond of course, losing a presidential election and discrediting herself in ways that preclude a comeback — for her leading role in this substanceless melodrama.

The best we can hope for is that history will treat her as very much the political twin of Donald Trump — a con artist, a sore loser, and a Big Liar.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Failed gun legislation is the norm,” reads the headline at Axios, “after mass shootings like Buffalo tragedy.” Further down in the story, we read that an October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas “prompted fresh calls from lawmakers on both sides to pass gun control legislation.”

Also relating to the Buffalo shooting, the Sunbury, Pennsylvania Daily Item reports that it “prompted GOP legislative leaders to call Monday for the reinstatement of New York’s death penalty law for murders fueled by racism and hatred.”

I read a lot of news stories each and every day, and I’m always surprised at how often I see various events characterized as “prompting” calls for action — the same calls, for the same actions, from the same people who were making exactly the same calls for exactly the same actions long before the events in question.

In context, use of the word “prompt” COULD be correct in the theatrical sense: A cue for an actor to read well-memorized lines at the most opportune time.

But in context, most of these stories seem to use it in a different sense, per the 1913 edition of Webster‘s: “To instigate; to incite …. To suggest; to dictate.”

That is, the stories would have us believe that the “prompted” politicians and activists weren’t pushing for Policy X before Event Y, but are doing so now because of Event Y. They once were blind but now can see, see?

In reality, most of us don’t change our minds very often, or about very many things. And politicians and activists  resemble that remark on steroids.

They got where they are — whether it’s the US House of Representatives or the leadership of the Brady Campaign to Encourage … er, “United Against” … Gun Violence — by advocating for or against Policy X. Abandoning that advocacy isn’t a sound job security move; doubling down on it is.

Politicians and activists genuinely changing their minds is  extremely rare. When a politician even pretends to do so, it’s usually at a glacial pace and in an effort to get more in step with his or her party or faction so as to receive promotions (for example, see the correlation between Joe Biden’s presidential campaigns and his positions on abortion over the decades).

In most cases, claims of Event X “prompting” calls for Policy Y should be understood to mean “Supporters of Policy Y Seize Opportunity to Grandstand on Event X.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Word choices by politicians and activists matter,” writes Matt Yglesias. “[S]wing voters tend to self-identify as moderate, and as a result, people who want to win should try to portray their ideas as moderate, common-sense reforms rather than sweeping vehicles for change. At the same time, words are not magic.”

I disagree, but context matters. Yglesias is discussing whether terms like “Medicare for All” and “pro-choice” can do the heavy lifting for candidates and activists if the policies they’re used to promote aren’t as sound  as the slogans are catchy. He’s correct as far as he goes. “Free ice cream” sounds great, but if it comes with a “minimum $10 tip” disclaimer in the fine print, it probably won’t get quite so many takers.

But words ARE magic. Well-chosen words — especially words that poke at our existing inclinations or fears — can move the individuals hearing or reading them that first and most important step down one path or another, after which the path is like as not to become a set of rails that tend to keep one moving down the same track.

As Mark Twain noted more than a century ago, “the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — ’tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning.”

There’s a reason why the two major sides of the abortion debate call themselves “pro-choice” and “pro-life” (who could be against either “choice” or “life?”), but come up with less flattering names for their counterparts. The devil is in the details, and once you’re committed the details tend to matter less.

Put to their worst use, words become “black” rather than “white” magic.

See what I did there? Those terms don’t seem to have arisen from racial stereotypes, but to, say a late 19th-century “white” American the term “black magic” would have evoked Haitian Vodou and other African or African-adjacent practices. That’s the lightning. “Low magic” or “left-hand path” are just lightning-bugs.

One current (and related) example of “black magic” verbiage is “Replacement Theory” — the claim that suspect elites are behind a plot to replace “white” Americans with voters of darker skin hue for nefarious political purposes.

In reality, “Replacement Theory” isn’t actually about “replacement.” It’s about people moving from one place to another, members of various groups inter-marrying, things changing as they always have and always will.

But with the word “replacement,” its advocates bottle some big-time lightning by triggering a basic insecurity. Who considers being “replaced” a positive thing? Those who buy the initial premise are stepping onto the path marked “Now Boarding: Crazy Train.”

Words ARE magic — powerful magic. Be careful how you listen to them and use them.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY