F*ck Silence

by Joe Walsh

  The Anti–First Amendment Culture

  It’s straightforward:

  One, yes, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube all have a left-of-center bias.

  Two, they’re private companies. They can have whatever bias and rules they want.

  Three, everybody else has a right to call them out and boycott them.

  Four, there is no role for government here. Government should stay out.

  I can’t believe that so many conservatives these days disagree with numbers two and four above. And I have to think that much of it relates to Trump using the First Amendment as a tool to protect his allies and punish his enemies—which in turn influences his supporters to view the First Amendment the same way. There are a couple of statistics that I think back this up. (Even though these statistics are about the news media specifically, the same kind of skepticism applies to tech companies.) First, for the last three years, the Pew Research Center has asked American adults if “criticism from news organizations keeps political leaders from doing their jobs.” In 2016, only 20 percent of Republican respondents said it did. In 2017, that number jumped all the way to 56 percent. In 2018, it was 58 percent.39 Second, according to an August 2019 poll by The Daily Beast, “43 percent of self-identified Republicans said that they believed ‘the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.’ Only 36 percent disagreed with that statement. When asked if Trump should close down specific outlets, including CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, nearly a quarter of Republicans (23 percent) agreed and 49 percent disagreed.”40

  There’s no two ways about it: Because of Donald Trump, a lot of Republicans think “their guy” should be able to run roughshod over the First Amendment. I have no doubt that this has helped create a culture in which Republicans don’t appreciate First Amendment rights. Take the example of a writer and professor at California State University, Fresno, Randa Jarrar, who reveled in the death of the late Barbara Bush. “Barbara Bush was a generous and smart and amazing racist who, along with her husband, raised a war criminal. Fuck outta here with your nice words,” she tweeted after the former first lady’s passing in 2018. “I’m happy the witch is dead. [C]an’t wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million [I]raqis have,”41 she added in a follow-up. Those comments are so revolting. They’re stomach-curdling, offensive, and incorrect—and legal. Regardless, almost 93,000 somethings—I hesitate to call all of them actual “people,” because you never know on the internet—signed one of those dumb Change.org petitions calling on Cal State to fire her.42 Should it have? The answer is absolutely not. I’m with Ben Shapiro on this one: “[H]er tweet about Barbara Bush falls squarely within the purview of free speech. It’s gross. It’s atrocious. But Jarrar has a right to speak, and setting the precedent that professors should be fired for saying gross, atrocious or impolitic things seems like a serious problem.”43

  This is how free speech works, my friends. It doesn’t screen for the quality of a person’s viewpoint. That’s exactly why Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Jacob Wohl, and the lot of ’em have the right to believe and say whatever messed-up, nonsensical opinions about politics they want to. It’s just that Facebook and Twitter have no legal responsibility to give them their real estate to say it. Thinking otherwise is not a conservative position. It’s a snowflake position.

  Chapter 4

  The Enemy of Democracy

  The Constitution is our country’s defining document. It’s our founding charter. It says so right there in the preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,” and so on and so forth. It’s also the guarantor of Americans’ shared rights—to free speech, to freedom of assembly, to bear arms, to due process. But there’s another way of looking at it that really gives meaning to what the United States is: The Constitution is the backbone of our democracy. It establishes a president and gives that individual certain powers and limits. It establishes a Congress and a judiciary and describes what they’re there for. It tells those branches together what they can’t do to private citizens. This all provides the support structure for our form of government.

  If Donald Trump has demonstrated over and over again that he doesn’t care about upholding this structure—that instead he’ll blow holes through whatever part of it is inconvenient to him—then it’s worth asking if he cares about supporting democracy at all: doing his part to make sure it works and defending it from those who attack it. The answer is such a resounding “no” that it goes a long way toward supporting my most consistent criticism of Trump: that he acts like a lawless king, unbound by the law, by the rules, by the truth, by democratic norms, by all human decency. No one who behaves like this is capable of being an advocate for or at least a caretaker of a form of government like ours.

  Congress created a Department of Justice, which has the purpose to “ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans”; Trump injects political considerations into its work. Congress gave the Harry Truman administration the ability to create a Central Intelligence Agency, partly in response to the expansion of the USSR; Trump has repeatedly called into question the CIA’s findings about, ironically, Russian interference in our elections. Congress created penalties for undermining the integrity of federal investigations; Trump obstructed the investigation into that aforementioned Russian interference. Entities such as the DOJ and our intelligence agencies, and criminal laws designed to make sure investigations stay on the rails, are some of the things that our Congress has created to make our particular democracy work better. Trump disregards these creations when it suits him.

  If he does this on our soil, what makes anyone think he would give two you-know-whats about democracy abroad? In the past, my party has proudly stood for the freedom and dignity of people in other countries whose regimes deprive them of those God-given rights. Trump stands with the regimes, instead. He stands with Vladimir Putin of Russia, who’s insulated by a network of thugs and whose political opposition and media critics often mysteriously wind up dead; he stands with Kim Jong-un of North Korea, a despot whom Trump calls his friend;1 he stands with Xi Jinping of China, he stands with Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, he stands with lowlife criminals who run authoritarian states that stomp on their citizens—or worse. And you know what they say about peer groups: when the character of a man is not clear, look to his friends.

  All throughout his presidential term, Trump has been antagonistic, hostile, or indifferent to democracy, depending on the circumstances. This is doing long-term harm to the presidency and the United States’ reputation. It’s hurting us here because it’s laying the groundwork for Trump imitators to inherit an office that he’s made weaker and exploit it even more. It’s hurting us overseas because the democratic allies we’ve worked with for decades to help maintain a relatively stable world and prevent the rise of another widespread, violent, totalitarian movement are looking at us like What the hell are you doing?

  Taken together, this provides a case that Trump not only is unfit to be president but should be disqualified from continuing to do the job. His bizarre obsessions, character defects, and constant lapses in judgment about even the most basic government functions—which directly limit his ability to do his duty—make him unsuited to be the chief executive at a personal level. But the things he’s done that run afoul of democracy make it clear that he can’t be trusted with all the buttons and levers that make it go.

  Obstructing Justice

  One of the most flagrant examples of this is Trump’s obstruction of the investigation into Russia’s meddling with the 2016 presidential election. Let me bracket this by saying that I know that everything about Special Counsel Robert Mueller is so partisan that it’s become really, really difficult for people of any political stripe to look at his work and the results of that work for what they are. Not for what partisan takeaways we get
about what the Democrats got wrong or the Republicans got right, or vice versa; not for what the media overplayed or underplayed; not for what they confirmed or disproved about our expectations; but for what actually happened. Mueller is an officer of the law, he collected sworn testimony and facts, and he used it to write a big ol’ four-hundred-page-plus report. That’s it. Let’s look at what that report tells us.

  What it tells us is that Russia did indeed interfere in our election to try to benefit Trump’s chances of winning; Trump’s campaign was aware of and welcomed the help; and the Trump administration, led by Trump himself, obstructed Mueller’s inquiry into that breach of our election security and integrity in several ways. That is the record. Period. Trump has claimed that the probe was nothing more than a “witch hunt,” but remember the question I asked about him or his lackeys ever backing up their charges of “fake news” with evidence? Trump and his lackeys have not provided evidence that Mueller’s findings of obstruction didn’t happen. They only say that. I choose to believe hard evidence over empty rhetoric. (I always thought conservatives prided themselves on doing the same thing.)

  Here’s what that hard evidence states, straight from the Mueller report to your eyes:

  In mid-January 2017, incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn falsely denied to the Vice President, other administration officials, and FBI agents that he had talked to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Russia’s response to U.S. sanctions on Russia for its election interference. . . . Later that afternoon [February 14], the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with [former FBI director James] Comey. Referring to the FBI’s investigation of Flynn, the President said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” . . . After Comey’s account of the President’s request to “let Flynn go” became public, the President publicly disputed several aspects of the story. . . . Despite those denials, substantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account.2

  On Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called [former White House counsel Don] McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn was at home and the President was at Camp David. In interviews with this Office, McGahn recalled that the President called him at home twice and on both occasions directed him to call [former deputy attorney general Rod] Rosenstein and say that Mueller had conflicts that precluded him from serving as Special Counsel. . . . When the President called McGahn a second time to follow up on the order to call the Department of Justice, McGahn recalled that the President was more direct, saying something like, “Call Rod, tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can’t be the Special Counsel.” McGahn recalled the President telling him “Mueller has to go” and “Call me back when you do it.” . . . McGahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the White House.3

  On January 26, 2018, the President’s personal counsel called McGahn’s attorney and said that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel and that he had threatened to quit in protest. McGahn’s attorney spoke with McGahn about that request and then called the President’s personal counsel to relay that McGahn would not make a statement. McGahn’s attorney informed the President’s personal counsel that the Times story was accurate in reporting that the President wanted the Special Counsel removed. . . .

  Also on January 26, 201[8], [former White House communications director Hope] Hicks recalled that the President asked [former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee] Sanders to contact McGahn about the story. McGahn told Sanders there was no need to respond and indicated that some of the article was accurate. . . .

  [O]n February 5, 2018, the President complained about the Times article to [former White House staff secretary Rob] Porter. The President told Porter that the article was “bullshit” and he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel. The President said that McGahn leaked to the media to make himself look good. The President then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make clear that the President never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel. Porter thought the matter should be handled by the White House communications office, but the President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file “for our records” and wanted something beyond a press statement to demonstrate that the reporting was inaccurate. The President referred to McGahn as a “lying bastard” and said that he wanted a record from him. Porter recalled the President saying something to the effect of, “If he doesn’t write a letter, then maybe I’ll have to get rid of him.”

  Later that day, Porter spoke to McGahn to deliver the President’s message. Porter told McGahn that he had to write a letter to dispute that he was ever ordered to terminate the Special Counsel. McGahn shrugged off the request, explaining that the media reports were true. . . . Porter told McGahn that the President suggested that McGahn would be fired if he did not write the letter. . . .

  The next day, on February 6, 2018, [former White House chief of staff John] Kelly scheduled time for McGahn to meet with him and the President in the Oval Office to discuss the Times article. . . .

  The President began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that the New York Times story did not “look good” and McGahn needed to correct it. McGahn recalled the President said, “I never said to fire Mueller. I never said ‘fire.’ ” . . .

  As previously described . . . substantial evidence supports McGahn’s account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President’s directive; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice, and should be raised with the President’s personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn. In addition, the President’s subsequent denials that he had told McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed were carefully worded. When first asked about the New York Times story, the President said, ‘Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story.’ And when the President spoke with McGahn in the Oval Office, he focused on whether he had used the word “fire,” saying, “I never said to fire Mueller. I never said ‘fire’ ” and “Did I say the word ‘fire’?” The President’s assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed thus runs counter to the evidence.4

  These are three blatant, clear-cut cases of Trump obstructing justice.5 I brought up another one of them in a previous chapter, about Trump trying to influence Paul Manafort’s cooperation with the investigation. You look at this conduct, and it is not aboveboard, folks. It is—bottom line—interference with a federal law enforcement investigation. I want to quote Paul Rosenzweig, a lecturer in law at George Washington University and deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush: “Obstruction of justice and perjury are far more important than most normal crimes. They go to the absolute core of how the rule of law functions in this society. . . . The system itself is designed to find the truth. Obstruction of justice undercuts the very foundations of the trial system, of the jury system, by denying the people who are going to decide what happened access to the truth.”6

  Presidents do not undercut the law like this. Conservatives don’t do it. As Rosenzweig added, “The rule of law that I understand to be the core of a conservative American principle, is one that requires consistency across time. It means that you apply the same rules to everybody.”7

  You know who does do nonsense like this? Crime bosses. Tyrants. People who think they’re above the law do this.

  Loving Him Some Dictators

  Hey, speaking of! Here are two columns, one of them listing the foreign leaders and organizations that Trump has treated with scorn, the other listing the foreign leaders and organizations that he’s tried to befriend or express admiration for:

  Trump�
�s Shit List

  Trump’s Crushes

  The United Kingdom and former prime minister and Conservative Party leader Theresa May8

  Kim Jong-un, dictator of North Korea

  Germany and German chancellor Angela Merkel, arguably the most powerful democratic leader outside the United States

  Xi Jinping, leader of Communist China

  Canada, the United States’ second-largest trading partner9

  Rodrigo Duterte, president of the Philippines, who supports the extrajudicial murder of even petty criminals11

  Mexico, the United States’ third-largest trading partner10

  Vladimir Putin, who sucks

  Pretty much all of Latin America

  Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, president of Turkey, who suppresses dissent and aggressively censors speech12

  NATO, the world’s most powerful military alliance

  Do you notice anything funny about those two columns? Anything strike you as odd?

  Look, I can kid a little about this, but there isn’t anything in those two columns that has been exaggerated for comedic effect. It’s just reality. Trump has tested the United States’ most significant partnerships internationally. He has bashed NATO—which helps keep Putin in check and adds meaning to our relationship with Europe, the world’s biggest cluster of democracies—since he was first a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Susan Glasser of The New Yorker interviewed ten senior German officials for a story about Trump’s relationship with Merkel and reported this: