The Times added: “The stand-off between Reagan and Wright is certain to complicate the task of State Department officials assigned to carry out U.S. policy in Central America. Wright’s continued participation also will serve to bring additional pressure on the Administration to talk with the Sandinista government in a bilateral setting.”52
In a meeting at the White House with President Reagan and his top foreign policy team, “[Reagan] spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said that the President told Wright he disapproves of the meetings between the Speaker and Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega late last week at a time when Administration officials are refusing to talk to Ortega. Fitzwater said that Reagan, who has long supported the Contras’ effort to overthrow the Sandinistas, told the Speaker that by injecting himself into the middle of the Nicaraguan peace talks, he is ‘getting involved in what should be essentially a matter between the Sandinista government and the Nicaraguan Resistance.’ Indeed, after the meeting Wright insisted that ‘he still intends to continue meeting with Central American leaders and will make a trip to Costa Rica on Dec. 1.’ ”53
Again, there was not much uproar in the Democratic party-press about this or other instances of collusion and open interference by Democrats with the foreign policies of past Republican administrations. Certainly the mass media did not prod for or demand criminal investigations or a political reckoning against any of these Democratic Party actors. Compare these multiple events, all involving Democratic officials, with the press treatment of President Trump.
ABUSE OF POWER
Newsrooms and editorial pages insist that President Trump is frequently and relentlessly “abusing power” in more ways than one can count or categorize. By way of “news reports,” “news analysis,” “news interpretation,” “news roundtables,” “expert commentary,” and clear-cut propaganda, the public is served by the Democratic party-press a daily dose of President Trump’s alleged criminal violations, legal violations, ethics violations, norm violations, unprecedented actions, bullying, threatening, etc., suggesting or asserting that Trump is a tyrant or would-be tyrant.
A typical example: Huffington Post contributor Philip Rotner proclaimed on July 27, 2017, only six months into the Trump presidency, that “Donald Trump is using the bully pulpit of the presidency (emphasis on ‘bully’) to politicize the criminal justice system, punish politicians who won’t toe his line, and humiliate private citizens who dare to speak out against him. Whether Trump’s abuse of power is criminal, or only dangerously unethical, probably depends on whether he has crossed the line into criminal obstruction of justice. That judgment will be made by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, assuming that Mueller will be allowed to complete his investigation. . . .”54
Of course, Mueller did finish his investigation, and there was no criminal obstruction of justice. Rotner later declared that “neither criminal accountability nor the prospect of impeachment takes the full measure of Trump’s abuse of power. More important is the damage Trump is inflicting upon the rule of law, separation of powers, and the checks and balances that protect our democracy.”55
Rotner’s wildly absurd and hysterical assertions are not uncommon among those who work in America’s newsrooms. The mass media’s coverage of Donald Trump treats as a given that he is a power-hungry law breaker. But to what end is he supposedly so inclined? He has not financially enriched himself as president. On the contrary, he left a lucrative business career to run and then serve in public office, and donates his presidential salary to the government and charities. He is not an ideologue who seeks to fundamentally transform America into something it is not, and against the public’s will, as Barack Obama openly proclaimed, or like Senator Bernie Sanders and other Democratic candidates seeking the presidency have declared. Indeed, his policy initiatives range from mainstream conservative to even center-left in some cases, such as so-called prison reform, trade tariffs imposed on allies, price controls on domestically produced drugs, paid family leave, etc. He has not assumed or exercised presidential powers in some extraordinary way despite, for example, efforts to falsely characterize his use of the National Emergencies Act of 1976 and the funding of physical barriers on the southern border as such. (The president has both legal and budgetary congressional authorization to act.)
An examination of news reporting and media commentary over a score of months demonstrates that many of the president’s statements, decisions, and actions are met with a predictable and knee-jerk chorus of media excoriations and allegations. However, it seemed at one point that President Trump’s firing of former FBI director James Comey, whose resignation or removal Democratic officials and the Democratic party-press had earlier demanded, turned out to be an especially traumatizing event for the mass media or, more accurately, an opportunity for them to crystallize their loathing for the president around a set of accusations—such as “constitutional crisis,” “obstruction of justice” and “cover-up”—which, they hoped, would lead to his political and legal undoing.
The Washington Free Beacon observed that “Comey’s dismissal drew accusations that Trump was trying to cover up the federal investigation into alleged collusion between his presidential campaign and the Russians in 2016. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the firing was a ‘grotesque abuse of power’ by Trump and was the sort of thing that happens in ‘non-democracies.’ Fellow CNN analyst David Gregory said Trump’s actions and the subsequent White House spin demonstrated ‘disdain for the presidency.’ ”56
The Free Beacon also reported that “MSNBC host Chris Matthews called it the ‘Tuesday Night Massacre,’ a reference to the ‘Saturday Night Massacre’ when Richard Nixon ordered the firing of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973. He later added Trump’s actions had the ‘whiff of fascism’ to them. One of the reporters who broke the Watergate scandal, Carl Bernstein, said on CNN that the dismissal marked a ‘terribly dangerous moment in American history.’ ”57 Moreover, “ABC’s Cokie Roberts said the Watergate comparisons were ‘understandable,’ and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said . . . that the ‘echoes of Watergate’ were filling Washington, D.C. ‘The question this morning is whether the centuries-old system of checks and balances will swing into action,’ he said.”58
What was missing from most of these “reports” was accuracy and context.
There were many good and legitimate reasons for Comey’s firing. And many Democrats had been on record denouncing him. For example, on November 2, 2016, Bloomberg News reported: “Sen. Charles Schumer . . . is joining a growing chorus of criticism over FBI Director James Comey’s decision to alert lawmakers to new emails potentially linked to the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server. ‘I do not have confidence in him any longer,’ Schumer told Bloomberg [News].”59 On January 13, 2017, in a story headlined “Tensions Boil Up Between Democrats and FBI Director,” CBS News reported that “Democrats stormed out of a briefing on Russian hacking—furious with one of the briefers, Comey. ‘The FBI director has no credibility,’ said Rep. Maxine Waters of California. ‘My confidence in the FBI director’s ability to lead this agency has been shaken,’ said Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia.”60
Furthermore, on May 9, 2017, then–deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein set forth in a detailed memorandum titled “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI” the reasons he and the Department of Justice had lost faith in Comey and the basis for his firing. Among other things, Rosenstein wrote: “Although the President has the power to remove the FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the [Hillary Clinton] email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to gain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.”61
In fact, shortly after his firing, Comey
stated in a letter “to all” that “I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or no reason at all. I am not going to spend time on the decision or the way it was executed. . . .”62 Of course, a disgruntled Comey has never stopped criticizing the president for his removal, but at the time he understood it to be a perfectly legitimate and legal presidential act.
Notwithstanding that the “Russia” investigation was never hampered in any way during or after Comey’s firing—the president did nothing to limit its reach or funding—the “Trump’s abuse of power” narrative persists in the media. However, the fact is that the Trump administration’s use of executive power has hardly been abusive. Indeed, it has been unexceptional and even tame.
Again, perspective and context are important, given how reporters cover the president today. Hence, a brief look at history is warranted.
For example, David Burnham, formerly a New York Times investigative reporter, in 1989 authored the book A Law Unto Itself, in which he provides numerous accounts and extensive evidence of, among other things, the use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to target political opponents—both individuals and organizations—by past presidents and administrations. Take the presidency of the much-celebrated great progressive, Franklin Roosevelt. Burnham writes that “confidential government documents prove . . . that . . . Roosevelt and the officials around him did not hesitate to mobilize the IRS in efforts to destroy the careers of individuals they had decided were enemies. The records even show that on one occasion an inquiry from Eleanor Roosevelt prompted Treasury Secretary [Henry] Morgenthau to order a tax investigation of a conservative newspaper publisher who had become one of the Roosevelt administration’s leading critics.”63
Roosevelt was particularly hostile toward Andrew Mellon, a former Republican Treasury secretary and successful businessman. “Probably the single most brazen display of the Roosevelt administration’s willingness to use the tax agency for political purposes,” declares Burnham, “was its attack on Andrew Mellon, the millionaire capitalist who served as the Republican secretary of the treasury from 1921 to 1932. . . . Elmer L. Irey, the first director of what is now called the Criminal Investigation Division, acknowledged that Treasury Secretary . . . Morgenthau ordered him to develop serious tax charges against Mellon even though he knew that the just-retired treasury secretary was innocent. It seems unlikely that Morgenthau would have mounted such a campaign without the approval of FDR.”64
Mellon was harassed for years, with false charge after false charge filed against him. In the end, “all criminal and civil fraud penalties the Roosevelt administration had brought against him” were dismissed.65
Burnham explains that Roosevelt “was a driven man who did not hesitate to adopt questionable tactics to maintain his power.” “The Mellon case was hardly the only occasion on which the Roosevelt administration mobilized the tax agency for political purposes. From his very first moments as the Democratic presidential candidate in 1931, for example, Roosevelt had understood that Huey Long . . . represented a genuine political threat.” “The administration’s deep concern about Long was translated into action exactly three days after Morgenthau became Roosevelt’s treasury secretary . . . , when Morgenthau ordered . . . Irey, the man he had instructed to go after Mellon, to launch a second campaign against Long.”66
“Just how important the Long case had become to the Roosevelt administration,” wrote Burnham, “is indicated by the direct involvement of the president in an important last-minute aspect of the effort to crush Long: the selection and recruiting of a lawyer to handle the actual prosecution. The story of FDR’s direct intervention in the case was told by Irey. . . .”67 The investigation effectively ended when Long was assassinated and died on September 10, 1935.
According to former Hillsdale College professor Burton Folsom Jr., “Roosevelt marveled at the potential of the IRS for removing political opponents. Newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst also found himself under investigation when he began opposing Roosevelt’s political programs.”68 In fact, as Burnham recounts, Eleanor Roosevelt sicced the IRS on “conservative newspaper publisher Frank Gannett, who at the time was also vice chairman of the Republican National Committee.”69
Hearst and Gannett were not the only newspaper publishers the Roosevelts targeted. “Moses ‘Moe’ Annenberg . . . also drew an IRS audit—with 35 agents working for two and one-half years to prosecute him,” explains Folsom. Annenberg had just bought the Philadelphia Inquirer, which would become hostile to Roosevelt’s agenda. “Annenberg quickly became immersed in Republican politics, writing against the New Deal in general and competing against the Philadelphia Record in particular. David Stern was the editor of the Philadelphia Record and Stern enjoyed playing chess with Morgenthau and high stakes politics with Roosevelt—who appreciated Stern’s successful efforts to elect more Democrats in Pennsylvania. Annenberg’s conservative politics and his entrepreneurial spirit made him an effective Republican competitor in the newspaper and political wars. . . . Annenberg’s aggressive advertising and news reporting helped the Inquirer sharply increase its subscriptions and sales, and helped cause Stern’s Record to decline in sales and market share. On the political side, that meant more readers were absorbing Annenberg’s pungent editorials against the New Deal in general and Roosevelt in particular. . . . What made things so awful for Stern, Roosevelt, and the Pennsylvania Democrats was that Annenberg was selling his ideas effectively, making money for the Inquirer, and helping lead the Republicans to a stunning victory in the 1938 mid-term election . . . Stern was losing money at the Record and he turned to the government for help; in desperation, for example, he was able to get the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute Annenberg for selling advertising at rates too low. . . . The Roosevelt administration had a better idea: an IRS investigation of Moe Annenberg. Unlike Mellon, who as secretary of treasury knew tax law inside out, Annenberg was careless and paid little attention to his taxes.”70
After the massive investigation was completed, it was determined that Annenberg owed the federal government $8 million, which he offered to pay with fines and penalties. But Roosevelt wanted Annenberg imprisoned. “As . . . Irey told Morgenthau, ‘They are not going to have the opportunity to pay the tax [and avoid prison].’ When Morgenthau and Roosevelt had lunch over the matter on April 11, 1939, Morgenthau asked Roosevelt if he could do something for the president. ‘Yes,’ Roosevelt said, ‘I want Moe Annenberg for dinner.’ Morgenthau responded, ‘You’re going to have him for breakfast—fried.’ ”71 The goal was to remove the Inquirer’s owner as a political influence in the state by putting him in prison and end the Inquirer’s harsh criticism of Roosevelt’s policies. It worked.
Folsom also describes how Roosevelt intervened in investigations to protect his political allies. For example, writes Folsom, “[Frank] Hague was the undisputed boss of Jersey City. He initially backed Al Smith for president in 1932, but quickly shifted to Roosevelt after the Democratic convention; Hague promised the swing state of New Jersey to Roosevelt and gave the future president a spectacular parade with 100,000 present in Sea Girt, New Jersey, the largest Roosevelt saw anywhere during the entire campaign. . . . Hague used his patronage wisely and controlled his city with an iron hand. . . . Even with the torrent of federal funds cascading into New Jersey, and charges of corruption rampant, the IRS never made a serious investigation of Hague.”72
Nonetheless, the time came when Hague needed Roosevelt’s intervention, and he got it. Folsom explains that “Roosevelt was embarrassed by Hague, and never included him in his inner circle, but Hague was needed if New Jersey was to remain in the president’s column. Roosevelt was firm on that and proved it when James Farley discovered Hague had a crony at the post office who was opening and reading all mail to and from major political opponents. Tampering with the U.S. mail was a federal offense and some of Huey Long’s henchmen went to jail for misusing the post office. Farley, in fact, came to Roosevelt for instruction
s on how to prosecute Hague. The president, however, stopped Farley in his tracks: ‘Forget prosecution. You go tell Frank to knock it off. We can’t have this kind of thing going on. But keep this quiet. We need Hague’s support if we want New Jersey.’ ”73
Roosevelt helped a loyal Texas congressman by the name of Lyndon Johnson. “Johnson himself became an IRS target for failing to properly report income from his campaigns,” explains Folsom. “On January 13, 1944, just as six IRS agents were winding up their 18-month investigation of Johnson, President Roosevelt had an emergency meeting with Johnson. That day, the president contacted . . . Irey and began the process of halting the investigation of Johnson. . . . Johnson was not harmed at all. He had proven himself too valuable to the president to lose.”74
The Kennedy administration was also notorious for misusing confidential IRS and FBI information, as well as authorizing the FBI to spy on Martin Luther King Jr.
Recall earlier what Jeff Himmelman revealed in his book about Ben Bradlee, Yours in Truth, when “Pierre Salinger, Kennedy’s press secretary, negotiated to have Ben [Bradlee] come up to Newport, Rhode Island (where Jackie’s family had an enormous waterfront estate, Hammersmith Farm), to review FBI files that would prove that organizations spreading the rumors about Kennedy were shady themselves. This would discredit the opposition and advance a story line that the administration wanted to advance.”75
In his own book Conversations with Kennedy, Bradlee writes that “we [President Kennedy and Bradlee] talked about taxes and who pays how much. The president stunned us all by saying that J. Paul Getty, the oil zillionaire who was reputedly the richest man in the world, paid exactly $500 in income taxes last year, and that H. L. Hunt, the Texas oil zillionaire who must be one of the next richest, paid only $22,000 in income taxes last year, he said. . . . I asked him, since he had obviously done some research on the tax payments of millionaires, how much Daniel Ludwig had paid, referring back to the owner of the yacht that had failed to salute the commander in chief last month in Newport. He smiled but he didn’t bite, and then said that all this tax information was secret, and it was probably illegal for him to know or at least for him to tell me. I told him if he ever wanted to give a tax reform bill the last little push, all he had to do was let me publish this kind of information. . . .”76
Unfreedom of the Press Page 18