John Oliver revisits Stupid Watergate and Mueller

It’s time for an update on “Stupid Watergate” and the Mueller investigation on the latest episode of Last Week Tonight. It’s like Watergate, but dumber.

One year of the Mueller investigation is coming up. Or, wait, is it supposed to be a “witch hunt”, as Fox News commentators and White House inhabitants alike believe? Except that, in the last year, Mueller’s team has charged 20 people and three companies, and gotten five different guilty pleas. That’s an awful lot of concrete evidence, right?

While it certainly is, that’s not the whole story. Basically, the investigation is moving quickly. That’s important, because we should want to know whether or not a hostile foreign government hijacked the 2016 U.S. presidential election. However, support for the investigation is slowly but demonstrably dropping. That’s also a big deal. Waning support could embolden Trump and his associates to shut down the Mueller investigation.

So, let’s take a look at how various parties have tried to undermine the Mueller investigation. Alas, that means we need to head on over to Fox News.

Believe it or not, Rudy Giuliani explains it all best. “Eventually, the decision here is going to be impeach, not impeach,” he said during an appearance on CNN. “Eventually, our jury is the American people.”

Check it out below, with the usual warning about not safe for work language:

Impeachment? Think again

Right now, the Justice Department is sitting solidly on the notion that you cannot indict a sitting president. Therefore, for an indictment to happen, Trump has to be impeached. An impeachment, in large part, moves forward or not based on public opinion. That’s why all of the punditry and Twitter screeds matter.

So, what are some of the tactics used by Fox News and other sources to undermine public opinion of the Mueller investigation?

First, there’s redefining the investigation on their terms. It goes something like this: there’s no evidence of collusion, so let’s just end the investigation. Well, except that Mueller wasn’t charged with finding evidence of collusion with a foreign government. Instead, he was directed to look into “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”

These also include, coincidentally but vitally, “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” Hence, indictments for things like fraud.

Pointing to the lack of collusion evidence is rather more indicative of someone’s misunderstanding (willful or not) of the overall investigation.

Distraction

Then, there’s “whataboutism.” That tactic shifts the debate to someone else’s bad deeds, thereby distracting viewers and deflecting substantive criticism. Sean Hannity, as Oliver demonstrated, is the best at this game. What about everyone else who is only tangentially related to the investigation and can easily distract from the matter at hand? Clearly, if someone else somewhere has done a bad thing, that negates any wrongdoing related to the Trump administration, totally and forever. Except, no, it shouldn’t.

It would be like if every bad movie pointed to From Justin to Kelly, said Oliver, thereby getting a glowing review for not being one of the worst films of the modern era.

Of course, you can always draw on the powerful counter-narrative. These are scary stories wherein the investigation is all part of a larger tale, wherein all of the bad guys are teaming up to take down Trump. Hannity is especially fond of saying that “this makes Watergate looks like stealing a Snickers bar,” as Oliver pointed out.

Strzok and Page

Take a closer look at some of these counternarratives, however, and things start to fall apart pretty quickly. Oliver pointed to the tales built around FBI investigator Peter Strzok and attorney Lisa Page. The pair sent texts disparaging numerous political figures, including Trump, from August 2015 to December 2016.

They also discussed how they wanted Hillary Clinton to win and wished to open an investigation into her email controversy. Strzok, who was involved with the Mueller investigation when the texts were revealed in December 2017, was removed from the legal team. Page had already left that same team by this point.

Fox News commentators, however, seemed obsessed with the fact that Strzok and Page were also having an affair. They apparently used FBI work phones to hide the whole thing from their respective spouses, which is unprofessional but not necessarily evidence of treason. Furthermore, Mueller immediately removed Strzok from the team.

The Wall Street Journal went over the thousands of messages and found no evidence of a conspiracy against Trump. That didn’t stop Hannity and associates, however.

The most recent example of a counternarrative is the so-called “Spygate.” The basis of the story comes from the fact that the FBI sent an informant to speak with two campaign advisers who had dubious connections with Russian contacts. “That is the whole thing,” said Oliver.

Yet, it’s spun out of control, despite even U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy (famous for his repeated attempts to investigate Benghazi) saying it’s nonsense. Conveniently, even straightforward evidence is proof that you’re part of the conspiracy.

What’s actually come to light

This all distracts from what we do know about the investigation’s findings, which are pretty damning. For instance: we know that Donald Trump, Jr. purposefully set up a 2016 meeting with Russian representatives at Trump Tower, to discuss how they could help Trump Sr.’s presidential run. These included finding incriminating evidence targeting Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

Wouldn’t you know it, this actual evidence — which was actually tweeted out by Don Jr. himself — gets soundly deflected by Hannity.

If there is a deep state plan to sabotage Trump, “how the [expletive] is he president right now?”

There’s no point to following this, really, because “there will always be another rabbit hole.” That’s because Hannity and company are not interested in getting to the truth. They are simply more interested in sowing doubt via nonsense about the “deep state” and “witch hunts.”

Next: John Oliver talks senior guardianship on Last Week Tonight

These techniques are “depressingly effective” and historically familiar. “It’s basically the story of O.J. all over again,” said Oliver. This is a tactic to build up a wild theory that will convince people that the whole thing is a sham. Hannity is arguably equivalent of O.J. attorneys like Barry Scheck and Jonnie Cochran.

“The process of finding out is really important and it needs to be seen through to its conclusion”. Even if Trump is faced with irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing, he could draw on the support power of a deeply misinformed public to shut down the investigation. That’s no joke.