William Barr Deceptively Reset the Agenda on the Collusion Narrative

Attorney General Barr, DoJ photo

In my previous post, I noted that Attorney General William Barr cherry-picked selections from the Mueller Report about Russian interference in the 2016 election campaign to emphasize information that was favorable to President Trump. Barr truthfully noted that Mueller did not prove a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign and that Mueller did not indict Trump for obstruction of justice. Barr omitted, however, that Mueller found many unsavory links between Russia and the Trump campaign that fell short of conspiracy and that Mueller referred the question of obstruction to Congress.

Barr knew perfectly well that he would shortly release a somewhat complete version of the report. Barr knew that the report would demonstrate beyond question that he had been deceptive and that there was much more wrongdoing than what his initial memo indicated. Nevertheless, Barr repeated many of the same questionable conclusions in a speech he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee after the report was released. Barr is no fool and surely knew that he was being deceptive. Barr knew that the public would soon learn that he had been dishonest. This didn’t discourage him. In fact, what Barr did was to set the agenda about Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. I have said previously, many times, that the side that sets the agenda wins the debate. The side that debates on its own ground usually triumphs.

Let’s look at how conservatives played out Barr’s agenda.

First, Trump’s long-standing drumbeat was: “no collusion!” In a narrow sense, Trump was right Mueller didn’t prove collusion. All he proved was that Russia and the Trump campaign interacted many times in ways that were favorable to both parties. Those were evil things to do and we all know that Trump and his campaign should not have done them. All the same, since a criminal conspiracy was not proven, Trump could claim to be exonerated:

Trump "No Collusion" tweet

Similarly, writing in the once-great National Review, conservative historian Victor Davis Hanson wrote: “Democrats have grown infuriated by Attorney General William Barr’s indifference to their hysteria over the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.” An article in The Nation argues that “Mueller’s report provides the opposite of what Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister or collusion plot with Russia, it presents what amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself.” 

Now, as I wrote in my last post, all of that is true in a very narrow, very literal sense. Contrary to many Democrats’ expectations, a full-scale criminal conspiracy was not established. Much of what was in the Mueller report made President Trump and his aides look very, very, very bad, but that now matters less than it would have. Barr set the agenda when his initial memo laid out only the extent to which Trump had been exonerated, omitting the many dubious activities that he and his campaign engaged in. Although Barr’s memo was literally true, it was deceptive to the extreme. Its dishonesty lay in lack of context. Emboldened to continue to ignore context, conservative media can now re-emphasize the “no collusion” narrative.

Seeing the Mueller report's harmful nature, Barr saw that his only option was to strike first. He set the agenda. The Democrats are now reduced to refuting Barr, which distracts them from attacking Trump. But you don’t win a debate just by defeating your opponent: you need to have a positive argument in your favor, which Barr help to preempt.

Comments:

One, Democrats had for years spewed out a lot of overheated rhetoric calling Trump a traitor who was a Russian asset engaged in a conspiracy against the United States. If these accusations were true, Mueller was unable to prove them. The Democrats would have been smarter to under-promise and over-deliver. They did the opposite. What was found against Trump was awful, but it was not as bad as what the Democrats had predicted. In other words, the Democrats did an overstated job of agenda-setting.

Two, to win a debate, it is important to stand on your own ground. It is important to emphasize your own issues more than your opponents’ issues. Yes, a debater needs to refute what the opponent says, but simple refutation is, as any debate coach will tell you, a weak strategy. Barr reset the debate on his own ground. On the facts, the Democrats are still far ahead on the Russia investigation. As persuaders, however, they are, thanks to Barr’s clever deception, playing catch-up.

Three, we all know that Barr was willing to sacrifice his reputation to defend President Trump. Why? Was this a matter of principle for him? Is he simply a loyalist? Did he find himself trapped in some sort of political intrigue? I’m sure that historians will eventually sort out those questions, but for now, we can only guess.