Jay Sekulow Defended President Trump by Spewing Silly Conspiracy Theories. Why Are You Surprised?

"Danger, danger, danger"

Jay Sekulow, one of Donald Trump’s attorneys during the Senate impeachment trial that seems to be wrapping up, spoke on January 28 to continue his defense of Donald Trump against charges that he abused power and obstructed Congress in connection with his Ukraine phone call.

My previous post looked at Sekulow’s phrasing, which was reminiscent of the phrase “danger, danger” from the old TV show Lost in Space. But fear appeals have long been basic to conservative rhetoric, as Richard Hofstadter noted many years ago when he wrote about the “Paranoid Style in American Politics.” Everyone is out to get them, they think. They think that even the most innocent acts represent underhanded conspiracies. In graduate school, I wrote a term paper about Gary Allen’s bizarre book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy. But, when I was a youth, John A. Stormer’s None Dare Call It Treason was even more popular and only slightly less bizarre. People are always willing to pay good money to hear nutty paranoia. Sekulow’s presentation in the Senate stood firmly in that tradition. He spewed three interconnected, illogical conspiracy theories to distract voters’ attention from the issues that Trump’s conduct raised.

Early in his disorganized, sometimes-incoherent speech, Sekulow focused, neither on legal arguments nor evidence, but on fear:

US Senate Chamber

“In our presentation so far, you have now heard from legal scholars from a variety of schools of thought, from a variety of political backgrounds, but they do have a common theme with a dire warning—danger, danger, danger. To lower the bar of impeachment based on these Articles of Impeachment would impact the functioning of our constitutional Republic and the framework of that Constitution for generations.” [italics added] He spun out three conspiracy theories:

Conspiracy Theory #1: Crossfire Hurricane

Taking up standard right-wing talking points, Sekulow complained about Crossfire Hurricane, an FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He depicted this, not as an attempt to protect our security, but as a politically motivated attempt to sabotage Trump’s campaign.

However, Sekulow got his facts mixed up.

An AP fact check found that Sekulow greatly exaggerated when he claimed that Trump himself was under investigation. Sekulow also ignored one obvious point, which is that nobody becomes immune to investigation just because he or she is running might be running for president when he or she commits a crime. It also ignores another obvious point, that the FBI did not disclose its investigation during the campaign, and thus Operation Crossfire had no effect on the outcome. Sekulow also ignored a third obvious point, which is that the Ukraine phone call was entirely different from anything that Crossfire Hurricane investigated. This section of Sekulow's speech was misdirection.

Conspiracy Theory #2: The FBI Lovers

Sekulow then moved on to two of the conservative media’s favorite whipping posts: FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The two agents, who were having an adulterous affair, exchanged text messages opposing Trump’s candidacy while they were engaged in investigations relevant to the campaign. Page, as it happens, soon left the FBI while Strzok was immediately reassigned from the investigation. Critically, neither of these agents was involved in investigating Trump’s Ukraine call, which was supposedly the trial’s topic, but rather they participated for a time in a previous investigation.

This was also misdirection. Strzok and Page were irrelevant to the issue at hand. However, Sekulow’s goal was to spread fear – to express paranoia – to show that the FBI was out to get Trump. Somebody might think this is odd, since the FBI did not investigate the Ukraine call, but Sekulow was rolling. His goal was to locate the Ukraine investigation – which established Trump’s misconduct – in a larger campaign to discredit Trump. If he could discredit the first investigation, Sekulow could squirt octopus ink over the second.

Sekulow was not finished with the Page-Strzok conspiracy theory. Improbably trying to discredit Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Sekulow took up a point that President Trump himself had been spreading: that Mueller had destroyed evidence, possibly in a criminal matter, by deleting content from Strzok and Page’s cell phones. So it seems, he tried to tie Robert Mueller in with the Page-Strzok conspiracy. Here is how he packaged it:

"Then we have a special counsel investigation. Lisa Page, Agent Strzok—I am not going to go into the details. You know them. They are not in controversy. They are uncontroverted. The facts are clear. But does it bother your sense of justice even a little bit—even a little bit—that Bob Mueller allowed the evidence on the phones of those agents to be wiped clean while there was an investigation going on by the inspector general?"

Given Robert Mueller’s sterling reputation, this sounds unlikely. And, indeed, the Annenberg School of Communication’s FactCheck.org found that it was routine to wipe cell phones when an agent left a particular office, and that this was done before there was any reason for suspicion. FactCheck.org termed the accusation “baseless.”

Baseless or not, Sekulow continued to pound on this point – which had no obvious relevance to the truth of the House impeachment investigation into the Ukraine call. So, on to Conspiracy Theory #3.

Conspiracy Theory #3: Robert Mueller Had Special Immunity

A standard Republican talking point holds that Mueller cleared Donald Trump. Nevertheless, another standard Republican talking point says that Mueller conspired against Trump. Don’t try to make that sound consistent. It isn’t. But conspiracy theories never are. So, Sekulow continued to imply that Mueller got away with something criminal which, in turn may have been to Trump's detriment:

"Now, if you did it, or if you did it, Manager SCHIFF, or if you did it, Manager JEFFRIES, or if I did that—destroyed evidence—if anyone in this Chamber did this, we would be in serious trouble. Their serious trouble is their getting fired. Bob Mueller’s explanation for it is, I don’t know what happened. I don’t know what happened. I can’t recall conversations. You can’t view this case in a vacuum."

That passage packed together sinister themes that conspiracy theorists have used for centuries: (1) that there is a larger, sinister pattern, (2) that the alleged conspirator did something that would get anyone else in trouble, while the alleged conspirator was safe because the conspiracy would protect its participants, and (3) misquoting the alleged conspirator. Note that Sekulow was extremely careful neither to quote Mueller’s exact words nor to provide a citation. Any good lawyer would have done both if he had a good argument.

Don’t forget, please, that the House impeachment was based not on the Mueller investigation, but on unrelated alleged misconduct that occurred much more recently.

Impeachment: Danger!

And, of course, Sekulow repeated his theme: “danger, danger, danger:”

"But to have a removal of a duly elected president based on policy differences is not what the Framers intended. If you lower the bar that way, danger, danger, danger, because the next President or the one after that—he or she would be held to that same standard." [Italics added]

So, the president’s attorney continued his theme: danger. Fear. Paranoia. His off-the-wall conspiracy theories amplified a feeling of danger, of menace, that his arguments could otherwise not support.

Yet, the real danger comes when we believe in a conspiracy for which there is no real evidence. And that, my dear reader, is why Sekulow’s speech was so regrettable.

In an upcoming post, I'll explain some of the theory behind conspiracy rhetoric. Keep reading!

P.S.: Why did I bring up the Lost in Space theme? First, it fit like a glove. Second, in my opinion, logical argument can refute a conspiracy theory, but only well-deserved ridicule can destroy it.

                                                                         

Click this link to read Sekulow’s speech, which begins on page S622.

Image credits:

Danger sign: William Harpine

Senate Chamber: official United States Senate photo, via Wikimedia Commons