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

"Danger, Will Robinson!" Jay Sekulow and the Lost in Space Defense in the Senate Impeachment Trial

United States Senate Chamber

“Danger, danger!” said The Robot in the Irwin Allen television series, Lost in Space. In Season Three, The Robot uttered the immortal words, “Danger, Will Robinson!” These were my generation’s catchphrases, even more popular than “Beam me up.” President Donald Trump’s lawyers in the impeachment trial seemed to have spent much time rehashing the conspiracy theories that circulate on conservative media. They only occasionally said anything that resembles legal argument. So, to no one’s surprise, but much to my bemusement, Jay Sekulow, one of President Donald Trump’s attorneys, ended his rambling Senate trial speech a couple days ago by warning that impeachment was dangerous:

“Danger, danger, danger!”  Sekulow concluded.

What was dangerous? Here is what he said just before:

“… if partisan impeachment based on policy disagreements, which is what this is, and personal presumptions or newspaper reports and allegations in an unsourced—maybe this is in some-body’s book who is no longer at the White House—if that becomes the new norm, future Presidents, Democrats and Republicans, will be paralyzed the moment they are elected, before they can even take the oath of office.”

This makes sense only if one thinks that the extensive wrongdoing – which President Trump and his supporters repeatedly denied before the truth became inescapable – is a mere “policy disagreement.”

Sekulow continued:

“Majority Leader MCCONNELL, Democratic Leader SCHUMER, House managers, Members of the Senate – danger, danger, danger. These articles must be rejected. The Constitution requires it. Justice demands it.”

So, did the President’s attorney refer to Lost in Space on purpose? Or was his mind just thinking about fictional dangers? Or what?  Had he had already sunk so far into fear and fantasy that he no longer knew the difference between science fiction and real life? All the same, Sekulow’s science fiction-ish conclusion suited the overall tenor of the Republican defense. The House managers’ statement of facts, supported by documents, quotations, and sworn testimony, made it impossible to dispute what President Trump did or why he did it. Instead, his defenders rely on fear and conspiracy theories. I think the characters in Lost in Space uttered the word “danger“ in just about every episode. It makes sense that the president's attorneys would do the same.

Yes, people who defend President Trump’s innocence are living in a fantasy world. We all know they will never admit it out loud, but they suspect that their defense is fiction. It is much-publicized that the President’s attorneys have up given any attempt to dispute even one of the facts that the House impeachment managers laid out in their presentations. But, as part of his fearmongering, Trump's lawyer took his defense into the realm of science fiction. Should we be surprised?

As a great fan of science fiction and fantasy literature, I nevertheless know the difference between fiction and real life. Sadly, I’m not sure that President Trump’s attorneys still do. Anyone of Sekulow’s generation knows about Lost in Space and Will Robinson.  But with fearmongering, not logic or law, driving his argument, delving into science fiction made perfect sense. I suppose.

That is because, from one viewpoint, President Trump’s attorney was talking about what conservatives seem to care about the most this year: fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of things that are different, the fear that everyone is out to get them. In my next post, I’ll illustrate the fear-mongering conspiracy theories that Sekulow used to support his “danger, danger, danger!” absurdity. Stay tuned!

For people who still value facts and reason, I quote The Robot again to characterize the President's defense: “it does not compute.”

Scroll to page S626 at this link to read Mr. Sekulow’s conclusion in the Congressional Record.  

Official U.S. Senate Photo, Image via Wikimedia Commons

The Virginia Gun Rights Rally and (Sigh) a Fake Founding Fathers Quotation. Why Don't Conservatives Learn History?

The recent gun rally in Richmond, Virginia was much in the news, and ended peacefully. Anti-gun groups stayed away. Speeches and statements were issued. Still, once again, a conservative politician popped up with a fake Founding Fathers quotation. What else is new?

Too many conservatives love to invent and spread fake quotations. Conservative rhetoric seeks to tie us to the familiar, comfortable past. American conservatives admire the nation’s Founders like demigods, like founts of wisdom: a wisdom that guided the United States’ to greatness. Unfortunately, however, the Founders were not, for the most part, a collection of right-wing fruitcakes. Conservatives could, of course, deal with this dilemma by moderating their views. Since they find that unthinkable, they instead tell falsehoods about our Founding Fathers. Problem solved, I guess.

Thomas Jefferson, Library of Congress

So, Virginia State Senator Bill Stanley issued a statement about the rally that said this:

“Thomas Jefferson once said that the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Here at the Capitol today, we had tens of thousands of citizens from across the Commonwealth of Virginia and some even from out-of-state, in response to the liberal left’s gun control agenda.” (italics added)

Stanley is wrong. Thomas Jefferson said nothing of the kind. Anna Berkes of the Jefferson Library in Monticello writes: “This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.” She studied several collections of Jefferson’s writings to be sure. In fact, the fake Jefferson quotation that “the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” first appeared in the late 20th century, more than 160 years after the Sage of Monticello passed into eternity. Right-wingers have been repeating it ever since.

Continuing with a tad of paranoia, Stanley's statement said: “Therefore, it is clear to the actual majority of Virginians that the proposed ‘commonsense’ gun legislation is just a cover by the liberal left to confiscate guns, limit our freedoms, and create a tyranny from our democracy.” Clever, plus the meticulous redundancy of “liberal” and “left,” just to make sure we understand his outrage.

Why do fake quotations like this circulate so much? Why do people believe them? And what is their persuasive purpose?

First, fake quotations circulate because people are careless and uninformed. Senator Stanley is a lawyer who graduated from very good colleges. There is no excuse for the fact that he did not check his research.

Second, quotations like Jefferson’s reinforce people’s pre-existing beliefs. Gun rights advocates have been howling about their supposedly lost rights, and fake quotations that make Jefferson sound angry and strident make them feel self-righteous.

Third, conservatism comes from history. The whole idea of being a conservative is to learn from the past. That is a wonderful thing. The past has much to teach us. Our nation’s Founders were far from perfect, but they said many wise things that we should take seriously. However, I am sorry to say, many Americans forget everything they learned in their history classes as soon as the final exam is over. Too many people just didn’t care to learn from the past. It seems like hard work. Nevertheless, to be a conservative, you need to know history. Senator Stanley masquerades as a conservative, but it appears that his conservative opinions partly arise from falsehood.

The truth: our Founding Fathers did not want an undisciplined citizen militia to roam the country and shoot firearms every time they dislike a government policy. Indeed, the United States Constitution opposes insurrections. In Article 1, Section 8, we read that one of the Congress’s powers is: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” So, contrary to Senator Stanley, it is not the citizen militia’s job to cause insurrections. Indeed, Senator Stanley’s statement with its fake quotation could easily be viewed as disloyal to the United States and his oath of office.

Contrary to the world of George Orwell’s novel 1984, ignorance is not strength. If conservatives want people like me to take them seriously, they need to quit misrepresenting the United States’ Founding Fathers.


I wrote an article a few years ago about fake gun control quotations. Interested readers can either pay for a download or visit their library, which can probably get the article at no charge.