Conventional wisdom among our top political journalists is that Donald Trump’s supporters will not turn against him — even now that he’s been charged with 37 federal felonies involving the theft and retention of documents containing the most highly controlled secrets of our military and intelligence services.
This is certainly true, at least to some extent. So inevitably, there will now be a mad scramble at the New York Times and elsewhere to find the Trumpiest diner in the reddest possible state, in pursuit of a bunch of MAGA-heads willing to gutturally assert that their great leader is innocent and that they will follow him anywhere.
There’s a better way.
I’m not saying journalists shouldn’t talk to Trump dead-enders. They should. But they shouldn’t do it stenographically.
That’s because the story here isn’t what the “two sides” say. It’s that there are “two sides” at all — considering the evidence contained in the indictment, including what is essentially a confession on tape.
Sure there will be some people out there – unclear how many — still defending Trump. But they are not doing so in good faith, based on facts. They’re repeating outrageous lies they heard from outrageous liars.
The very existence of the other side is an extraordinary phenomenon that must be explored – and never taken at face value.
What’s important is not what they say. What they say is gibberish. What’s important is why they say it, and why they believe things that aren’t true.
That’s the story of the decade, and here’s a sterling chance for some reporters to take a stab at telling it.
So when they find Trump dead-enders, reporters shouldn’t just be asking their opinion. They should be exploring their pathology (as best they can, which is not very, if they’re parachuting into a strange town for four hours before retiring to the airport Sheraton.)
How can they possibly believe that he’s innocent? How did they become so deluded? Where do they get their news? How were they raised? Do they have any friends or family who disagree with them? Is there nothing they could learn about Trump that would change their minds?
Those are the mysteries reporters should be plumbing. Not just getting a few quotes and sending them to the news desk before hitting the bar.
“How can they possibly believe that he’s innocent? How did they become so deluded? Where do they get their news? How were they raised? Do they have any friends or family who disagree with them? Is there nothing they could learn about Trump that would change their minds?”
They could start with Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik, whose wildly dishonest histrionics were recklessly irresponsible.
Did you hear Lindsay Graham on George Stephanopoulos’s show? That exchange is a perfect example of why the base still supports Trump. The mainstream “liberal” media seemed to think George S. responded strongly to Lindsay’s whataboutism distractions because George told Lindsay hadn’t answered the question. Apparently the fact that George allowed Lindsay’s wild claims about Hillary Clinton’s emails and server to go unchallenged was perfectly fine even though they have to know that those dishonest claims are a major way Republican leaders convince the base that there is a double standard when it comes to judging Trump’s handling of classified information. Stephanopoulos surely knows that Lindsay’s portrayal of the destruction of Hillary’s BlackBerry phones was done in order to safeguard the information that had been on them, not to conceal anything on them (because the info had been transferred to her new device). He also knows that one of Cllinton’s IT people has explained that practice under oath yet George let that blatantly misleading claim go unchallenged, just as he did all the others Lindsay made. Here is a quote from the testimony of Clinton IT aide Justin Cooper:
“… “it was not done in any way to destroy or hide information” but to avoid “putting it in the trash where someone could find it.” He stressed that whenever he switched Clinton to a new mobile device, he “felt it was good practice” to destroy the old one after all data had been transferred and backed up.”
https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2016/09/former-clinton-it-aide-describes-destruction-old-devices-routine/131501/
Chris Coons was the next guest, on to make sure viewers got a “balanced” view of the indictment of Trump but Coons did not push back on Lindsay’s slanders of Clinton. I am sure both of them think that Hillary’s emails is irrelevant, old news that shouldn’t be brought up, but as Lindsay demonstrated rightwing misinformation about that issues is a key justification for defending Trump that they are selling the base.