Hysteria vs. The White House: What’s Different This Time, Part 2

In Part 2 of our analysis, The New York Analysis of Policy and Government places the media criticism of the Trump White House in perspective, and defines why the actions against the current White House are unique.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton, in an American Enterprise Institute  article, notes: “Donald Trump has done very little to justify the hysterical rage which has consumed his critics…, we should remember that a large part of the anti-Trump eruption is cultural. Trump is obviously neither a conventional US politician nor a standard-issue international statesman. These differences, mostly stylistic but with substantive implications, are terribly threatening to his opponents; for his supporters, they are beyond doubt among his most attractive attributes. Trump doesn’t light candles to establishment icons, doesn’t talk the way smooth liberals talk, and most assuredly doesn’t care what America’s mainstream media say.

Kyle Smith, writing in the New York Post, reports that “The unhinged coverage of all Trump scandals, real and imagined, has cost the media in the eyes of the public, among whom only 39 percent said they had a ‘great deal’ or even ‘some’ confidence in news outlets last November…The media are correct in thinking they have an important duty in the Trump era. But the people are correct in noticing that the media is filtering everything through an obsessive hatred for Trump.

What distinguishes the extreme criticism of Trump from that of his predecessors such as Lincoln, Reagan and Bush 43 is the attempt to attempt to invalidate his election.

Initially, violent protests erupted, with the threat of more to come unless somehow the Constitution was ignored and Trump was not inaugurated.  Then came the criticism that he won by gaining the majority of electoral college rather than popular votes.  That faded away, because it was rather swiftly pointed out that the newly elected president had the Constitution on his side, and this had occurred several times in the past. Calls for impeachment followed the President’s dismissal of FBI Director James Comey.  However, it now seems that Comey’s record at the FBI was spotty at best, and the former FBI chief had sustained substantial criticism from both Democrats and Republicans. That approach failed to gain traction with the public.

That was followed by charges that members of his campaign had “colluded” with the Russians. That has proven to be a double-edged sword. Despite an all-out effort by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team, which contains a number of Clinton contributors, little has been uncovered that would seem to threaten the current White House.  On the contrary, revelations of potentially illegal surveillance by the Obama Administration on its political rivals, and renewed emphasis on the highly questionable sale of uranium to the Russians during the Obama Administration,  has been the unintended consequence.

The uranium sale may be the most potent point in demonstrating that it was the Obama Administration that should be charged with collusion—and that Mueller is less an objective investigator than a partisan politico inadvertently aiding those seeking to  overturn the 2016 election.

The Hill notes that “Anger at Robert Mueller is burning white-hot on the right and in conservative media, where calls for the special counsel to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election have reached a fever pitch…From Fox News to Breitbart and talk radio, conservative media has been drawing attention to Mueller’s relationship with fired former FBI Director James Comey and his hiring of Democrats for his investigative team. They also argue Mueller has gone far beyond his mandate of investigating Russian interference in the election. Conservative media has taken a new tack against Mueller in recent weeks, zeroing in on the sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russia state-owned nuclear firm Rosatom…The sale was approved by nine members on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States … while President Obama was in office. Mueller was the director of the FBI at the time.” David Willman, writing for the Los Angeles Times, reports that “…Mueller has a record that shows a man of fallible judgment…his … approach to evaluating evidence led him to fumble the biggest U.S. terrorism investigation since 9/11…”

To many Republicans, Mueller’s questionable investigation is a painful reminder how official Washington was used by the Obama Administration to wage an illicit repressive effort against its opponents, That era was characterized both the IRS’s now-admitted wrongdoings, and the Justice Department’s actions, which, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, seriously considered criminally prosecuting organizations that merely disagreed with Obama on climate change.

While extreme criticism of a president is nothing unprecedented, the repeated attempts to overturn the results of a presidential election through a variety of tactics are a new and deeply disturbing development.