Perhaps the most noteworthy media development of the Trump era is the rise of “impeachment porn”: regular breathless stories that purport to share the latest dirt from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — but are based on nothing more than innuendo and speculation.
The latest instalment: a “bombshell” New York Times story on President Trump’s efforts to keep a tight grip on the Russia investigation. Careless readers won’t even notice that the worst alleged Trump behavior falls far short of the clear obstruction of justice that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation over Watergate.
The article is a mix of leaks from various sources — none of which seem to come directly from Mueller’s office. Even the “news” that the probe is focusing on possible obstruction is based on analysis from outsiders, not informed insiders.
The article claims that Trump — enraged by what he saw as a politically motivated investigation swiftly moving out of control — pressed hard to hold the reins close.
He told his White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to press Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself in the election-meddling probe. McGahn tried — but Sessions recused himself anyway. At no time did Trump cross the line by ordering Sessions to stay on board — nor is there any suggestion he’s ever told anyone to lie under oath.
That’s a far cry from Nixon demanding that the CIA block the FBI’s Watergate probe by citing phony national-security issues.
The Times also says Trump complained that he expected his attorney general to protect him, as Robert Kennedy had done for his brother, John Kennedy, and Eric Holder did for Barack Obama. That’s a badly mistaken notion of the proper role of an attorney general — but Trump wasn’t wrong about those earlier AGs.
Trump’s firing of James Comey was entirely legal, even if done out of spite. Even the Times admits there’s no evidence of “corrupt intent” that could make it a crime.
The story merely adds more smoke without providing any substantive fire. And smoke only obscures reality.
In short, “impeachment porn” exploits its audience every bit as much as the regular kind.