Mueller preview: Maybe the president is innocent. So why does he keep acting like a thug?

There’s a reason so many people think Donald Trump is corrupt: He keeps giving them reason.

On Thursday, a redacted version of the Mueller report will be released to the public. Perhaps the president is right: Maybe the document will exonerate him of accusations of colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election, and maybe it will further offer reason to believe that Attorney General William Barr was correct when he decided not to pursue allegations the president obstructed justice by firing then-FBI Director James Comey.

It could happen.

But if that is the case, Trump and Barr have done the worst possible job laying the ground for the president’s innocence. Instead, they’ve seemingly done everything possible to make the release of the report look like a cover-up.

For example: The principles of transparency would usually suggest that the public — or, at least, the media — have a chance to look at the report and begin to digest its findings before Barr holds his press conference.

But that’s not the plan. As of Wednesday evening, Barr’s press conference is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. ET. The report is scheduled to come out 90 minutes later, at 11 a.m. ET. That means the attorney general’s time before the press is not designed to enable accountability or to answer any tough questions that arise from reading the report itself — it is, instead, a preemptive strike, a chance to start spinning the public before the public has a chance to see and hear the facts for itself.




The release of the Mueller report, in other words, seems expertly designed to raise suspicions instead of calm them.

It doesn’t help that Barr has taken weeks to release the report. It doesn’t help that the attorney general has been giving the Trump Administration a sneak preview of its findings. It doesn’t help that the president, who has spent weeks proclaiming Mueller’s investigation found him innocent, has in recent days waged an angry campaign criticizing its release. And it won’t help if the report released to the public appears to be overly redacted.

It’s reasonable to ask: Are these the actions of an innocent man running an honest administration?

If the president has somehow avoided committing a crime during the last two years, congratulations to him. But that falls short of the standard we typically expect of our leaders: We don’t expect them merely to avoid transgression, but also to avoid the very appearance of avoiding transgression. The reason is simple: Even the appearance of wrongdoing shakes the faith of citizens in their leaders and government. Americans don’t have to believe that their leaders are good men and women; they do deserve not to have to wonder constantly if those leaders are on the wrong side of the law.

No, it’s not always the case that where there is smoke, there is fire. But the president is constantly enveloped in a smog of lies: As of March 17, he had told more than 9,000 documented lies since ascending to the Oval Office.

With regard to the Mueller inquiry: He lied during the campaign about his business ties with Russia. He orchestrated a false press release about his son’s meetings with Russian officials. He tried suggesting there were listening devices in the Oval Office when he met Comey — there weren’t. At every step of public inquiry and official investigation, he has thrown a bundle of untruth in the path of those seeking the truth.

Simply put, he keeps acting like a thug. If the Mueller report does exonerate Donald Trump, that’s too bad. Sure, it’ll keep him out of court. But the public will keep having every reason to believe in his corruption.

Netflix Queue: The Highwaymen

Three thoughts about Netflix's The Highwaymen coming up after the trailer...

 

 • This is a Bonnie and Clyde movie that, for the most part, is lacking in Bonnie and Clyde: The filmmakers figure you've already seen the classic movie and there's no reason to compete with that. So it's the case that we literally don't see fully the faces of our fugitives until the very last seconds before they're ambushed by Texas lawmen in a hail of bullets. The story concentrates, in this case, on the hunters, played by a laconic Kevin Costner and his sidekick Woody Harrelson, playing Woody Harrelson.

 • Structurally, it plays out as a cross between the fantastic Hell or High Water and Unforgiven, but without having quite as much on its mind as either of those movies. Maybe the most potent theme is about how thrall to celebrity can turn regular people into monsters. After Bonnie and Clyde are killed, local townspeople are shown in a near-riot situation, plucking souvenirs from the criminals' bodies. 20,000 people attended Bonnie's funeral, we're told at the end of the movie; 15,000 went to Clyde's. The overall outlook borders on fascist: The masses are unruly and easily thrilled; the leaders are corrupt and phony. The only hope? Men with guns and blood on their hands.

• Still, it's a reasonable evening's entertainment. I realized, watching it, that you don't really find quiet adult-oriented crime dramas like this at the multiplex anymore — they're either indie movies (like Hell or High Water) or they're shunted off to cable channels and streaming services, as is the case here. Unforgiven, meanwhile, grossed $159 million in 1992 — kind of a big deal, and good for 11th for the year at the box office. Maybe that's possible today, but I kind of doubt it. Too bad.

FilmStruck is avenged! Long live Criterion Channel!

Criterion Channel finally launched today, a replacement for the late lamented FilmStruck. I've already watched my first movie. A few thoughts after the trailer...
 

 • Since FilmStruck's demise, I've made a concerted effort to build up my DVD collection with classic movies. I'm glad that Criterion is here, but I don't trust streaming services to have many of the movies I want when I want them. Big corporations that own the rights to those movies have already demonstrated that letting the public have access is a lesser concern, profit-wise, than promoting their more recent catalog. So I'm glad to have Criterion to expand and deepen my movie education. But I'm still buying DVDs.

 • My first movie on Criterion? Drive a Crooked Road, a tight little movie from the noir collection. It reminded me of Drive, only with Mickey Rooney (!?) in the Ryan Gosling role, and if everybody spent Drive talking about how short Ryan Gosling is. Also fun: It was written by Blake Edwards, whom I associate with kinda vulgar sex farces from the 1970s and '80s.

 • Good news on the kid front: Criterion has Godzilla movies. My son is very happy.

 

End of an era at the Lawrence Journal-World.

My motto is: "Journalism will never love you back." But I can't remember a time when I didn't love news and newspapers. Still do. I love my hometown paper, the Lawrence Journal-World.

The journalists of the LJW will be moving out of their beautiful downtown space by the end of the month, opting for smaller digs in North Lawrence at an old outlet mall. I was on staff in 2001 when we moved into this office - which had previously been the city's post office.

So I'm kind of sad about the move. I worked at LJW from 2000-2007, got to be a reporter, an editor, and the paper's first blogger. We shared the digs with 6News, a local cable TV outlet. I learned how to be a TV reporter, too.

I had so much fun. I think part of it was being the right age - late 20s and early 30s - but some of it was that it was the last possible moment to be optimistic and hopeful about working for a newspaper, as opposed to grimly determined.

The Great Recession set in shortly after I left, and newspapers haven't been the same since.

The Journal-World has passed to corporate ownership. The staff is smaller. It no longer prints its own papers. Things are different. But the folks left behind are still working like hell to cover their community.

They're led by editor and publisher Chad Lawhorn, who takes his share of criticism and jokes in the community, but who has worked like hell himself to keep the paper covering important stories in the community. The city doesn't know how lucky it is to have him.

This is the point where it's tempting to mark the moment with the -30-, but the Journal-World isn't ending -- just its residence at a particular spot downtown. The journalists are still working like hell. The headlines seen here? They were produced in different locations.

So. A moment of sadness perhaps. Time to acknowledge that times change, that the industry has changed, and that you can't go home again.

It was a great place to work. But there's still work to be done. So I wish my friends and former colleagues the best of luck in their new digs. There's news to cover!

(Many thanks to the staff of the LJW for letting me visit one last time. Y'all are awesome.)

What does it mean to ‘believe women?’

"Believing women" doesn't mean we have to accept accusations as evidence. So what might it mean in real life? 

• When a woman makes an accusation, it would mean pursuing all available lines of evidence to weigh the truth of her claims. In the matter of Brett Kavanaugh's SCOTUS nomination, it would mean calling Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's buddy, to testify under penalty of perjury. So far that's not happening. That the Senate Judiciary Committee is not taking such a step suggests they don't have much interest in trying, as best as we poor humans are capable, of making a genuine attempt to determine the truth of the matter. 

• When a woman's accusation is proven, the person convicted of abusing or assaulting her will be given more than a slap-on-the-wrist punishment. 

• And women a woman says she has been traumatized by sexual assault, we don't wave our hands and tell her to toughen up instead of being such a victim. 

None of this means accepting an accusation as evidence. What it does mean is taking the accusation seriously enough to learn the truth, and taking women seriously enough to deal seriously with the men who have assaulted them. 

Given the state of our arguments over Kavanaugh — and I truly don't know if he's guilty or innocent of the allegations, though I'm inclined to believe his accuser — I'd say we're not there yet.

AmGreatness' Chris Buskirk: Proof of rape is no bar to SCOTUS

At AmGreatness, Chris Buskirk shreds all the conservatives who think maybe a proven rapist shouldn't have a seat on the Supreme Court. I'll let him speak for himself:

National Review’s Jim Geraghty not only thinks that Ford’s claims should bar Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court, but he told Caitlin Flanagan of The Atlantic, who wrote she believes Ford despite the lack of evidence, that “it’s hard to see how he could remain a federal judge.” David French agreed that the allegations, if proven, should “mar him for life.” National Review OnlineEditor Charles C. W. Cooke agreed, adding that he doesn’t think that makes him “irrational or a Stalinist.”

 What's interesting is that Geraghty and French have both made their condemnation of Kavanaugh conditional: He doesn't get the seat if the rape allegations are proven. But both Geraghty and French have made clear they don't think the allegations have been proven. 

Geraghty:

But we’re still a long, long way from proving either accusation. Both allegations stem from the accuser’s memory of events of 35 or 36 years ago. In both cases, the accusers say they had been drinking alcohol before the actions; in both cases, the accusers admit they cannot recall key details.

French:

No wonder the Democrats are emphasizing that the Senate isn’t a court. They’re advancing claims that so far can’t possibly meet the lowest standard of proof.

For making such claims, Buskirk paints the duo as surrender monkeys.

"Yet, these are the people who represent themselves as “true conservatives.” They’re not and it’s time for actual conservatives to realize it and ignore them. What they really are is self-righteous moralizers and anti-social prigs."

In other words: If you think a proven rapist doesn't belong on the court, but think the allegation are unproven, you're a prig. And maybe that's the stance you have to take if the president you support so ardently has a sexual history so offensive and messy that there's no real defense of it: If you're not going to hold him to any moral standards, why would you impose those standards on any other person seeking high office?

(One thing I'll say about the folks at AmGreatness — full disclosure: some key people in it were once friends of mine, but I'm afraid that day has passed — is that they're not really into coalition building. There's never a sense of "reasonable people can disagree, and here's why I disagree." If you're even a little bit not on board the Trump Train, even if there's substantial overlap in your views an goals, you're the enemy.)

If Trumpist conservatives have any values aside from keeping brown people out of the United States and owning the libs, it's difficult to discern. It's not my fight, I guess, but I prefer the self-righteous moralizers to the nihilists.

Kavanaugh's high school yearbook: A textbook case of toxic masculinity

This is awful:

Brett Kavanaugh’s page in his high school yearbook offers a glimpse of the teenage years of the man who is now President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee: lots of football, plenty of drinking, parties at the beach. Among the reminiscences about sports and booze is a mysterious entry: “Renate Alumnius.” 

The word “Renate” appears at least 14 times in Georgetown Preparatory School’s 1983 yearbook, on individuals’ pages and in a group photo of nine football players, including Judge Kavanaugh, who were described as the “Renate Alumni.” It is a reference to Renate Schroeder, then a student at a nearby Catholic girls’ school. 

Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates say the mentions of Renate were part of the football players’ unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests. 

(Snip)

“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”

I don't know whether Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent of the sexual improprieties he is accused of. But I do know that this NYT story about his yearbook could be Exhibit A in a presentation of What We Mean When We Talk About Toxic Masculinity.

Listen to this:

Some of Judge Kavanaugh’s high school peers said there was a widespread culture at the time of objectifying women. 

“People claiming that they had sex with other people was not terribly unusual, and it was not terribly believable,” said William Fishburne, who was in Judge Kavanaugh’s graduating class and was a manager for the football team. “Not just Brett Kavanaugh and his particular group, but all the classmates in general. People would claim things they hadn’t done to sort of seem bigger than they were, older than they were.”

I don't think this is unusual. The "boys will be boys" defense practically writes itself. But that's why it's a problem! Letting a young woman's name be sullied for decades on the pages of a yearbook, preserved for all history, for the sake of a joke and boasting? Gross and wrong.