I missed this earlier.
This weekend on Meet the Press, David Brooks floated the idea that he’s “bothered” that there are no leaks pointing to Russian collusion*, dismissed or ignored the flagrant abuse of power and (probable) obstruction of justice, or the pattern of lying about Russian contacts with people involved in the trump campaign. The other panelists (except WaPo’s Eugene Robinson) nodded sagely. He then has an op-ed in NYT making the same argument that Charles Pierce nicely dismantles:
(Edit: Personally I doubt there’s outward collusion either. The Russians would be stupid to directly enroll trump (see - trump behavior about anything) and direct collusion with surrogates would be easy to catch. However, there is probably shady financial dealings, some of which might very well be illegal)
(italics Brooks, bold Pierce.)
From The New York Times:
I was the op-ed editor at The Wall Street Journal at the peak of the Whitewater scandal. We ran a series of investigative pieces “raising serious questions” (as we say in the scandal business) about the nefarious things the Clintons were thought to have done back in Arkansas. Now I confess I couldn’t follow all the actual allegations made in those essays. They were six jungles deep in the weeds. But I do remember the intense atmosphere that the scandal created. A series of bombshell revelations came out in the media, which seemed monumental at the time. A special prosecutor was appointed and indictments were expected. Speculation became the national sport. In retrospect Whitewater seems overblown. And yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington.
This may be the most shameless passage of political journalism I have ever read. It contains more of the elements of passive-aggression, self-absolution, historical amnesia, and outright falsehood in the same place than any other single location this side of the author’s own frontal lobes.
Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. Note the shabby, silly alibi that leads us off.
Now I confess I couldn’t follow all the actual allegations made in those essays.
You were the editor, fool. It was your job to follow the actual allegations, because a lot of them were crazy tales from Arkansas con-men who looked at the national press and saw a battalion of easy marks.
They were six jungles deep in the weeds.
And hip-deep in pure bullshit, but do go on.
A series of bombshell revelations came out in the media, which seemed monumental at the time.
Some of those were contained in a series of “investigative essays” that helped drive Vince Foster to kill himself. We know this because the WSJ was specifically mentioned in his suicide note. I’m surprised a copy of it isn’t hanging in the editorial department.
A special prosecutor was appointed and indictments were expected.
Actually, two special prosecutors were appointed. The first one, Robert Fiske, concluded that there was no crime involving the Clintons in regard to Whitewater and its attendant fiscal shenanigans. That’s why Republican judges fired Fiske and we ended up with Ken Starr.
In retrospect Whitewater seems overblown. And yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington.
This is a masterpiece of intellectual cowardice. I didn’t understand it, even though it was my job to do so, and now that I’m a thought leader, I think one of the major boosts to my career may have been a crock of beans, but, hey, we had a real scandal there, unlike the current moment, which has revealed that my entire career has been devoted to building a fairy tale castle in which every ogre and troll of the lunatic right can find refuge.
There was nothing “substantive” about “the Whitewater scandal,” at least as regards the Clintons. We know this because Ken Starr told the House Judiciary Committee that very thing. The real damage it did was to give ambitious conservative coatholders a leg up in our national discourse so that, now, they can deny the forces that created them. What a bunch of ingrates.