MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle corralled three of her colleagues on Friday morning to talk about “Obamagate,” whatever that is. The discussion wasn’t perhaps what she had in mind when she entered journalism. “I didn’t even want to give one ounce of breath or attention to
this,” Ruhle said as she kicked off a discussion with NBC News’s Dylan Byers about this alleged scandal.
Bolding added to highlight a question: Just what is “this”?
In pursuit of an answer, Post reporter Philip Rucker on Monday asked President Trump to specify the crime of “Obamagate."
Trump’s response didn’t much help: "You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours.”
Even by Trump’s bloviating standards, that was lame. As best we here at the Erik Wemple Blog can tell, “Obamagate” refers at least in part to a series of events under the previous administration in which top government officials complied with procedures designed to protect the country from threats. For example, they reviewed National Security Agency reports stemming from surveillance of Russians — reports that incidentally pick up communications with U.S. citizens, whose named are redacted in the assessments. Officials may request the “unmasking” — or the removal of redactions — of U.S. citizens who pop up in the reports. That’s what happened with Michael Flynn, who briefly served as national security adviser at the beginning of the Trump administration. Flynn eventually pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his discussions with Russian diplomat Sergey Kislyak in late 2016, before Trump took office.
Is there anything sinister about U.S. officials requesting the “unmasking” of a U.S. citizen whose name is redacted in an intelligence report? No, not at all. As NBC News’s Ken Dilanian explained to Ruhle, there are many compelling reasons for unmasking; if a U.S. citizen is communicating with an overseas terrorist organization, wouldn’t the U.S. government want to know the name of that citizen? In an excellent explainer,
Vox writes:
Before you shout “bombshell!”: Unmasking is standard practice. The Obama administration did it. The Trump administration does it. According to NSA data, from August 2015 to August 2016, about 9,000 US citizens were unmasked in communications. In 2017, more than 9,500. In 2018 — Trump’s first full year as president — more than 16,700 US persons were unmasked.
The Post: “The practice, known as unmasking, is commonplace in government.”
NPR: “It’s perfectly lawful and routine,”
said Greg Myre. (In audio at 0:52)
Fox News’s Sean Hannity: “Wow, huge massive developments in the biggest abuse-of-power, corruption scandal in American history. Dozens of top Obama officials have unmasked surveilled Lieutenant General Michael Flynn in the weeks after the 2016 election. Once again, we are reporting, as we’ve been saying — all roads lead directly to Barack and the ever forgetful Joe. And coming up, we will name names. We’ll call out the liars."
Perhaps Hannity should quote The Post’s Alexandra Petri,
whose analysis of the situation sounds pretty close to his: “Obamagate was the biggest political crime in American history by far, a fact that Barack Obama did not hesitate to tell Richard M. Nixon, causing him to shed bitter tears in an as-yet-unreleased tape.”
In any case, Hannity’s fulminations about the “massive developments” came on Wednesday night, after two Republican senators released a list of Obama officials who had requested the unmaskings.
The list was declassified by Richard Grenell, the acting director of national intelligence, and it included former vice president Joe Biden (or someone on his staff), as well as officials from several other agencies.
What’s “massive” is the way this story has enveloped Fox News. Prime-time opinionators on the network have demonstrated just how far they can progress down the Petri parody continuum. At the close of his show Thursday night, host Tucker Carlson promised viewers that Friday would bring more “information” on Flynn.
If only that “information” could be “facts” and “context.” In his diatribe, for instance, Carlson said, “We learned yesterday that 39 separate people in the Obama administration requested to unmask Mike Flynn’s identity in NSA intelligence reports. In other words, they asked to spy on him.”
Well, not really. They requested unmasking of a name that
turned out to be Flynn.
As an account in The Post states, “There was no indication that the people who requested the unmasking knew that Flynn’s name would be the one revealed. Nor, the NSA advised, was it clear that every official on the list actually saw a report with Flynn’s name, or that they made the request themselves.”
After running through some clips of dismissive commentary on other outlets, Carlson scolded, “I’ve been in the media 29 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this.” Sure he has!
Having joined Fox News in 2009, Carlson has seen the network
air the Obama birther conspiracy theory, the Benghazi scare, the Seth Rich fraud and many other flimsy threads as well.
Fox News just happens to be vested in this story, as it had a camera at the Justice Department to
recordGrenell
delivering the unmasking documents to Attorney General William P. Barr.
What’s going on with the “Obamagate” story is both familiar and stunning. We have two media spheres citing the same development to reach opposing conclusions. It’s a phenomenon that researchers Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris and Hal Roberts explored in their 2018 book, “
Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics.”
Benkler told the Erik Wemple Blog last year, "The right-wing media ecosystem has developed into a completely distinct and insular ecosystem that operates purely on identity-confirming narratives. Fox News is the leading node in the right-wing ecosystem: It’s the primary source of stories, the primary source of accreditation, the primary source of attention.”
Not to mention the primary source of oxygen: “Obamagate” will live as long as Hannity and Carlson find it convenient.