It’s just a matter of time

It was probably only a matter of time before some unbalanced person decided that he needed to take out a few members of the “fake news” media.

And it was inevitable that his actions — in this case, his threats — would be placed at the feet of Donald Trump, who has spent a considerable amount of time and energy demonizing the media. If you’re a disturbed 19-year-old, then maybe you hear a call to arms from the commander in chief.

Fortunately, Brandon Griesemer didn’t hurt anyone, nor did he travel to CNN’s Atlanta headquarters as he allegedly threatened to several times over the course of two days and 22 phone calls to the cable network earlier this month. FBI agents tracked Griesemer down in Novi, Michigan — a Detroit suburb — and charged him with interstate communications with intent to extort, threaten or injure. He made an initial appearance in court on Jan. 19 and is currently free on a $10,000 unsecured bond until his next hearing in February.

This arrangement would seem to suggest that Griesemer’s alleged threats have been deemed unserious enough to warrant his release, but this is cold comfort to the many journalists who recently have felt that they have a target on their backs. I’m not alone in having received death threats and other unpleasant suggestions when I’ve written critically of Trump. Whether this is at least partially Trump’s fault is an interesting question without a convenient answer.

One can reasonably argue that Trump isn’t to blame for what others do or say. On the other hand, one could also posit that when the president targets journalists or media institutions by name in his frequent “fake news” rants, he bears some responsibility for what happens as a result, assuming a direct connection can be made.

Trump has said, after all, that he prefers Twitter to reporters because he can talk directly to people. Tweeting for him is like whispering in someone’s ear — a few million at a time. This false intimacy can be almost like having a conversation, as I’ve heard many of his supporters say. Given this perception and the relative novelty of social media, is it time to expand the definition of conspiracy or to tweak laws against yelling-fire-in-acrowded-theater? When a pattern of incitement can be demonstrated, should the inciter be held accountable?

Excerpts from the calls, which were also laced with anti-Semitic and racist language, suggest a familiarity with the president’s messaging:

“Fake news. I’m coming to gun you all down,” the caller said. “F--- you, f---ing n-----s.”

“I am on my way right now to gun the f---in’ CNN cast down. F--- you.”

“I’m coming for you CNN. I’m smarter than you. More powerful than you. I have more guns than you. More manpower. Your cast is about to get gunned down in a matter of hours.”

Not really so smart, it would appear — or armed. Griesemer’s father told The Washington Post that neither he nor his son owns any guns.

As much as I’d like to impugn the president, a temptation he seems to enjoy nurturing, it’s premature and probably dangerous to link his idiotic “fake news” diatribes with this man whose apparent unhinging could be attributable to any number of factors.

Who knows what thoughts the caller harbored or what rage simmered within? Is he a tortured soul, a bullied child, a friendless dreamer? Was he hoping to act on his rants, or was he exploring his capacity for vileness? Without a statement — or a manifesto, as these things tend to go — it would be impossible to discern whether Trump’s was the voice in his head.

There is surely no paucity of people who harbor an irrational hatred for the media. All journalists have heard from them, which is why our workplaces are fortresses and why we glance a third time over our shoulders before turning the corner toward home. Trump didn’t create those people — or their distemper — but he did make a conscious decision to mine and legitimize their darkest inclinations in exchange for power.

This alone doesn’t make him culpable if someone goes off the deep end, but it does make him a despicable human being, which is bad enough. In a president, it’s unpardonable.

Kathleen Parker is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. Her email address is kathleenparker@washpost. com.

Wait, back up a minute. We just zoomed past a story that would have been a fivealarm scandal for any other administration, with weeks of screaming front-page headlines: “The President and the Porn Star.”

The Wall Street Journal had the scoop on Jan. 12: “A lawyer for President Donald Trump arranged a $130,000 payment to a former adult-film star a month before the 2016 election as part of an agreement that precluded her from publicly discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.”

The porn star in question is a woman named Stormy Daniels. The alleged affair took place in 2006, a year and a half after Trump married his third wife, Melania, and just months after their son Barron was born.

Whoa. You’d think that Trump’s supporters in the evangelical movement would finally call him out for his loose — or nonexistent — morals. Instead, however, they have suddenly turned into a bunch of Left Bank cafe intellectuals, scoffing at silly American Puritanism as they sip absinthe and flick ashes from their unfiltered Gauloises.

“We kind of gave him, all right, you get a mulligan. You get a do-over here,” said Tony Perkins, president of the right-wing Family Research Council. For the full effect, imagine that quote spoken in a heavy French accent. A doo-ovair.

Evangelist Franklin Graham tarnished the legacy of his father Billy by also defending Trump, saying that while “he is not President Perfect,” he does “have a concern for Christian values.”

When there’s not a porn star around, apparently.

I can’t pretend to be shocked, shocked that conservative political activists who cloak themselves in gaudy religiosity turn out to be rank hypocrites. That’s nothing new. I do feel sorry, though, for the millions of Christians who look to figures such as Perkins and Graham for moral leadership. They must be terribly confused.

After all, Perkins’ predecessor at the Family Research Council, Gary Bauer, said this when Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky was revealed in 1998: “Character counts — in a people, in the institutions of our society, and in our national leadership.”

Apparently it only counts when a Democrat is in the White House, not a Republican. I’m still looking for the Bible verse that spells out this distinction, but it must be in there somewhere.

The story itself is of more than merely prurient interest. Trump and the lawyer, Michael Cohen, deny everything. But Daniels gave a 5,000-word interview to In Touch magazine in which she described her sexual encounter with Trump in very convincing detail. And the Journal, in a follow-up story, gave a step-by-step account of how Cohen allegedly made the hush-money payment.

According to the newspaper, Cohen formed a Delaware company — taking advantage of the state’s no-tell privacy laws — called Essential Consultants LLC on Oct. 17, 2016. He then used a bank account linked to the company to pay the $130,000 into an account controlled by a lawyer representing Daniels.

As the Watergate source “Deep Throat” never actually said to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward: “Follow the money.”

Where did the cash come from? One thing we learned about Trump during the campaign is that he is loath to spend his own money whenever he can spend somebody else’s instead. And one thing we learned from Michael Wolff’s book “Fire and Fury” is that another Trump lawyer “took care” of “a hundred” women during the campaign, according to Steve Bannon, the campaign’s chief executive.

Let’s assume Bannon was exaggerating and “a hundred” really means “several.” If I were special counsel Robert Mueller, I’d want to know how much money was paid in total to the women and I’d want to make sure that no campaign funds were used, since that would be illegal.

Remember the context: On Oct. 7, 2016, the Post reported on and published the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump boasted of sexually harassing and assaulting women. Ten days later, according to the Journal, Trump’s lawyer created the shell company that was allegedly used as a conduit for money to buy Daniels’ silence.

Something tells me that Mueller’s all-star team of white-collar prosecutors will find out if any other phantom companies were formed, if any other paramours were paid to keep quiet, and where any such money came from. And that is only one of Trump’s worries about the Stormy Daniels Affair.

Another is that the accommodations in Melania Trump’s doghouse, where I’m guessing he might spend some time, may be a bit spartan for his tastes.

One can reasonably argue that Trump isn’t to blame for what others do or say. On the other hand, one could also posit that when the president targets journalists or media institutions by name in his frequent “fake news” rants, he bears some responsibility for what happens as a result, assuming a direct connection can be made.

Eugene Robinson is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. His email address is eugenerobinson@washpost. com.