For years, Rep. Devin Nunes and the Fresno Bee got along just fine. But now, facing his first serious election challenge in years, the Central Valley congressman is on the attack — not against his Democratic opponent, but his district’s largest newspaper and what he calls its “band of creeping correspondents.”

The Republican from Tulare is bashing the Fresno Bee in TV and radio ads and a glossy, 40-page mailer after the newspaper angered him with harsh editorials and less-than-flattering news stories. In one ad, he looks into a camera and accuses the paper — which had endorsed him in the last eight elections — of “working with radical left-wing groups to promote fake news stories.”

It’s a tactic that Nunes — along with other Republican candidates — has borrowed from President Trump when encountering coverage he doesn’t like.

The approach could test whether Trump’s strategy of lashing out at the media will work on a local level to draw a conservative base to the polls. Like Trump, Nunes limits his appearances to partisan shows. He also uses podcasts and a staff-curated news website to circumnavigate traditional media. Conservative talk radio has only magnified his attacks on the Bee.

There is no downside for Republicans who attack the news media, said UCLA communications professor Tim Groeling. “The criticism makes any criticism of them that appears in the press less damaging, and any praise they receive is amplified.”

Once nearly an untouchable political figure in the 22nd Congressional District, Nunes, 45, is under scrutiny on several fronts: his actions to protect Trump from the Russia investigation, his family’s out-of-state dairy farm and what some call his lack of responsiveness to constituents.

Facing Fresno County prosecutor Andrew Janz, 34, a first-time candidate with little record to exploit, Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has made the media his main political adversary.

“Having a new enemy, a close-to-home enemy — oh, it’s so helpful,” said Renee Hobbs, a communications professor at the University of Rhode Island. “If the local news media can be aligned with the ‘fake news’ phenomenon, then it becomes a super easy target to create that us-versus-them mentality and bring out voters.”

To win reelection, observers say, Nunes only needs his most ardent supporters to turn out. In a district that spans the more conservative parts of Fresno and Tulare counties, Republicans outnumber Democrats by a 10-point margin, and Trump won here by 9 percentage points.

It’s concerning to me, but I think, in the long run, the truth is the ultimate authority here.

Joe Kieta, Fresno Bee editor

More:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-nunes-attacks-local-news-20181012-story.html

One of the most glaring irregularities in the special counsel investigation has been the conflicted ethical position of top officials at the Justice Department. President Trump has long borne a deep resentment over the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, which many of us viewed as a necessary ethical step. The problem was not the recusal of Sessions but the fact that it was not immediately followed by the recusal of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The precarious ethical position of Rosenstein just became far more acute with a new report that he ignored demands within the Justice Department to remove himself in 2017.

The report alleges that a heated argument over Rosenstein’s conflicts arose soon after the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller within Justice. Rosenstein rejected the demands of then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe that his supervision of Mueller was a glaring conflict, while he demanded McCabe’s recusal on different conflicts.

The confrontation of Rosenstein over his dubious ethical position is no surprise. In 2017 I argued that both Mueller and Rosenstein had serious conflicts in performing any role in a special counsel investigation. Mueller had interviewed for James Comey’s job after Comey was fired as FBI director, and reportedly spoke directly with President Trump in the aftermath of the firing. That makes him an obvious witness to the very matter that he is investigating. Mueller should not have been on the list of possible special counsels, let alone selected by Rosenstein. Yet, that conflict is now being overlooked, given the national interest in having this investigation completed fully and independently.

Rosenstein is a different matter. From the appointment of Mueller, Rosenstein’s more serious conflict has undermined the investigation. Rosenstein is not just a witness to Mueller’s obstruction investigation, he is one of the key witnesses. Trump consulted Rosenstein before firing Comey, and Rosenstein wrote a memorandum effectively calling for his removal. Initially, the White House suggested that Comey was fired due to the Rosenstein memorandum, and Rosenstein reportedly was irate; the White House then had to walk back the statements after Rosenstein demanded a correction. That puts him at ground zero of the obstruction allegations.

Despite the fact that he is a key witness in Mueller’s investigation, Rosenstein has continued as Mueller’s boss – approving any expansions of his mandate and other issues. The investigation could have a pronounced impact on Rosenstein’s professional standing. Rosenstein has portrayed himself as above the fray, a bulwark against Trump’s reported desire to lay waste to the investigation. He is Mueller’s primary line of defense. Yet, Mueller has to question Rosenstein’s own conduct and subsequent accounts if he is to do a complete investigation of Comey’s firing. (Rosenstein also is a key player in some of the secret FISA warrants targeting Trump’s campaign aides in the Russian investigation.)

The new report reaffirms just how serious this ethical conflict is for Rosenstein. According to new reporting, Rosenstein and McCabe mutually accused each other of insurmountable conflicts in a meeting with other Justice officials and, most notably, Mueller. Rosenstein raised a photo showing McCabe wearing a campaign T-shirt for his wife’s bid as a Democrat for the Virginia state senate; her campaign became controversial due to massive funding from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally and Trump critic. McCabe reportedly responded by raising Rosenstein’s obvious conflict as a witness in the events surrounding Comey’s firing.

It is important to note that McCabe’s conflict was indirect and a matter of perception: Justice officials are supposed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict, and McCabe was correctly removed on this and other grounds. Conversely, Rosenstein had a direct conflict as a witness overseeing an investigation of not only the president’s conduct but his own.

What is most striking is that McCabe already had been warned by DOJ ethicists about his potential conflicts and followed the recommended steps to mitigate any conflict. Rosenstein did comparably nothing on his direct conflict except make it worse.

More:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/411103-rod-rosenstein-must-recuse-himself