The press plays along with AG William Barr's obstruction of justice ploy
newsdepo.com
The New York Times led the cheering press pack by announcing that special counsel Robert Mueller's completed investigation into Russian election interference provided a «powerful boost» for Donald Trump. What's odd is that nobody inside the TimeThe press plays along with AG William Barr's obstruction of justice ploy
The New York Times led the cheering press pack by announcing that special counsel Robert Mueller's completed investigation into Russian election interference provided a «powerful boost» for Donald Trump. What's odd is that nobody inside the Times newsroom, or inside any newsroom, has read the voluminous Mueller report or examined all the supporting evidence. The Times made its sweeping, «powerful» conclusions based on a three-and-a-half-page letter written by Attorney General William Barr, who received the Mueller report last Friday afternoon. Barr's a Trump loyalist who was given the top job at the Department of Justice after he telegraphed that he didn't think the president could be, or should be, indicted for obstructing justice. The bottom line: Mueller's report provided evidence of obstruction of justice. After receiving the report, Barr then decided not to charge Trump with obstruction of justice (surprise!) and issued a brief summary of Mueller's work. Right now, the Mueller report and all the underlying evidence remain under lock and key at the DOJ. And no, Mueller had no say over the contents of Barr's letter, which quoted selectively from the prosecutor's work. The whole scenario seems preposterous on its face, yet the White House is hoping it can pull it off. The painful realization is that there's a chance it can, and specifically that it can rely on the political press to lose interest in the conflict, kind of like it lost interest in Trump refusing to release his tax returns. (This is the same press corps that focused like a laser for 18 months on Hillary Clinton's emails.) If the roles were reversed, you'd be damn sure the press would be leading a crusade for more information. If Obama had fired the director of the FBI because that person was investigating Hillary Clinton's emails, and then had installed someone at the DOJ who had written that he didn't think Clinton should be indicted, and then that person was given the option of indicting Clinton, decided not to do so, and refused to make public all the evidence behind that decision? It would be Katie bar the door as far as the press was concerned. Read more