Yeah, I'm not through yet:
“I disagree respectfully with Ken Starr. I think this is much ado about something — not much ado about nothing,” he said. “On March 24, Barr sends his letter to Congress with his — not summary — but bottom-line conclusions from the Mueller report.
“On March 28, Barr receives a letter from Mueller basically saying I don’t think you accurately characterized this. They have a phone call. In the phone call, Bob Mueller says to him why don’t you release our summaries and our conclusions which would not be affected by grand jury testimony and Barr decides not to do that.”
“Then on April 9, Barr is up testifying before Congress and he is specifically asked by Charlie Crist, a congressman from Florida: There is a report in the paper that the Mueller team is upset with the way you characterized this? Do you have any idea what that’s about? And Barr says no, I don’t. Well, obviously he does,” Wallace explained.
I haven't been reading NYT or WaPo, so I wasn't aware of this timeline. Just today, I understand, the full text of the letter was released. Apparently before now it was just reporting on the letter. But it's interesting Mueller wrote back to Barr 4 days after Barr releases his "bottom-line conclusions from the Mueller report." Then he waits a month to reveal the fight to the public.
Maybe Mueller should have moved earlier, but that's politics, not DOJ regulations. At this point the DOJ won't schedule Mueller for a Congressional hearing. It may well be the Congress needs to subpoena Mueller; I have no doubt he would comply with it, whatever the DOJ said. On the other hand, we either respect the processes of our government, or we insist on a government of men, as long as they are OUR men. Can't have it both ways: can't respect the process at the same time you demand the process give you the justice you want. It's not your justice to dispense or demand. Got to keep that in mind.
Mueller is doing what he thinks he should do, and frankly, the whole world is not watching. Was listening to an NPR report this morning on meth abuse, which is rampant on this side of the Mississippi (the true U.S. dividing line, along with the Mason-Dixon). Seems all the lawmakers in D.C. hear is about opioids and, as one person pointed out, America has a limited sympathy fund. We've spent it all on opioid addicts (who are mostly white and affluent, apparently); we haven't any sympathy left for meth heads in New Mexico and points west. As well, opioids are the problem in the East, and the West is, as many in the West feel, far away. Well, "away" is a relative term, eh? Still, meth is not a problem worth solving with addiction treatment resources, we need those for opioid addicts. Just as those on the intertoobs and Twitter are all agog at the audacity of the con man in the White House, and demand justice yesterday! However, as reported on Nancy Pelosi recently, she knows a lot of her fellow Dems were elected to get something done, not to prosecute Donald Trump. That's why she's trying to get an infrastructure bill through Congress. If she succeeds, we all benefit. If she fails, it can be an albatross for Trump and the GOP. And if she fails to drive Trump from office: Twitter will say she didn't try hard enough, and most of the country will wonder what happened to taking care of the country.
The system took two years to drive Nixon from office, and that effort started almost immediately after his election. Democrats can help Trump out the door with hearings; but upending the system just to get at him is something we accuse the GOP of doing, isn't it?
For those saying Mueller letter somehow was really about media not capturing Barr letter accurately, here's the actual letter. It is all about Barr and confusion he says Barr created. https://t.co/yVta1RAFl6— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) May 1, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment