"Russia's actions were a threat to America's democracy. It was critical that they be investigated and understood." - Mueller— Carrie Cordero (@carriecordero) July 11, 2020
"...of WikiLeaks' releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress." - Mueller— Carrie Cordero (@carriecordero) July 11, 2020
"We made every decision in Stone's case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and the law in accordance with the rule of law. The women and men who conducted these investigations and prosecutions acted with the highest integrity. Claims to the contrary are false."— Carrie Cordero (@carriecordero) July 11, 2020
And so:
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says he will grant a request by Democrats to have former special counsel Robert Mueller testify before the committee about his investigation https://t.co/DSN4MsCnrr— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) July 12, 2020
I know the argument is Mueller should have spoken earlier. I understand his reasons for not doing so, and for doing so now. I also note that the "grab 'em" tape was supposed to sink Trump, and it didn't. Nothing has, except for his complete incompetence in the face of a national catastrophe that has made us the world's leader in coronviruse cases and deaths. Timing is simply everything, and even democracy is saved by the lurches of history. It took Pearl Harbor to get us into World War II (it shouldn't have). It's taken this crisis to make us realize we actually do need government (what is government if not our public schools and the public's health?). Again, it shouldn't have.
Had Mueller spoken out earlier, his words might have dropped like rain in the desert, lost the moment they landed. Now? Now, his words may have real impact. Is that fortuitous timing? Or just the fortunes of timing?
Nobody paid much attention to this answer, either; at the time.
From Barr's confirmation hearing: “Q: Do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise to not incriminate him?” Barr: “No, that would be a crime.”— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) July 11, 2020
Now? "Context is all."
No comments:
Post a Comment