The Special Counsel (SC) Mueller Report dropped last night (and why is now “dropped”, instead of published or released? A minor mystery). Peer and I watched AG Bill Barr’s press conference before the “drop”. Barr came across as sound, knowledgeable. He didn’t suffer fools, of whom there were several deranged examples in the press pack.
Then switched over to see how CNN was handling things. In the face of an SC report that had found no collusion with Russia by anyone in the Trump administration or indeed by “any American”. As Barr noted, all Americans ought to be pleased by that finding.
So, CNN. They had a panel of nine chaired by Jake Tapper. Jake is sane and sensible. The rest were all CNN operatives, not a voice out of line. And, oh boy! They were discomforted, discombobulated, disoriented, driven mad — almost literally — by the Mueller findings. Or lack of findings. They seemed gripped by a fever, which they couldn’t control, even on live international Cable. It was so horrible to watch, we had to switch to BBC, which had a more balanced take, dare I say at, a “neutral” take.
What they, the CNN folk, were clutching at amounted to two things: (1) that Trump hadn’t allowed himself to be interviewed by the Mueller team, and (2) that there had been no exoneration of Trump for “obstruction of justice”.
On the first point: so what? He was well advised (by his personal counsel) not to attend, as the Mueller team had shown a clear propensity to set perjury traps. And who, TBF, is more likely than Trump to all into such a trap? (Answer: no one). Mueller had already caught that good man, General Flynn, in a grossly unfair perjury trap, with the connivance of the FBI.
On the second point, non-exoneration for obstruction of justice, again, so what? It’s not the task of the Special Counsel to exonerate. The SC is to present the evidence for wrong-doing if any. To expect “exhoneration” is to expect the verdict of “innocent” which a court never does. They simply find guilty or not guilty. Seeking exoneration is seeking the proof of a negative. It’s to upend two thousand years of Roman, Judaeo-Christian, British-American common law.
Another point: there’s a legal — and indeed a common sense — difference between charges of obstructing justice for a crime committed and for a crime not committed. To the extent that there may or may not have been obstruction in this case, it was for a lack of a crime: there was no collusion.
So, calls to hammer Trump because he was not “exonerated” of obstructing justice is lowering the bar. And Barr lowered his boom on that.
CNN are crazy at the moment.
I just remembered another “so what” moment from last night’s CNN panel. One of their panel said that the White House had had a week to review the redacted report before it dropped. The WH was not permitted to seek any changes, and it didn’t. But to the CNN Person, it was somehow unfair and suspicious that they’d had an advance copy. Peer and I looked at each other: “so what?…”
Let’s also recall, by the way, that the Mueller team was made up almost exclusively of Democrat lawyers one of whom had been legal counsel to the Clinton Foundation. Biased, much? Turn it around and imagine a Republican SC investigating the Democrats having a lawyer from the Trump Tower on it. Hmmmm.
We may just find out something along those lines as the campaign to “investigate the investigators” gains momentum.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Then switched over to see how CNN was handling things. In the face of an SC report that had found no collusion with Russia by anyone in the Trump administration or indeed by “any American”. As Barr noted, all Americans ought to be pleased by that finding.
So, CNN. They had a panel of nine chaired by Jake Tapper. Jake is sane and sensible. The rest were all CNN operatives, not a voice out of line. And, oh boy! They were discomforted, discombobulated, disoriented, driven mad — almost literally — by the Mueller findings. Or lack of findings. They seemed gripped by a fever, which they couldn’t control, even on live international Cable. It was so horrible to watch, we had to switch to BBC, which had a more balanced take, dare I say at, a “neutral” take.
What they, the CNN folk, were clutching at amounted to two things: (1) that Trump hadn’t allowed himself to be interviewed by the Mueller team, and (2) that there had been no exoneration of Trump for “obstruction of justice”.
On the first point: so what? He was well advised (by his personal counsel) not to attend, as the Mueller team had shown a clear propensity to set perjury traps. And who, TBF, is more likely than Trump to all into such a trap? (Answer: no one). Mueller had already caught that good man, General Flynn, in a grossly unfair perjury trap, with the connivance of the FBI.
On the second point, non-exoneration for obstruction of justice, again, so what? It’s not the task of the Special Counsel to exonerate. The SC is to present the evidence for wrong-doing if any. To expect “exhoneration” is to expect the verdict of “innocent” which a court never does. They simply find guilty or not guilty. Seeking exoneration is seeking the proof of a negative. It’s to upend two thousand years of Roman, Judaeo-Christian, British-American common law.
Another point: there’s a legal — and indeed a common sense — difference between charges of obstructing justice for a crime committed and for a crime not committed. To the extent that there may or may not have been obstruction in this case, it was for a lack of a crime: there was no collusion.
So, calls to hammer Trump because he was not “exonerated” of obstructing justice is lowering the bar. And Barr lowered his boom on that.
CNN are crazy at the moment.
I just remembered another “so what” moment from last night’s CNN panel. One of their panel said that the White House had had a week to review the redacted report before it dropped. The WH was not permitted to seek any changes, and it didn’t. But to the CNN Person, it was somehow unfair and suspicious that they’d had an advance copy. Peer and I looked at each other: “so what?…”
Let’s also recall, by the way, that the Mueller team was made up almost exclusively of Democrat lawyers one of whom had been legal counsel to the Clinton Foundation. Biased, much? Turn it around and imagine a Republican SC investigating the Democrats having a lawyer from the Trump Tower on it. Hmmmm.
We may just find out something along those lines as the campaign to “investigate the investigators” gains momentum.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
