Category Archives: politics

Muller to Barr RE: “Public Confusion”

I didn’t. I really did not want to write about this again. I’ve got several much more interesting things half written that I’d like to finish. But I keep coming back to what is alleged by many to be the most popular quotation in the English language, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill? For a discussion on the source see quoteinvestigator.

The night before Attorney General William Barr was to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Washington Post first reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had, on March 27th, 2019, sent a letter to Barr characterizing Barr’s four page memo to Congress, dated March 24,

The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.

That is a stunning rebuke of Barr and it comes in the face of Barr’s testimony on April 9, before the House Appropriations Committee in dialog with Rep. Charlie Crist, D-Fla.,.

Crist: “Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?”

Barr: “No, I don’t. I think, I suspect that they probably wanted more put out. But in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary — regardless of who prepares it — not only runs the risk of being under inclusive or over inclusive but also would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once.”

You be the judge. Was Barr lying? Or just misleading? Barr explained that the question asked about the special counsel’s “team” and Barr’s contacts were with the special counsel himself, not his team. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Ver. told Barr, “I feel your answer was purposefully misleading….” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. called Barr’s answer, “masterful hairsplitting.” House Speak Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca. said, “He lied to Congress — If anybody else did that it would be considered a crime.”

Barr himself dismissed Mueller’s March 27 memo, calling it, “a bit snitty.” Kerri Kupec, a spokesperson for the Justice Department, called Pelosi’s comments a, “baseless attack” that was “reckless, irresponsible and false.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said, “I applaud Attorney General Barr for his commitment to transparency and keeping the American people informed, consistent with the law and our national security interests.” Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. sounded the same note, “The nation is fortunate to have an experienced leader like Bill Barr in place to ensure maximum possible transparency.”

We’ll turn once more to our old friend, Chris Wallace of the Fox cable network,

I know there are some people who don’t think this March 27 letter is a big deal. Some opinion people, some opinion people who appear on this network, who may be pushing a political agenda. But, you know, we have to deal in facts.

It appears unlikely that Democrats will escalate this battle into a full blown impeachment investigation, undoubtedly doomed to defeat in the Republican controlled Senate. So it seems to this reporter that the bickering will continue through the election, November 3, 2020. Then we will know if any of this matters to the people who should have the final word, the voters.

 

 

#####

Bill Barr’s Balderdash

I know. In my last post I wrote that Attorney General William Barr is a political hack. But I hoped I was wrong. I really did hope the Mueller Report would reveal that Barr’s four page letter to Congress had been a fair representation, that the Mueller Report would put to rest accusations against Donald Trump and that the nation would get on with its business.

But those hopes were dashed even before Barr released a redacted version of the 448-page report on the Department of Justice web site.  A few hours ahead of the release Barr called a “news conference” to put his own spin, for the third time, on what reporters, members of the public and the Congress had yet to read. Barr’s repetition of the “no collusion,” “no obstruction” company line must have been music to Trump’s ears.

Read more

RE: Barr Memo RE: Meuller Report

I thought we should wait to write about the Mueller Report until we had actually read it. Silly me.

We have now seen an incalculable amount of ink and airtime expended reporting on and analyzing the report by special counsel Robert Mueller into “any links and/or consultation between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

Read more

Medicare for All: The Possible Dream

Oh, “The Impossible Dream”. How were we to know that David Brooks, a true compassionate conservative torn asunder by the Trump led takeover of the Republican agenda, is a Luddite at heart?

New York Times columnist Brooks is one of my favorite writers. I never miss a column. And I never miss his Friday joint appearances with liberal syndicated writer Mark Shields on the PBS NewsHour. Brooks usually writes from a unique perspective, but his recent effort branding Medicare for All “The Impossible Dream” seems to have been written from the Twilight Zone.

The Blank Slate

“If America were a Blank Slate,” Brooks writes, “Medicare for all would be a plausible policy, but we are not a blank slate.” The problem, Brooks goes on to explain in detail, is that Medicare for all would require vast segments of America to “transition”, and that would, according to Brooks, be unacceptably disruptive.

The devil is in the details and in truth, as Brooks admits, we don’t know just what Medicare for all means or how we would plan to get there. He tends to cherry pick the proposals to focus on the most disruptive versions. But there is nothing in the history of this great nation to suggest that we will be unable to face whatever challenges the endeavor might raise.

Read more

Journalism? When Pigs Fly!

I could never have anticipated this post. In fact, I can see myself sitting in my journalism class alongside my friends, Marc, Mark and David, Alanna and Lori, and my professors, Isaacs, Patterson, Wood and Friendly. What I wonder, would have happened if I had predicted that 45 years later I would write, and publish where anyone in the world could see it, a commentary containing a reference to a “dick pic”? Never have received my degree, probably.

For those of you who have been on the far side of the moon, shielded from any electromagnetic radiation emanating from earth, a quick recap. Jeff Bezos, who the style books demand must be referred to as, “Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world,” on first reference, woke up one morning to find himself on the front page of the National Enquirer.

bezos-enquirer-div

One generally finds the Enquirer at the supermarket checkout, where it might come in handy if the store is out of toilet paper. This issue featured the details of Bezos’ impending divorce, along with pictures of Bezos and a woman, not his wife, who he was reportedly seeing.

In spite of the headline, I am not going to argue that this report is not journalism. The press has a special place in the history of the United States. It is the only occupation specifically protected by the Constitution. The framers who wrote that document knew exactly what they were doing. They had employed the press to spread the word, sometimes false, about British abuse of colonialists. That helped fan the flames of insurrection. In fact, I’ve often thought the British might have won the Revolutionary War if they had just confiscated every printing press in America.

Read more

The Name Game

Calling another kid by an unflattering nickname is a habit most of us left on the grade school playground. Of course, Donald Trump is not “most of us.” Donald Trump seems to take a particular delight in coming up with a derogatory nickname for people he is not too fond of. “Crooked Hillary” is just one example.

Some of the people he attacks don’t take the bait and engage him in this fashion. I admire them. I don’t think I would capable of that much self restraint. If a punch in the nose wasn’t an available option, and the guy is of course surrounded by Secrete Service agents, I’d at least resort to the obvious retorts. “Donny Draft Dodger” is a good fit. And “Pussy Grabber” would work for an adult audience.

Read more

Winners. Losers. 2020.

We’ve done it. We’ve survived Election 2018. And of course there are winners, losers, and implications for 2020. A few, in no particular order.

We the People. Tough call here. On the one hand, we won. We decided that an unconstrained government is not a good thing and we restored at least the potential for a check and balance for the next two years by putting the House of Representatives in the hands of a different party. We also turned out in record numbers for a midterm. Can we keep it up?

On the other hand, we proved once again that we are a deeply divided nation. Moderates lost to partisans. The future for bipartisanship seems as bleak as before. Race remains the greatest dividing issue. Even a geography based solution involving the dismemberment of the nation doesn’t seem practical as the divide is between urban and rural residents, not between states or regions. The election of 2018 was decided in the suburbs. 2020 may be decided there too.

Continue reading…

« Older Entries