theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Thursday, May 2, 2019

WSJ, National Review Editorials SLAM Democrats' PHONY FUMING at Attorney General Barr


Brutal: WSJ, National Review Editorials Slam Democrats' Phony Fuming at Attorney General Barr

Guy Benson

In a pair of house editorials that echoed a number of my central themes and points from yesterday, the right-leaning editors of the Wall Street Journal and National Review defended Attorney General William Barr from the Left's scurrilous and desperate attacks against him, lambasting Democrats for their hysterical overreach. And with the liberal publications like the Washington Post and the New York Times predictably amplifying the Democratic line today, it's officially confirmed that yesterday's hearings provided no game-changers.  Let's start with the Journal:
Washington pile-ons are never pretty, but this week’s political setup of Attorney General William Barr is disreputable even by Beltway standards. Democrats and the media are turning the AG into a villain for doing his duty and making the hard decisions that special counsel Robert Mueller abdicated...Mr. Barr told the Senate Wednesday that he offered Mr. Mueller the chance to review his four-page letter before sending it to Congress, but the special counsel declined. Mr. Mueller worked for Mr. Barr, and that was the proper time to offer suggestions or disagree. Instead, Mr. Mueller ducked that responsibility and then griped in an ex-post-facto letter that was conveniently leaked on the eve of Mr. Barr’s testimony. Quite the stand-up guy. Mr. Barr has since released the full Mueller report with minor redactions, as he promised, and with the “context” intact...This trashing of Bill Barr shows how frustrated and angry Democrats continue to be that the special counsel came up empty in his Russia collusion probe. He was supposed to be their fast-track to impeachment. Now they’re left trying to gin up an obstruction tale, but the probe wasn’t obstructed and there was no underlying crime. So they’re shouting and pounding the table against Bill Barr for acting like a real Attorney General.
Spot on. Read the whole thing. At National Review, the team skewers Democrats'desperate "obsession" and "conspiracy theories" about the timeline of Barr...doing exactly what he said he'd do in releasing the Mueller report:
As everyone knows, Bill Barr released a brief letter summarizing the top-line conclusions of the Mueller report shortly after he received it. Justice Department lawyers then worked with Mueller staff to make the appropriate redactions, after which the entire 400-page report was publicly released. Strangely enough, this process has become an obsession for Democrats and the press and the focus of endless conspiracy theories...Barr’s position was eminently reasonable. He wanted to get the basic verdict of the Mueller report out as quickly as possible, given the inherent interest in the question of whether the president of the United States had conspired with the Russians. He opposed the subsequent release of the summaries of the report, as suggested in Mueller’s letter, because he thought it better that the public get the entire report at once. Which it did. Democrats and the media are acting as if Barr engaged in some sort of cover-up, when he went further than required under the regulations to release all of the report with minimal redactions. Even Mueller in a phone conversation with Barr didn’t complain that his summary of findings was inaccurate — Barr was careful to note that Mueller didn’t “exonerate” Trump on obstruction.
The piece also dismantles a "perjury" allegation against Barr, and scolds Mueller's team over their pointless letter complaining about the atmospherics surrounding Barr's entirely accurate four-page memo: "Particularly troubling [to them] was that it wasn’t damning enough of the president. This is not a prosecutorial concern, but a political one unworthy of people who were invested with incredible investigative power in the name of objectivity." The editorial concludes, "Barr’s critics are demonstrating their lack of judgment and seriousness, not his."  Also worthwhile is David French's analysis, considering the harsh opprobrium he heaped upon President Trump following the release of Mueller's work (my take was here).  French rightly backs Barr's actions and upbraids his unhinged critics, noting that any frustrations about the Barr summary (the approach to which French calls "entirely fair") were rendered moot as soon as the largely-unredacted, context-rich underlying document was made public.  In case you missed it yesterday, Sen. Ted Cruz highlighted this overwhelmingly important point during Wednesday's hearing, ridiculing his Democratic colleagues' "exceptionally weak argument," drawing a chuckle from Barr (scroll ahead to the two-minute mark):


  1. I¡¦ve study a variety of perfect products below.
    Worth book-marking just for revisiting. I personally shock just how a whole lot
    of time and effort you'd put to make this type of wonderful
    insightful website.

  2. Woah! I’m extremely lovingenjoyingdigging the particular template/theme of that sitewebsiteblog.

    It’s quick, nevertheless effective. Most of the time it’s fairly hardvery
    difficultchallengingtoughdifficulthard so you can get which usually “perfect
    balance” concerning amazing usabilityuser friendlinessusability in addition to vision appearancevisual appealappearance.
    I must say in which you’veyou haveyou’ve achieved a good
    awesomeamazingvery goodsuperbfantasticexcellentgreat occupation using this type of.
    With additionAdditionallyAlso, the website lots veryextremelysuper fastquick
    in my circumstances upon SafariInternet explorerChromeOperaFirefox.
    SuperbExceptionalOutstandingExcellent Web page!

  3. Hey, I found your web site by Google and bing even though looking to purchase a pertinent content, your web page came up,
    seems good. I’ve saved to favorites it again around
    my aol social book marking.

  4. Really! Many thanks! I actually in the long term were
    going to produce on my small web page as well.
    Can I create a portion of your post to successfully my website?

  5. You're so awesome! I do not think I have read a
    single thing like this before. So great to discover
    someone with genuine thoughts on this subject. Seriously..
    thanks for starting this up. This website
    is something that is needed on the internet,
    someone with a little originality!

  6. superb issues for the most part, you only need to gained
    a custom logo innovative visitor. What could possibly anyone counsel regarding upload
    that you just developed weekend prior to now?
    Any sort of confident?

  7. Excellent post.Ne'er knew this, appreciate it for letting me know.

  8. I am extremely impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout
    on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it
    yourself? Either way keep up the excellent quality writing, it's rare to see a great
    blog like this one nowadays.