Monday, June 3, 2019
Jonathan Turley, Mueller, Barr, GK And I
First: Jonathan Turley: Turley
...I agree --it has nothing to do with being pro Trump or right wing. But, what does it have to do with? Does the Muller release indicated that Muller was incompetent in his understanding of the law? Does that incompetency go beyond Muller to also include all the other lawyers who helped him write the report the and the conclusions it (almost) reached? Was Muller's disdain for Trump so bitter that he pursue a result that would tarnish not only Trump but the whole White House legal edifice? If so, why?
I am willing to say that Barr and Muller were both men of high repute before undertaking to play their parts in the Trump circus. But, can't understand why two prominent Republicans and prominent Republican assistant attorney general, would create a legal stew that even the dogs don 't to taste. Turley's questions don't lead to any possible answers that people could puzzle through and agree that the law was followed and America -- despite the complexities of democracy is still reasonably healthy...
It strikes me that you’re asking a series of non questions and harbouring a standard that by design or effect distract us from the salient point.
That point is this, in one way of putting it: the OSC Report is a significant event; the fate of the presidency may hang on its reception; ideally it ought not be either politicized or weaponized nor have been created or tilted towards facilitating either effort; so when the creators of the Report act oddly, muddy their remit and ultimately don’t do a big part of their job, then that is profoundly worthy of critical comment and profoundly worth knowing.
For non Americans it can be a matter of great interest. For Americans it is a matter of vital and practical interest. They can take the criticisms into account as they assess the Report and form centres of electoral consensus and pressure on whether and to what extent the Report is actionable.
There are no limits to the possible scope of criticism but this writer has chosen noteworthy three issues and made good, maybe devastating, points about all three. I cannot see the relevance or probity, given his short piece, of questioning why he didn’t raise and explore more tangential issues and conduct.
My call is that the OSC effectively created an impeachment referral and that Barr and those amongst him did a straight shooting job in disseminating, commenting on the Report and answering the question that the OSC, falling down on its job on this, failed properly to.
You invoke a bizarre criterion for judgment by setting it up that unless this short piece doesn’t lead to an epiphany of clarity, doesn’t provide clarifying illumination for all Americans, leaves opinions and even passions relatively unaffected, then it’s basically a meaningless exercise. Which of course isn’t how great national conversations and evolving consensuses in a liberal democracy work. Rather, usually there’s a conglomeration of insights and understandings over time that lead to emerging consensuses that then exert and have political effects.
I’d judge Turley’s short piece to be a quite helpful contribution to that emergence.