NYT MoDo "Lowering the Barr"

[NRaleighLiberal]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/opinion/sunday/dowd-robert-mueller-william-barr.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

snip ...

the last parts

Just as Barr enables Trump, Mueller enabled Barr.

Mueller’s argument seems to be that he can’t report on what his facts mean because the president has immunity from prosecution. But that doesn’t follow. If you believe Trump committed a crime, even if you can’t indict him now, why not say so? Otherwise, what was the point of the investigation? All Mueller was asked to do was to describe what he found and give his conclusions; then the Justice Department and Congress could do what they wanted.

As Walter Dellinger, an acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration, tweeted: “Everyone agrees a president can be indicted once he is out of office. That (in addition to impeachment) is a reason to gather the evidence now while docs are available and memories fresh.”

But, tangled up in some overweening idea of fairness, the ultimate straight arrow decided to remain agnostic even though his job did not require agnosticism. And that made him weirdly complicit in Barr’s whitewashing of Trump.

Mueller colored inside the lines and Barr seized the narrative. Rectitude was Mueller’s Achilles’ heel.

Sometimes it’s hard to know who is worse: devils or saints.

[napi21]

1. Mueller answered that question. He said if he stated the President committed a crime, that would be

the same asw accusing him when he has no means to legally fight that back in court, and that wouldn't be fair. Niw, the last thing in the world I would ever worry about was being "faiar" to the orangeman, because he doesn't do ANYYTHING fair! But then I'm not Mr. Mueller.