Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Trump's new 'Article II' comments illustrate stakes at Mueller hearings
The Plum Line • Opinion
Trump’s new ‘Article II’ comments illustrate stakes at Mueller hearings
By Greg Sargent
Opinion writer
July 24 at 8:18 AM
With the congressional hearings featuring Robert S. Mueller III set to begin, it’s fitting that President Trump himself underscored the true stakes of what we’re about to witness, though he did so inadvertently, in a way he may not quite appreciate. ... In a speech on Tuesday, Trump discussed the powers accorded him by Article II of the Constitution. Referencing the former special counsel’s investigation, Trump claimed:
The first half of that is driving the coverage, but the second half is also important. Trump claimed Attorney General William P. Barr read the report and declared that it found “nothing,” meaning “no collusion” and “no obstruction.” ... Note that Trump did not say here that the report itself found those things; he’s saying that his attorney general read it and reached this conclusion.
This is largely true, but not in the way Trump means it. Barr did read the report and reach a conclusion somewhat along those lines — by misrepresenting what it actually found. ... In his summary of the report, Barr dishonestly took Mueller’s words out of context in a way that downplayed all the improper motives Mueller found for Trump’s efforts to obstruct the investigation, submerged the fact that Trump and his advisers eagerly expected to benefit from the Russian attack on our democracy, and dramatically minimized the meaning of Mueller’s refusal to exonerate Trump of criminal obstruction.
....
Now that we’re hearing directly from Mueller himself, what’s at stake, at least in part, is whether the damning truth of what Mueller actually did find will be successfully drawn out before a national audience, or whether such obfuscations — the ones Trump himself referenced — will continue to obscure that truth.
....
Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog. He joined The Post in 2010, after stints at Talking Points Memo, New York Magazine and the New York Observer. Follow https://twitter.com/theplumlinegs
Trump’s new ‘Article II’ comments illustrate stakes at Mueller hearings
By Greg Sargent
Opinion writer
July 24 at 8:18 AM
With the congressional hearings featuring Robert S. Mueller III set to begin, it’s fitting that President Trump himself underscored the true stakes of what we’re about to witness, though he did so inadvertently, in a way he may not quite appreciate. ... In a speech on Tuesday, Trump discussed the powers accorded him by Article II of the Constitution. Referencing the former special counsel’s investigation, Trump claimed:
Then I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President. But I don’t even talk about that because they did a report and there was no obstruction. After looking at it, our great Attorney General read it. He’s a total professional. He said, “There’s nothing here. There’s no obstruction.” So they referenced, “No obstruction.” So you have no collusion, no obstruction, and yet it goes on.
The first half of that is driving the coverage, but the second half is also important. Trump claimed Attorney General William P. Barr read the report and declared that it found “nothing,” meaning “no collusion” and “no obstruction.” ... Note that Trump did not say here that the report itself found those things; he’s saying that his attorney general read it and reached this conclusion.
This is largely true, but not in the way Trump means it. Barr did read the report and reach a conclusion somewhat along those lines — by misrepresenting what it actually found. ... In his summary of the report, Barr dishonestly took Mueller’s words out of context in a way that downplayed all the improper motives Mueller found for Trump’s efforts to obstruct the investigation, submerged the fact that Trump and his advisers eagerly expected to benefit from the Russian attack on our democracy, and dramatically minimized the meaning of Mueller’s refusal to exonerate Trump of criminal obstruction.
....
Now that we’re hearing directly from Mueller himself, what’s at stake, at least in part, is whether the damning truth of what Mueller actually did find will be successfully drawn out before a national audience, or whether such obfuscations — the ones Trump himself referenced — will continue to obscure that truth.
....
Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog. He joined The Post in 2010, after stints at Talking Points Memo, New York Magazine and the New York Observer. Follow https://twitter.com/theplumlinegs
