The bewildering thing about this whole Mueller/Barr controversy about the meaning of the Mueller report -- now that Mueller has spoken and said what he meant -- is that so many conservatives still believe Barr's version.
Well, perhaps it shouldn't be bewildering, given what we know about strongly held beliefs that do not give way to facts or more logical explanations.
But my favorite commentary on this came from Jonathan Chait, writing for the Daily Intelligencer. He wrote, with dripping irony:
"What so vexed the right about Mueller's curt affirmation of his previous conclusions? , , , [T]hey believed their own propaganda. . . Presented even briefly with reality, their minds have reeled in shock. . . ."
Chait then presented reactions from noted pundits who refused to believe Mueller's own presentation, including a writer for the National Review , Charles C.W. Cooke, as well as famed attorneys Alan Dershowitz and John Podhoretz. But then Chait concludes with what I find amusing:
"Ironically, it was Fox News meathead Dan Bongino, ranting to his radio audience, who came closest to grasping reality. Bongino notices that Mueller heavily signaled that he did find behavior that, if the perpetrator was not the president, would be crimes. . . .
"Bongino realizes this comes down to either Barr or Mueller misleading the country about what Mueller's report concluded. And yet, perched one step away from the correct answer, he insists it must be Mueller who is lying about the Mueller report. Ignore all the evidence of obvious crimes in the Mueller report. Ignore Mueller telling us that department policy prevents him from labeling those actions as crimes. The one reliable truth Borgino returns to is the sacred value of Bill Barr's word.
"If you can't trust the slavishly loyal attorney general, handpicked by a president whose sole criterion for the job is to ignore its ethical guidelines and protect him at all costs,
who can you trust?"
Indeed !
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment