Quantcast
Connect with us

‘So much for complete and total exoneration’: NYT shreds AG Barr for exposing Trump criminality — and then excusing it

Published

on

On Thursday, the editorial board at The New York Times wrote a scathing editorial that details the “dysfunction and distrust” revealed in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

The highly anticipated report was released by Attorney General Bill Barr early Thursday morning after a press conference.

“So much for ‘complete and total exoneration,'” the editorial bluntly begins in a slap at Trump’s claim of “no collusion.”

“In addition to pointing to possible criminality, the report revealed a White House riddled with dysfunction and distrust, one in which Mr. Trump and his aides lie with contempt for one another and the public,” the editorial said.

It goes on to explain the multiple bombshells that the report revealed, but noted that one questions still lingers even after the drop of the report.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Why did Mr. Mueller decide not to make a finding of whether President Trump obstructed justice?” the editorial said.

“We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes,” the Mueller report says, because “fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.”

“In other words, Mr. Mueller felt his hands were tied. Longstanding Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, and it isn’t fair to make accusations without giving the president a legal forum in which to respond,” the editorial states.

ADVERTISEMENT

It goes on to explains that the report shows the accuracy of claims made against Trump and his White House.

“By contrast, the special prosecutor’s report illustrates again and again that, despite Mr. Trump’s constant cries of ‘fake news,’ responsible news media’s reporting on the investigation was overwhelmingly accurate,” the editorial states.

Some pundits have argued that the report serves as a roadmap towards impeachment, but even with findings, there will be a “long way to go” before true justice happens.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Mr. Mueller may have felt he couldn’t indict a president in the legal sense of the term, but he has delivered a devastating description of Mr. Trump’s attempts to abuse his powers and corrupt his aides. This report, even in its censored format, is an important step toward putting the truth of this presidency in the public record. But there’s still a long way to go before it can be said that justice has been done.”

Read the full editorial here.


Report typos and corrections to [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t even a competent investor: report

Published

on

There can be no doubt that high-powered hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein would rather the public know him for his prominence and success as an investor than for the allegations of child sex trafficking, for which he has now been indicted and faces life in prison. And there has for years been mystique surrounding Epstein's business — his wealth fund is so exclusive that it reportedly requires a billion dollars up front from clients.

But according to the Dow Jones' periodical Barron's, Epstein may not even be good at that.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Jon Stewart blasts ‘abomination’ of Rand Paul trying to ‘balance the budget on the backs of’ 9/11 responders

Published

on

On Wednesday's edition of Fox News' "Special Report," comedian and activist Jon Stewart slammed Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) for blocking unanimous consent for a bill to support health care for 9/11 first responders.

"Pardon me if I'm not impressed in any way by Rand Paul's fiscal responsibility virtue signaling," said Stewart to anchor Bret Baier, who appeared on the show with first responder and activist John Feal.

He added that Paul's complaint, that the bill was unfunded, rings hollow given that he "added hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficit" with the GOP tax cuts for billionaires. He castigated Paul for trying to "balance the budget on the backs of the 9/11 first responder community."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Republicans will never say that racism is ‘racism’ — basically because they’re racist

Published

on

Is there any expression of racism that Republicans will actually admit is racism? It's a question on a lot of progressive minds in the wake of Donald Trump demonizing female congresswomen of color with the "go back" canard that white nationalists and other assorted racists have long used to abuse anyone with heritage they dislike, whether that heritage is Jewish, Irish, Italian, African, Latin American or Muslim. Telling someone to "go back" is, in the ranks of racist statements, right up there with calling a person the N-word or some other rank slur. Yet, there still appears to be resistance among Republicans to admitting that is racism, which leads many on the left to wonder: If this doesn't count, then what could possibly count?

Continue Reading
 
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

Enjoy Summer! Try Raw Story Ad-Free for $1. Invest in Progressive Journalism.
close-image