By Jeremy Bash and others: We've sometimes told you that we liberals get "propagandized" when we watch MSNBC.
Last night, we watched a discussion of next month's scheduled congressional appearance by Robert Mueller. Speaking with Brian Williams, the perpetually glowering Jeremy Bash made the remarkable highlighted statements:
WILLIAMS (6/25/19): Jeremy Bash, a double question for you. How do the Democrats try to make [Mueller] their witness? And why have staff meet with staff—Mueller's staff, Hill staff—in off-camera executive session?To watch this exchange, click here, move to the 7-minute mark.
I think there is some new information that Mueller can explain which is, Why did he implicitly state, both in the report and his press conference or his press statement, that the president had committed obstruction of justice?
Now, he stated it as a double negative. You know, "I did not find that the president did not obstruct justice." But what was clearly meant by that is, "I did find that the President probably did obstruct justice, but I couldn't prosecute him because he's the president. Over to you, Congress."
If he just merely explains that in a clear, coherent way, I think he adds to the important record here.
In fairness to the glowering Bash, he did include such weasel words as "implicitly" and "probably." That said, has Mueller actually stated or said that President Trump "committed obstruction of justice?"
Well no, he actually hasn't.
Within the past week, we've seen various people make claims like Bash's on MSNBC's various programs. Tomorrow, we'll transcribe a set of remarks by Nicolle Wallace, remarks she made last week.
That said, has Mueller actually stated or said that Trump committed obstruction of justice?
We're sorry, but he actually hasn't. For example, here's a rather definitive statement from the start of Volume II of the Mueller report, the volume which deals with possible obstruction:
MUELLER REPORT (Volume II, page 8): CONCLUSIONWhich part of "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" doesn't the glowering Bash understand? Is it the part which says "not?"
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
We saw Joe Scarborough match Bash's statement this very morning. Wallace pleases viewers in this way on a regular basis, omitting the weasel words as she does.
As in the past, so too with this! We liberals are being deceived by our favorite stars on The One True Channel. Corporate news frequently functions this way, as does the "human" mind.
In late night visits to our chambers, anthropologists have repeatedly said that this is the best our species can do. Watching cable, we've started to think that these experts may even be right!