I have only ever read a few articles from the Atlantic, so offer no personal opinion about its general accuracy or political bias, but many of those commentators that I have come to trust do not hold it - or NYT and MSNBC - in high regard.
My preferred source for discussions about President Trump, and this matter in particular, is National Review Online. Several writers are lawyers, and not all are fans of their President, so several viewpoints are available in one source. The overiding opinion, from several articles that I have read, seems to be supportive of Attorney-General Barr.
From the Atlantic article quoted:
"This pair of mischaracterizations has the effect of transforming Trump into an innocent man falsely accused."
The legal standard is "innocent until proven guilty". No guilt seems to have been proven, and claims of "collusion" (not a crime, as "conspiracy" would be, if committed) have proven groundless. There has been some discussion regarding the ability to obstruct justice in a case where no crime can be proven. And vocalization by somebody falsely accused is certainly normal behaviour; there is no indication that, words aside, he actually took any unusual step to obstruct anything. Firing James Comey was well within his right, and, until he did so, Democrats were calling for his firing as his actions during the election supposedly cost Clinton her "win" (as did, according to her, many other things except for her crappy campaign and growing reputation for corruption).
The Mueller witch hunt (which completely ignored more credible claims of true crimes committed by the Democrats) was allowed to continue, and the final report was released with the minimal level of redaction necessary to meet legal requirements. That displayed an unprecedented level of transparency, as such documents are (usually, at least) never released.
"Barr amplifies this transformation with his third layer of misrepresentation: his adoption of Trump’s “spying” narrative, which states that there was something improper about the FBI’s scrutiny of campaign figures who had bizarre contacts with Russian-government officials or intermediaries. Barr has not specified precisely what he believes here, but yesterday’s Senate hearing was the second congressional hearing at which he implied darkly that the FBI leadership under James Comey had engaged in some kind of improper surveillance of the Trump campaign. In other words, not only is the president an innocent man falsely accused, but he’s now the victim of “spying on a political campaign” - as Barr put it a few weeks ago - by a biased cabal running the FBI."
There certainly seems to be ample evidence to back up the "spying" narrative, and I eagerly await the investigations regarding that and the coverups of Clinton/Democrat activities, including, but not limited to, Clinton Foundation donations/briberies, Uranium One, The Steele Dossier (based upon faulty/made-up claims of Trumpian misbehaviour concocted by Russians and a former British intelligent agent - see "Collusion" with foreign agents, including Russians) which was used to kick off various investigations, and absolutely gross e-mail security violations.
I could never believe any claims that Russia had a preferrence for Donald Trump winning, after the Clintons had, essentially, been bought and paid for, and Obama had soft-pedalled the Russian threat. Obama was caught, while unknowingly on an open microphone, promising Dmitri Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" to make concessions to Russia after his re-election, and, later, when Mitt Romney referred to Russia as "The number one geopolitical foe", retorted that "The 1980s are now calling and they want their foreign policy back". Russians were good until Donald Trump won, at which point they became an excuse for Clinton losing and a means of obstructing the lawfully-elected President.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/clinton-russia-collusion-evidence/
Russian Collusion, Clinton $tyle
By Deroy Murdock March 27, 2018 10:51 AM
In contrast, Team Mueller studiously ignores something more conspicuous than the iridescent onion domes atop Red Square’s St. Basil’s Cathedral: Private interests that closed deals with Vladimir Putin and his agents - thanks to then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s public favors - gave the Clinton Foundation between $152 million and $173 million.
While this institution performed some charitable work, it also was the Clintons’ de facto slush fund. It operated a veritable full-employment program for the courtiers in Hillary’s “government in waiting” during the Obama years and financed much of the Clintons’ global travels. Donations to the Clinton Foundation were, in essence, gift-wrapped presents for the Clintons.
Hillary’s March 2009 button-pushing “Russian reset” ceremony with Moscow’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, triggered this particular bonanza. Hillary captured its essence in March 2010 when she told former Soviet propagandist Vladimir Pozner on First Channel TV: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”
My preferred source for discussions about President Trump, and this matter in particular, is National Review Online. Several writers are lawyers, and not all are fans of their President, so several viewpoints are available in one source. The overiding opinion, from several articles that I have read, seems to be supportive of Attorney-General Barr.
From the Atlantic article quoted:
"This pair of mischaracterizations has the effect of transforming Trump into an innocent man falsely accused."
The legal standard is "innocent until proven guilty". No guilt seems to have been proven, and claims of "collusion" (not a crime, as "conspiracy" would be, if committed) have proven groundless. There has been some discussion regarding the ability to obstruct justice in a case where no crime can be proven. And vocalization by somebody falsely accused is certainly normal behaviour; there is no indication that, words aside, he actually took any unusual step to obstruct anything. Firing James Comey was well within his right, and, until he did so, Democrats were calling for his firing as his actions during the election supposedly cost Clinton her "win" (as did, according to her, many other things except for her crappy campaign and growing reputation for corruption).
The Mueller witch hunt (which completely ignored more credible claims of true crimes committed by the Democrats) was allowed to continue, and the final report was released with the minimal level of redaction necessary to meet legal requirements. That displayed an unprecedented level of transparency, as such documents are (usually, at least) never released.
"Barr amplifies this transformation with his third layer of misrepresentation: his adoption of Trump’s “spying” narrative, which states that there was something improper about the FBI’s scrutiny of campaign figures who had bizarre contacts with Russian-government officials or intermediaries. Barr has not specified precisely what he believes here, but yesterday’s Senate hearing was the second congressional hearing at which he implied darkly that the FBI leadership under James Comey had engaged in some kind of improper surveillance of the Trump campaign. In other words, not only is the president an innocent man falsely accused, but he’s now the victim of “spying on a political campaign” - as Barr put it a few weeks ago - by a biased cabal running the FBI."
There certainly seems to be ample evidence to back up the "spying" narrative, and I eagerly await the investigations regarding that and the coverups of Clinton/Democrat activities, including, but not limited to, Clinton Foundation donations/briberies, Uranium One, The Steele Dossier (based upon faulty/made-up claims of Trumpian misbehaviour concocted by Russians and a former British intelligent agent - see "Collusion" with foreign agents, including Russians) which was used to kick off various investigations, and absolutely gross e-mail security violations.
I could never believe any claims that Russia had a preferrence for Donald Trump winning, after the Clintons had, essentially, been bought and paid for, and Obama had soft-pedalled the Russian threat. Obama was caught, while unknowingly on an open microphone, promising Dmitri Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" to make concessions to Russia after his re-election, and, later, when Mitt Romney referred to Russia as "The number one geopolitical foe", retorted that "The 1980s are now calling and they want their foreign policy back". Russians were good until Donald Trump won, at which point they became an excuse for Clinton losing and a means of obstructing the lawfully-elected President.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/clinton-russia-collusion-evidence/
Russian Collusion, Clinton $tyle
By Deroy Murdock March 27, 2018 10:51 AM
In contrast, Team Mueller studiously ignores something more conspicuous than the iridescent onion domes atop Red Square’s St. Basil’s Cathedral: Private interests that closed deals with Vladimir Putin and his agents - thanks to then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s public favors - gave the Clinton Foundation between $152 million and $173 million.
While this institution performed some charitable work, it also was the Clintons’ de facto slush fund. It operated a veritable full-employment program for the courtiers in Hillary’s “government in waiting” during the Obama years and financed much of the Clintons’ global travels. Donations to the Clinton Foundation were, in essence, gift-wrapped presents for the Clintons.
Hillary’s March 2009 button-pushing “Russian reset” ceremony with Moscow’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, triggered this particular bonanza. Hillary captured its essence in March 2010 when she told former Soviet propagandist Vladimir Pozner on First Channel TV: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”
) in order to develop informed opinions; of course, that requires an interest in TRUTH, which isn't always found on a soapbox or behind a pulpit.
