Politicians wouldn’t be politicians without a healthy dose of hypocrisy. The latest example comes from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who t...
The latest example comes from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who tweeted Wednesday afternoon that he was “deeply troubled” that the White House was able to get a briefing on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report before it was released.
“I’m deeply troubled by reports that the WH is being briefed on the Mueller report AHEAD of its release. Now, DOJ is informing us we will not receive the report until around 11/12 tomorrow afternoon — AFTER Barr’s press conference. This is wrong,” Nadler tweeted.
I’m deeply troubled by reports that the WH is being briefed on the Mueller report AHEAD of its release. Now, DOJ is informing us we will not receive the report until around 11/12 tomorrow afternoon — AFTER Barr’s press conference. This is wrong. #ReleaseTheReport
33.7K people are talking about this
So, the White House was briefed before everyone else. Maybe some people see this as a problem, but Nadler’s dismay is simply not believable because of how he responded to the release of an investigation report when the president was a Democrat. Specifically, when that Democrat was President Bill Clinton.
Way back in 1998, America was waiting for Ken Starr’s report on Clinton’s sex scandals to be released. On September 11, 1998, Nadler took to the House floor to decry the fact that Clinton was not able to see the report before it was publicly released “so he can prepare a response.”
“What is at issue here this morning is not his conduct but the fairness of the resolution before us, which is manifestly and grossly unfair,” Nadler said at the time. “It is manifestly unfair because it denies the President the privilege we have given to every other person accused, as the gentleman from Michigan stated, the ability to see the accusation before it is released publicly so he can prepare a response.”
So, Trump getting briefed on the report before its release is “deeply trouble[ing]” but allowing Clinton to see a report before it was released was the height of fairness? Got it.
The hypocrisy was pointed out on Twitter by Jay Caruso, the deputy editor of the Washington Examiner's magazine.
"Oh, now you’re troubled? In 1998 you said it was 'manifestly and grossly unfair' that President Clinton didn’t get to see the Starr report before it was 'released publicly so he can prepare a response,'” Caruso tweeted.
Oh, now you’re troubled? In 1998 you said it was “manifestly and grossly unfair” that President Clinton didn’t get to see the Starr report before it was “released publicly so he can prepare a response.”
2,272 people are talking about this
This is the same congressman who said in early March that he planned to investigate Trump for “obstruction” if and when Mueller found no collusion, which he didn’t.
“Tomorrow, we will be issuing document requests to over 60 different people and individuals from the White House to the Department of Justice, Donald Trump, Jr., Allen Weisselberg, to begin the investigations to present the case to the American people about obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power,” Nadler said on ABC at the time.
Mueller recommended no further indictments, and Attorney General William Barr said there was insufficient evidence to make the case for obstruction. As a side note, the claim is that Trump “obstructed” an investigation into a crime that never happened.
As soon as the report is publicly released, the media is going to be demanding comments from everybody all the way up to the President. How is the President going to comment on something he's just seen briefly himself? No doubt that questions will be asked based on sections of the report being taken out of context or "creatively" cut and pasted to slant the narrative. Since the President is the subject of the report, it makes sense they he'd get to see it first. It's not going to change it.
ReplyDelete