,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
So the members of Mueller's team, all Democrats, were never clear on their job assignment, which was to produce a report for AG and DAG, not for the public. Now they are sore that AG didn't use their summary but wrote his own. They sound like spoiled brats than professionals.
Here's an excellent takedown of the ridiculous bullshit that New York Times and Washington Post are peddling regarding Mueller's team's dissatisfaction with Barr's summary of the Mueller investigation.
washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/be-war…
washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/be-war…
Neither Times' nor WaPo's nonsensical articles include any actual quotes, anonymous or otherwise. Rather, the entire story revolves around the authors paraphrasing nameless “government officials and others familiar with the Mueller team’s simmering frustrations."
Barr's track record for accuracy is better than the Post's or the Times'. The Attorney General has put his name on his assessment, taking on reputational risk, whereas the Times' and the Post’s scurrilous sources remain anonymous.
Mueller himself has not disputed Barr's assessment. And Mueller has gone on the record before to refute mischaracterizations of his team’s findings. If Barr is misrepresenting Mueller's work, Mueller has picked a funny time to go silent.
Ergo, NYT and WaPo are spewing horseshit.
Ergo, NYT and WaPo are spewing horseshit.
This sounds about right.
I love this analysis by Kimberley Strassel of Wall St. Journal. She hits the nail on the head. NYT's scurrilous article about Barr is a new low in journalism.
