Friday, June 16, 2017

More darkness at the Washington Post

(Powerline) I wrote here about a Washington Post story by Philip Rucker regarding whether President Trump will fire Robert Mueller. I found the Rucker’s piece intellectually dishonest because he never identified the main argument being advanced by those who advocate firing Mueller — namely a possible conflict of interest due to Mueller’s close relationship with James Comey, who likely would be the key witness in any case of “obstruction of justice” and might even become a target of the investigation due to his leaking.

Post columnist David Ignatius makes essentially the same omission in a column arguing that “firing Mueller would be disastrous.” Ignatius mentions the possibility of a conflict of interest, but dismisses it “because the Justice Department’s ethics office has already decided that Mueller doesn’t have a conflict resulting from his law firm’s representation of Trump family members.”
Ignatius is indulging in ignorance of what is stake. The conflict argument isn’t based on work performed by Mueller’s law firm. It’s based on Mueller’s personal relationship with Comey.

More from Powerline by P. Mirengoff

No comments:

Post a Comment