nytimes
People have been asking me hard questions. What happened to the leaders in the Trump administration, especially the attorney general, Bill Barr, who I have said was due the benefit of the doubt?
How could Mr. Barr, a bright and accomplished lawyer, start channeling the president in using words like “no collusion” and F.B.I. “spying”? And downplaying acts of obstruction of justice as products of the president’s being “frustrated and angry,” something he would never say to justify the thousands of crimes prosecuted every day that are the product of frustration and anger?
How could he write and say things about the report by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, that were apparently so misleading that they prompted written protest from the special counsel himself?
How could Mr. Barr go before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and downplay President Trump’s attempt to fire Mr. Mueller before he completed his work?
And how could Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, after the release of Mr. Mueller’s report that detailed Mr. Trump’s determined efforts to obstruct justice, give a speech quoting the president on the importance of the rule of law? Or on resigning, thank a president who relentlessly attacked both him and the Department of Justice he led for “the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations”?
What happened to these people?
I don’t know for sure. People are complicated, so the answer is most likely complicated. But I have some idea from four months of working close to Mr. Trump and many more months of watching him shape others.
Amoral leaders have a way of revealing the character of those around them. Sometimes what they reveal is inspiring. For example, James Mattis, the former secretary of defense, resigned over principle, a concept so alien to Mr. Trump that it took days for the president to realize what had happened, before he could start lying about the man.
But more often, proximity to an amoral leader reveals something depressing. I think that’s at least part of what we’ve seen with Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein.
I think I liked this blog better when it focused on Jewish community issuees
ReplyDeleteAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
ReplyDeleteFour Principles of Quotation
You mean like when Obama encouraged Iran to expand its terror base by paying them million$?
ReplyDeleteFACT CHECK Trump’s Favorite Iran-Obama Cash Story, Still Bogus No Matter How Often He Tells It
ReplyDeleteHere is Trump's latest iteration of this claim from Thursday, the reality behind it and how its used to delegitimize the Iran nuclear deal
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/trump-s-iran-cash-story-oft-told-still-bogus-1.6032057
a well known lie!
ReplyDeleteAll that is necessary for good to fail is act trumphant over nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe link you provided confirms both tranches of money were paid to Iran. The money was Iranian under the previous regime of the shah. The reason it was frozen was because the ayatollah regime is a terrorist regime which chants Death to America and Israel at every opportunity, takes hostages, backs global terror etc. So what part of my statement was the lie?
ReplyDeleteThe story in haaretz also confirms that part of the money (The principal amount) was sent over in cash, on a cargo plane.
ReplyDeleteIf you're using Haaretz as a source then you're running on empty.
ReplyDeleteit simply affirmed my first source
ReplyDeleteNo, it states that he released money to America's no. 1 enemy. The reason it was frozen was because the regime was a threat. Don't forget the US marines killed in Lebanon by Hezbollah, friends of Iran. Obama is helping to fund the same Hezbollah that killed 200 US marines.
ReplyDeleteit was irans money
ReplyDeletehe didnt give it was theirs
There were claims on it from Americans to whom Iran owes money.
ReplyDelete