How Can You Be Outraged Over Mueller's Letter to Barr When We Have Mueller's Full Report?

In a photo taken Wednesday, June 21, 2017, Special Counsel Robert Mueller departs after a closed-door meeting with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee about Russian meddling in the election and possible connection to the Trump campaign, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

In a photo taken Wednesday, June 21, 2017, Special Counsel Robert Mueller departs after a closed-door meeting with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee about Russian meddling in the election and possible connection to the Trump campaign, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

So, apparently, Robert Mueller wasn’t happy with the media coverage of William Barr’s summary letter of his report. The media ran with the story that “Mueller wasn’t happy with the summary” instead because, hey, who would want to run a story about how they messed something up?

The Democrats have decided to pounce – yes, pounce – on the headlines rather than the content of the story: Namely that, when pressed, Mueller admitted he didn’t disagree with the summary. But, the Democrats don’t care. They want the headlines to keep coming, and to be fair, media outlets don’t mind the outrage traffic that comes in from continuing to run them (see Elizabeth Vaughn’s post at 9 a.m. for more).

But it is hard to say “Barr didn’t give us the full information!” when we have the full report. Granted, some private data has been redacted, but who in their right minds would want their personal information regarding their involvement with this investigation published? I wouldn’t. CNN might park vans outside my house next.

Take Representative Adam Schiff:

This tweet is based on a few fake premises. The first is what Mueller objected to. As mentioned, he admitted he didn’t disagree with the summary, but rather the media’s handling of it.

The second fake premise here is that this was a “false public narrative” the White House created. Mueller found no collusion and made no determination as to whether or not Trump committed acts of obstruction. Now, to say that the President didn’t obstruct is still up for debate – legally, at best the grounds for saying “You can’t commit obstruction with no underlying crime” are dubious at best – but nothing about Barr’s summary was wrong or false, and therefore the White House didn’t spin some extraordinary proclamation of innocence from the report.

The third false premise is implied in the third statement. Schiff is acting as though Congress is being stopped from talking to Mueller. Barr has already said he has no objection to it. Schiff knows this. He also knows that, by saying this, he doesn’t have to take Barr’s upcoming House testimony seriously, because he’s made it clear to the public that his interest is in a new target.

And, inevitably, when Mueller is set to appear before Congress, Schiff will say “We cannot stop with Mueller. We have to talk to (insert next name here).” He will do this because the Democrats still believe the 2016 re-litigation is their best path to the White House. Democrats on the campaign trail for President are tripping over themselves when it comes to policy, so running against Trump is what they think is best.

And, to that, I say this: Remember how successful the Republicans were at running a campaign against Barack Obama rather than for policies?