We all knew this would happen, right?
News reporters and commentators are furious Thursday following Attorney General William Barr’s press conference announcing the forthcoming release of the special counsel’s report on its concluded two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
“[T]his is straight-up PR,” groused CNBC’s John Harwood as Barr reiterated the counsel’s determination that it could not “establish that the members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser complained, “Attorney General or President’s personal lawyer? Wiliam Barr is inspire [sic] a long debate with this press conference.”
“That arrogant, willfully misleading press conference was shocking even by 2019 standards. We continue to underreact to our government’s transformation into an authoritarian junta,” said New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg.
At the press briefing itself, the mood for the news media was much the same, as no fewer than three Justice Department reporters asked Barr to respond to criticisms that he is acting on behalf of President Trump.
“How do you respond to criticism you’re receiving from congressional Democrats that you’re acting more as a attorney for the president rather than as the chief law enforcement officer?” asked one reporter.
“[H]ere you have remarks that are quite generous to the president, including acknowledging his feelings and his emotions. So, what do you say to people on both sides of the aisle who are concerned that you are trying to protect the president?” asked CBS’ Paula Reid.
Barr responded by saying that the “statements about [Trump’s sincere beliefs that the investigation has undermined his presidency] are recognized in the report, that there was substantial evidence for that. So, I’m not sure what your basis is for saying that I’m being generous to the president.”
Reid repeated her question: “What do you say to people who are concerned that you’re trying to protect the president?”
A third reporter asked whether Barr thinks there is any sort of impropriety in his coming out “and sort of what appears to be sort of spinning the report before the public has had a chance to read it?”
Perhaps not realizing that it looks particularly bad to be so angry over the special counsel’s determination that it could not establish evidence showing Americans worked with the Russians to steal a U.S. election, frequent MSNBC guest Rich Hasan declared, “This ‘press conference’ would make the editors of Pravda proud.”
Also at MSNBC, noted fabulist Brian Williams claimed Barr must be OK with his legacy being “the AG who took one for the team.”
Host Nicole Wallace added, “We know it wasn’t a criminal conspiracy with the Russians, but then what was it? Because Robert Mueller spent 22 months looking at it, and if there was nothing, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have taken 22 months to say nothing.”
Cable and network news regular Ron Fournier declared, “We may never totally trust an AG, the DOJ or the FBI again One person to blame for that: [President Trump].”
CNN’s chief legal expert Jeffery Toobin also claimed, “You know who else was concerned about leaks? Richard Nixon,” adding that Nixon was impeached (no, he wasn’t). Toobin also tweeted a bit of shockingly bad legal analysis, “Happy people don’t obstruct justice. Trump’s frustration at leaks and investigation are evidence of guilt, not innocence. But let’s see the report.”
It goes on for that like quite a bit, on all fronts.
Honestly, though, was there ever a version of reality where the attorney general re-explaining the special counsel’s finding on the collusion question was not going to inspire a “hair on fire” response from the press? Given that reporters at national newsrooms were attacking Barr’s press conference even before it happened, my best guess to that question is: No.
