So... when did he make his case? When he repeated the claim? If you answer a "why do you think x" with "because I think x," and even prefaced that with a statement like history being written by the victors... Uh, ya, that seems to be what ole Chuck is talking about. I don't see anything out of context, and @A-Smith must walk around ringing a bell constantly his entire life if that is "shameful." It was quite literally THE context. The EXACT context.
I took his "history being written by the victors" as being that he couldn't control how it would be written. And perhaps even defeatist. The anti-Trumpists will write most of the history if we are being honest. And it was a very shameful edit. He directly answered the reporter's query. Maybe the answer wasn't specific enough but he did not arrogantly wink it off with a "we are going to write the history" the way Chuck Todd implied. The edit completely altered the tone and posture of his response. That's Meet the Press. They should be better. And NBC has apologized.
Directly answered how? He just said it was an injustice, not WHY. Everybody apologizes for everything now. Folks are scared.
You don’t think Todd’s being dishonest there, IP? Playing to half of the quote, and a joking one at that?
Hilarious joke. If this is the standard, we need to bump that "You didn't build that" thread where his entire speech was ignored.
He purposefully cut off half the quote to make Barr look worse. It was a Fox News/CNN type of move. Meet the Press used to have some integrity.
No, I think it is a fair line of inquiry to ask "what the hell did that mean" regarding history being written by the victors on a matter of the law.
Here's what gets me: Correctly, that line was zoomed in on. Incorrectly, it spawned an inquiry of "why didn't he invoke upholding justice?" when the whole response does emptily invoke it... But that line was a slip of the mask. Barr was talking about "victors." I.e., he was talking about politics and not justice, not the law, etc. THAT is what should have been questioned. He revealed what this is all about, and why the DOJ isn't going to now go back on every other case in which a person pleas guilty and then changes their mind: politics.
You might want to relisten: Todd: I was struck, Peggy, by the cynicism of the answer. It’s a correct answer, but he’s the attorney general. He didn’t make the case that he was upholding the rule of law. He was almost admitting that, yeah, this is a political job. What Barr Said: Barr: Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.
Using the half quote he said Barr admitted that it was a political decision, when the full quote clearly has him stating that the right decision was made in regards to the letter of the law.
She asked how the history would be written. It was a direct response to the query. Kind of a stupid question, but that's not his fault.
I do not understand the debate on this one?!? Todd said that he did not say X when he clearly said X.
He was not asked to say anything like that. He was asked how the history would be written and he said that if it were written fairly, people would remember he made the right decision because it upheld the law.
