June 24th, 2017

Andrew C. McCarthy nails it again

Maybe I should just link to each of Andrew C. McCarthy’s articles as they come down the pike, because every one I’ve read lately brings clarity to the murky situation vis a vis all the investigations going on these days.

Today’s article by McCarthy in National Review is no exception. Its title is “The Antithesis of Obstruction,” and it’s a defense of Donald Trump. McCarthy is no knee-jerk Trump guy, either, but he knows who’s in the right here and he doesn’t hesitate to make it clear.

McCarthy is one of the first writers I discovered around the time I was undergoing my political change during the early 2000s, and he impressed me from the very start. Not only is he an experienced prosecutor of terrorists, having been the lead attorney for the state in the 1995 trial of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but his writing on legal subjects (particularly those related to national security) has been remarkably readable and informative throughout all those years. One of the very first articles of his I came across that impressed me mightily is one I wrote about here, and an archived version of that McCarthy piece (entitled “The Intelligence Mess: How It Happened, What to Do About It”) can be found here.

But enough singing the praises of McCarthy. Here’s an excerpt from today’s column:

…The essence of obstruction is to frustrate the search for truth. Its antithesis is to demand the exposure of fraud. Donald Trump’s political enemies are trying to build an obstruction case on the antithesis of obstruction: the president’s insistence that the collusion fraud be exposed…

An FBI investigation is supposed to be a search for the truth, undertaken for the benefit of the public, which the bureau and the government serve. That is why the corrupt obstruction of such an investigation is a crime. But if the investigation has the effect of deceiving the public, and that effect is caused by such irregularities as misleading leaks and public statements by government officials, that is never in the public interest.

The Russia investigation, to the extent it seeks to understand and guard against Putin’s treachery, is a search for the truth. Trump has not interfered with it; indeed, Comey’s testimony indicates that he encouraged it — acknowledging it would be good to find out if his “satellites” had done something wrong. The collusion narrative, however, is a fraud on the public. It is not obstruction to expose a false narrative.

Note that this was published in National Review, not a periodical known for obsequious Trump bootlicking.

6 Responses to “Andrew C. McCarthy nails it again”

  1. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Reason, fact and logic. Constitutional Law. Federal regulations. The Truth of the matter. None of that matters.

    What matters is winning by whatever means are necessary.

    Including, if they cannot win, destroying the country.

    Better that, than America be king of the hill.

  2. Big Maq Says:

    McCarthy does a great job of lining up and articulating a legal opinion – providing some great arguments vs the left view of the world.

    That is fine as far as that goes.

    The legal argument doesn’t necessarily change the politics of it.

    While he does mention trump’s roll in this, he seems to downplay this as a major factor in how this gets more legs than it should ever have been close to getting for the left.

    Now that we are “here”, the wild card is still on trump how this will eventually end up.

    Will trump learn?

  3. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Yes, were Trump more politically adept and circumspect it would hinder the Left’s characterization of him. But had we a Pres. Rubio or Cruz, rather than a Pres. Trump, the Left would still be fomenting ‘resistance’. Only the details would differ. Congressional democrats, leftist activists and the MSM will demonize any President not of the Left.

  4. Bilwick Says:

    I hope Glenn Reynolds links to this on his “Instapundit” blog. I always enjoy it when the Dumb Trumpkin snowflakes who post there regularly swarm in whenever Reynolds links to an NR article: “Oh, no! A link to a Cuck publication! NR doesn’t like Trump, so I’ll melt if I even click on the link!”

  5. AesopFan Says:

    Geoffrey Britain Says:
    June 25th, 2017 at 12:47 pm
    Yes, were Trump more politically adept and circumspect it would hinder the Left’s characterization of him. But had we a Pres. Rubio or Cruz, rather than a Pres. Trump, the Left would still be fomenting ‘resistance’. Only the details would differ. Congressional democrats, leftist activists and the MSM will demonize any President not of the Left.
    * * *
    Proof is in the way they demonized Mitt Romney over “binders of women” !!! among other items.

  6. Big Maq Says:

    “But had we a Pres. Rubio or Cruz, rather than a Pres. Trump, the Left would still be fomenting ‘resistance’. Only the details would differ. – GB

    Pretty darn huge difference that would/could be, though.

    Plus, the left’s intensity would likely have been far lower.

    Likely would have been a much higher margin of win for the POTUS (given trump’s high negatives), providing a clear mandate.

    This all might have been enough to allow the GOP to pursue a bolder conservative agenda.

    At the very least, there would be FAR less uncertainty of the POTUS’ support for conservative proposals making their way through Congress, and the messaging would have been MUCH more coordinated, consistent, and on point – better able to withstand the “fomenting ‘resistance'”.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge