In todays New York Times, Jack Goldsmith
shows us how it's done:
1) Give yourself plausible deniability by framing the most inflammatory or tendentious talking points as a matter of public perception
2) Having given yourself cover with the public perception dodge, you can slip in a few talking points without even having to pretend you might not agree
For the record, 1) the Trump indictment
doesn't raise any free speech issues; 2) there are reasons
why it took so long to get here; 3) the Steele dossier
wasn't the basis for the investigation of Trump; and 4) the most unsatisfactory thing about the Mueller investigation is that it
was conducted under the assumption that there could be no indictment of Trump.
But hey, what do I know? I'm not Jack Goldsmith, and this isn't the New York Times.
ETA: See also Josh Marshall's
response to the Goldsmith column, which takes it a little more seriously than I did.
No comments:
Post a Comment