The Boston Globe editorializes that Attorney General William Barr has to go, and the reason is because Barr was reviewing his office’s sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone at the same time that President Trump sent out a tweet questioning the sentencing recommendation. Because Barr announced his review after Trump sent his tweet, Barr must have been unduly influenced by Trump and therefore he should resign.
This is guilt by assumption, but the Globe also has the roles mixed up. President Trump is the “President” and Bill Barr is his deputy, running the Justice Department. Even had President Trump picked up the phone and ordered Barr to review the sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone, that is no reason by itself that Barr should resign.
However, if Barr feels upset at this micro-management or interference, HE is free to resign. Plenty of cabinet officers have resigned when they no longer agreed with their boss, the President, including several Attorneys General. But that decision is Barr’s, not Trump. If Trump wants Barr to leave, he would FIRE him.
So notice how this language and relationship has been twisted into a pretzel by the Boston Globe editorial. If Barr disagrees with what Trump is doing, he can resign. If Trump disagrees with what Barr is doing he can fire Barr. But if Trump and Barr are on the same page, Barr “must go,” says the Globe. How does the Globe believe this “going” will happen? They aren’t so sure.
The last sentence seems to address this, but again, I don’t think the Globe has figured this out yet. They write, “Barr must go — and Congress must push him out.” So are they calling for Barr to be impeached by Congress? Is the Globe really advocating another senseless and pointless impeachment charade? Seriously?
Even the Progressive Socialists at the Globe wouldn’t believe that is ever going to happen. The Democrats are already poised to lose the 2020 presidential election in a landslide and another impeachment trial with the outcome already known (full acquittal) would never be tolerated by anybody, especially sitting Congressmen running for re-election as Democrats in 2020. Voters would decide this Party is completely untrustworthy up and down the entire ticket (not just the sacrificial lamb at the top), if they haven’t decided so already.
The underlying issue is (as I have written recently) much ado about very little. The seven-to-nine year original sentence recommendation is clearly preposterous…way too much for an older gentlemen who is mostly a laughable character who was trying to be relevant to an ascending presidential campaign. Roger Stone allegedly threatened the life of some guy, as if anyone would take him seriously. But he did lie to Congress and he deserves some jail time for that offense. But Barr had to step in and change the recommendation of HIS department because the original was obviously too much.
The Globe then tries to make the case (sounding much like the House Democrat impeachment managers during the Senate trial) that even though this one incident is plenty reason alone for Barr to “go,” there are also a host of other great reasons. The evidence is so overwhelming, I guess. The Globe even brings up a memo Barr wrote to the DOJ as a private citizen, offering his unsolicited advice. This, also, is evidence he should “go.”
Falsely claiming overwhelming evidence is not the only thing the Globe has in common with the impeachment managers. I’d also count delusion, misunderstanding of the law and the role of government managers, and ignoring the Constitution’s Article Two.
I am adding a fourth photo from another Globe editorial in the same issue from a former US Attorney who is backing William Barr up. His column makes sense, but notice the contrast between the hyperbole of the Globe editorial with a common-sense (but perhaps partisan) defense of the President and AG Barr. The Globe claims Bill Barr is more “unscrupulous” than the disgraced lawyer Roy Cohn.
Bill Barr served admirably as AG in the first Bush administration and is (or at least was) well respected by both sides of the political aisle. Trump Derangement Syndrome is evidently the cause of this editorial and the personal attacks on AG Barr, who seems to have done everything right in regards to the Stone sentencing, despite the unfortunate timing of Trump’s tweet about the matter.
Allen Nitschelm is publisher of PublicEditorMA.com. He critiques the Boston Globe, mostly focusing on the bias in their news reporting. News articles are graded for bias, and the website has a listing of the average bias ratings for all reporters reviewed. See our website for more information and the four categories of articles we publish.
NOTE: We have been very active on our Facebook page for Public Editor Press. The page is getting lots of hits and comments, which have been very helpful. I urge readers to go there if you wish to participate or read reactions from others. You will need to “login” to Facebook to post your own comments but you can probably read them without a Facebook account. Here is the direct link to this article’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/390560688135747/posts/787484505110028
To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/
*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed
Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)
Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).
If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.
If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).
Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!