The New York Times’ preview coverage of the congressional testimony by special counsel Robert Mueller showed clear bias, omitting key facts and accusing President Trump of a “secretive assault by Mr. Trump on the machinery of federal law enforcement.”
The Mueller report in Vol I. P. 2 states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” and Vol. II. P. 76 states: “The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.” Yet The Times’ Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos’ framing of the Mueller testimony and report claimed that the report was “an exhaustive account of the president’s attempts to impede investigators.”
The Times did not mention that the president and his team fully complied with special counsel’s information requests or that Mueller report consisted of 2,800 subpoenas, 500 executed search warrants, and 500 witness interviews, and a cost to taxpayers of nearly $35 million.
The Times notes that “Mr. Mueller and his team did not decide whether Mr. Trump’s efforts amounted to criminal obstruction of justice but also declined to exonerate him,” but fails to mention an important fact brought up in the hearing today by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas). Fox News’ Chad Pergram live-tweeted this important fact the Times omitted that Ratcliffe highlighted: Mueller’s entire premise of exoneration or not was flawed, counter to Mueller’s narrow mandate and counter to the American judicial system principle of innocence until proven guilty.
Ratcliffe to Mueller Can you give me an example other than..Trump where DOJ determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?
Mueller: I cannot..
Ratcliffe: Ok well you can’t..I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) July 24, 2019
“Ratcliffe to Mueller: Can you give me an example other than Trump where DOJ determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?
Mueller: I cannot…
Ratcliffe: OK, well, you can’t. I’ll tell you why. It doesn’t exist.”