Censoring the Mueller report
By Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.
— Orin Kerr (@OrinKerr) March 27, 2019
Orin Kerr is absolutely right to highlight the outrageousness of Barr’s decision not to make the Mueller report public. If you read Barr’s letter as if it had been written by Trump’s personal attorney (which is what Barr might as well be in these circumstances), it becomes clear that it says almost nothing, and was drafted very carefully to do exactly that.
On a side issue, I’ve said this before, but Monica Lewinsky was an adult woman, a college graduate with a professional career (not a “White House intern” — a tender status she technically possessed for all of eleven days during her two-year affair with Clinton), who initiated and pursued aggressively a long-running affair with a married man. Despite recent claims to the contrary, she was never sexually harassed by Bill Clinton, or otherwise mistreated by him, until well after the end of the affair, when his public response to the revelation of their affair was deplorable. (Indeed Clinton’s response to the affair was far more shameful than the affair itself).
Although I sympathize with Lewinsky in regard to the ordeal the Starr/GOP vendetta put her through, I have no sympathy for her very post hoc rationalizations about how she now believes Clinton “victimized” her. Clinton was never Lewinsky’s employer in the sense that he had any supervisory or evaluative role in her work, so claims that he was taking advantage of a power differential in an employment context are false. Treating her affair with Clinton as some sort of metoo# precursor infantilizes her and insults actual victims of sexual assault and harassment.