NYT's David Brooks Had to Include a Disclaimer About His New Op-ed Criticizing Nadler and the Dems

|
|
Posted: May 10, 2019 4:30 PM
NYT's David Brooks Had to Include a Disclaimer About His New Op-ed Criticizing Nadler and the Dems

Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and his recent campaign against Attorney General William Barr is so unpopular that he's even managed to get New York Times writer David Brooks to turn against him. But, the rest of the newsroom hasn't turned on him yet, as Brooks wrote in his disclaimer.

In his piece, Brooks implores Nadler end his obsession over the unredacted Mueller report. Attorney General William Barr and his associates have already explained that to release a full, unblurred version of the document would violate the law. 

Brooks still makes it clear that President Trump is the bad guy here, but not the only one.

"But Trump is far from the only villain in this showdown," Brooks writes. "If the House of Representatives wants to preserve its oversight power on the executive branch, then it has to be willing to oversee. It has to be willing to use its power in positive ways to improve the governance of this country."

Other rebukes of Trump are scattered throughout the piece, but again the president is not Brooks's main target in the piece.

Republicans have crossed this line in the past, and Democrats crossed it this week, undermining the way the system of oversight is supposed to work. How do we know this? Because of what Democrats are declaring a constitutional crisis over — the redaction levels of the Mueller report. Of all the contemptible things the Trump administration has done, this is probably the least contemptible.

Others have observed that Nadler may not actually be interested in seeking the truth.

Should Nadler and the Democrats give it up? Should they, as their Republican colleagues ask, move on to other, more pressing issues?

Yes, probably, but judging by this week's actions they are not planning to anytime soon. On Wednesday, Nadler's Judiciary Committee voted to hold Barr in contempt, and on Friday the same committee introduced a bill that would allow presidents to be held accountable for alleged criminal conduct.