Democrats demanding unredacted Mueller report get a lesson in ‘be careful what you wish-for’
The shameful demands of House Democrats that an unredacted version of the Mueller Report be released has triggered an object lesson for them. There are good reasons laid out in federal law and DOJ regulations requiring that grand jury proceedings and the personal privacy of people who are not charged be protected. But with the possibility of revealing embarrassing contentions about President Trump in prospect, all common sense and decency were thrown to the winds.
Demander-in-chief, Jerrold Nadler (official photo)
But karma came a-calling, as Steven Nelson of the Washington Examiner reports:
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report mentions a claim that Russians recorded President Bill Clinton having phone sex with White House intern Monica Lewinsky — but the reference was redacted from the version released to the public.
The redaction is likely to anger Republicans, because the allegation has been known since at least 2001 and the Mueller report's reference to a claim that President Trump watched prostitutes urinating in a Moscow hotel room was not struck out.
Clinton allegedly was recorded by Russia in the 1990s, allowing Russia to learn of the affair before American officials. A reference to the Clinton intercept was redacted from the Mueller report to protect “personal privacy,” but sources told the Washington Examiner that the context makes clear what was blacked out.
According to the report, Center for the National Interest President Dimitri Simes sent Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner a 2016 email with recommended talking points to counter Hillary Clinton's Russia attacks. The email referenced “a well-documented story of highly questionable connections” between Bill Clinton and Russia.
At a meeting in New York, Simes told Kushner the details: Russia allegedly recorded President Clinton on the phone with Lewinsky, opening questions of foreign leverage over the ex-president-turned-potential first spouse.
Yes, it is outrageous and delicious that this is revealed (though it had been rumored for a long time). Bill Clinton’s reputation has been damaged by this and that is not fair. At the same time, it does raise questions about what use Russia may have made of this during Clinton’s presidency and afterward (Uranium One, anyone?).
Meanwhile, I’m looking at you, Jerrold Nadler: Back off.