Two stories in particular captured our attention this week. The first was the neutered Mueller report that Barr submitted to Congress. The second was the Jussie Smollett case as it unfolded in its latest turn. Considering these two scenarios, I was struck by these similarities:
Mueller, after carefully investigating Mr. Trump, duly submitted evidence to the person in charge of prosecution. The Chicago police, after taking care first to take Smollett at his word and investigate the alleged attack only then to investigate the story underlying the investigation, submitted their findings to prosecutors.
In both cases, strong narratives were established and presented as concrete by the media.
Both subjects of the investigations insisted that they were telling the truth, when all other evidence available to the public seemed to indicate otherwise. Both were, in their way, vilified for their apparent mendacity.
Ultimately, both circumstances ended with a jaw-dropping, head-swiveling result that swiftly stopped short the previously set media narratives. Barr truncated Mueller’s report (basically balling it up and throwing it in the trash) and definitively said there was no coordinated cooperation between Mr. Trump and Russian operatives. Prosecutors in Cook County dropped all 16 felony charges against Smollett. Collectively, onlookers were like, WTF?
In both cases, the media was forced to grapple with a reality altered by such an unexpected trajectory. Also, the aggrieved believers of those formerly established narratives cried foul. Many of us on the left simply have not accepted the conclusion that there was no coordination between Mr. Trump and Russia. The Chicago police, feeling that they and the American public had been duped by Smollett (who had claimed to have been attacked in a hate crime but apparently had staged that very attack), reacted very strongly to the prosecution dropping his case.
Not only that, but both cases share a gag order in effect. For the Mueller report, the gag is Barr himself, sitting on the report. In the Smollett case, it is the fact that the prosecutors sealed the case. The public cannot examine the full scope of evidence for itself.
Each subject involved, with such evidence suppressed, both came before the public to declare their ultimate, complete innocence and kind of say, “I told you so.”
“I’ve been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one,” Smollett said.
Here’s a crucial difference, though. The Chicago police, and even the prosecutor, are now openly saying that Smollett was indeed guilty. They are angry at getting played and they are laying down their own narrative about the investigation. However, Robert Mueller and his team cannot react in the same way, because the report is considered classified information. They must remain mute while Mr. Trump gets to preen, push back, and even plan retribution for his perceived critics. Mueller and his team cannot defend their work.
See also the difference in how the two instances are playing out in conservative media. Mr. Trump’s supporters are rallying around him now that he’s been partially vindicated; however, they are casting aspersions against Smollett, with Brian Kilmeade saying that Smollett can’t be believed.
“People can get away with anything,” co-host Brian Kilmeade said during Wednesday’s broadcast. “Not one person that I know of actually believes this guy’s story.”
That sentiment reflects how liberals are reacting to Barr’s summary.
A study in juxtaposition.