MSNBC Legal Analyst Slams Press Coverage of Biden Special Counsel Report: ‘Do a Better Job of Reading’ It

Feb 13, 2024
msnbc-legal-analyst-slams-press-coverage-of-biden-special-counsel-report:-‘do-a-better-job-of-reading’-it

Alex GriffingFeb 12th, 2024, 4:29 pm

MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann chastised journalists on Sunday for what he argues are immense shortcomings in how the media has covered Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s retention of classified documents.

“The Special Counsel Robert Hur report has been grossly mischaracterized by the press. The report finds that the evidence of a knowing, willful violation of the criminal laws is wanting,” wrote Weissman in an article over the weekend in JustSecurity, blasting reporters for not actually reading the report.

Weissmann joined former Biden press secretary Jen Psaki on MSNBC Sunday to discuss the report and elaborated on what exactly he thinks the press has gotten so wrong.

“I have rarely seen you as fired up and outraged talking about something, as I’ve heard you talking about Robert Hur’s report these couple of there’s a new kind of touch on this. I mean, it does — you as people who both of you have worked in public service in the judiciary, I know he’s not probably a viewer of the show — if he is, hello, Robert Hur — but what would you say to him right now if he was watching?” Psaki asked Weissmann.

“So I think the reason that you’re hearing that tone with respect to Neal and that my tone is because there’s nothing that bothers prosecutors and former prosecutors more than seeing people who do not take their oath of office in their obligation and the limits of that role seriously,” Weissmann responded, referring to Neal Katyal.

“And, you know, that is what I think you’re seeing people react to. I think the first thing I just want to say is I think the press needs to do a better job of reading the report because it keeps on getting reported as if Robert Hur has found that there was a criminal violation, but as a matter of discretion, he doesn’t think it should go forward. That is not what he found,” Weissmann added, continuing:

He found that there was no evidence to support a criminal violation. He found, as Neal said, innocent explanations and not only did he say we can’t refute them, he said we found proof to support there’s an innocent explanation. So that’s point one.

And point two, what I would say to Rob Hur is your role is not to be James Comey 2.0. We have seen that movie. You are not to put a finger on the scale of politics. Once you determine that there is insufficient evidence to recommend going forward, that ends the equation, it is for other people to make the case for one person to run for office, or another person to run for office, and what they’re whether they’re equipped to do that or not. And by the way, nothing I’m saying is sort of weighing in on that. I’m talking about the role of somebody at the Department of Justice.

And I also agree with Neal that the attorney general has an independent obligation, because the attorney general is the one who makes the report public under the rules, not Rob Hur and he had the absolute authority to adhere to the written rules of the Department of Justice, which don’t permit any line prosecutor to do what happened here.

Watch above via MSNBC.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Leave a comment