From the left: Ignore Pelosi’s ‘Lock Him Up’ Moment

Normally, when the speaker of the House accuses the US attorney general of committing a crime by lying to Congress, it’s a huge deal. Or should be, anyway. Yet as Noah Feldman at Bloomberg suggests, “it’s hard to escape the thought” that Nancy Pelosi’s accusation against William Barr “shouldn’t be treated so seriously.” Because “the circumstances and the content of the accusation” suggest “Pelosi is making a political move in a political game.” Consider it her attempt at “Trump-style politics” — Pelosi’s “version of ‘lock her up.’ ” But “that’s a win for Trump,” who is “better at inflated rhetoric than anyone.” Bottom line: Pelosi’s political gambit is “a problem — for America more than for Barr or Trump.”

Conservative: The Real Reason Why Democrats Hate Barr

As David Harsanyi explains at Real Clear Politics, to hear Democrats tell it, Attorney General Bill Barr “masterminded the most inept cover-up in history” — first, by “accurately laying out the outcome” of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, then “by releasing the report to the public so the entire world could read it.” His real sin: “preempting the collusion spin.” Because by accurately conveying that Mueller had exonerated President Trump of collusion with the Russians, “two years of ostensibly serious reporting was exposed as little more than resistance fan fiction.” Which is why “the entire collusion industry just moved its frenzied focus” over to alleged obstruction of justice. Fact is, “those clamoring for transparency” only when it’s useful to them are “the true conspiracy theorists.”

Conservative: Do Voters Really Care About Mueller Saga?

Attorney General Barr’s congressional testimony on the Mueller report “will likely have the same political impact as prior episodes from this seemingly endless saga: none.” That’s the judgment of Henry Olsen at The Washington Post, who notes that President Trump’s job-approval rating has barely moved over the past year, despite the indictments of close associates. Which is a dramatic difference from what happened in prior presidential scandals involving special counsels and the specter of impeachment: Richard Nixon’s numbers dropped steadily during Watergate; so did Ronald Reagan’s during Iran-Contra. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, gained popularity during the Lewinsky scandal. But the Mueller probe isn’t changing any minds. This gives Trump “a huge opportunity” — assuming “he can ever learn enough self-discipline to seize it.”

Political scribe: Madness of Dems’ Impeachment Crusade

Each passing day brings a “new and increasingly strident demand” to impeach President Trump “as an imperative for the survival of American democracy,” observes Spectator USA’s Michael Tracey. Never mind that the Mueller report “affirmatively concluded” that no Trump-Russia conspiracy existed “or even came close to being established” — Democrats and their journalist allies are “barreling full-steam down this rabbit hole.” And by switching the focus of their complaints to Barr, they’re “attempting to prolong the fantasy that Mueller somehow indicted Trump,” instead of having “rendered as affirmative a judgment as any prosecutor in Mueller’s position could ever proffer.” Nancy Pelosi and other leaders may be cautious for now on impeachment, but “it’s difficult to imagine how they can resist the omni-directional pressure being heaped on them for very long.”

Law prof: Barr Filled the Gap That Mueller Left Open

Given that the Mueller report has been released, with the crucial volume on obstruction “virtually unredacted,” how AG Barr publicly characterized its findings “makes no difference,” contends John Yoo at The Atlantic. Indeed, criticism of his summary is “much ado about nothing.” What’s more important is that he also “filled the gap left by Mueller’s refusal to decide on obstruction.” His conclusion was no surprise: Barr last year argued that a president can’t “commit obstruction by exercising his constitutional powers.” Fact is, critics should welcome the decision not to prosecute on obstruction — because it returns “the duty to curb presidential abuses of power to its constitutional seat: Congress.” That’s why the Justice Department does not prosecute sitting presidents: “The only mechanism that the Framers established to remedy presidential abuse of power remains impeachment.”

— Compiled by Eric Fettmann