Senator Turtleface was upset about Trump's Syria move & the subsequent resignation of Mattis. He may decide now to allow the Senate to vote on legislation protecting Mueller. We may be looking at the end of the Trump presidency.
I have believed all along that t-rump would eventually find a way to derail and destroy Mueller's investigation. Now he has his weapon in hand, in the form of an AG sympathetic to his case, and it's only a matter of time before Mueller is gone.
1
It has already been established by our best constitutional attorneys that Whitaker is constitutionally unacceptable to be Attorney General. He is unqualified and has no constitutional authority. Any case he makes is going to end up in the courts. Of course the new GOP/Russians have replaced over twenty two federal judges with members of the New Republican Party/Russians, in their attempt to be the only ruling party-The Putin Party.
2
Whitaker is corrupt; totally incompetent to be the acting USAG; We need to know who was on the ad hoc committee?
Barr's memo is complete hogwash. Essentially, he claims that if the President, in his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, tells an FBI not to investigate a mobster it's his best friend, he can do so because there no's ill intent and he has the authority to do so.
Trump obstructed justice when asked Comey's "let it go" which by the very nature the request shows knowledge and ill intent.
Bill Barr either must be prevented from becoming the next AG (unlikely) or recuse himself from the Mueller investigation (unlikely) or Congress must protect the Mueller investigation (the House and Senate Democrats will - who knows what the House and Senate Republicans will do)
2
I doubt anyone in DC these days is objective. The partisan nature of the country is reflected across the board. Shame on DC, and shame on media outlets that have lost their objectivity. All appear to have lost their objectivity.
The new bully on the block has to be confirmed, although he is already attempting to inflict damage to the investigation. Hopefully during confirmation hearings he will be destroyed by the inquiries.
1
Question: is it legal for the acting AG and/or whoever is confirmed as the next AG to share anything he or she learns about or from the Mueller Investigation with Trump, Trump's lawyer's, or anyone else who may help Trump or his family or aides avoid criminal or civil penalties of any kind?
2
Whitaker had no choice but to remain in charge of the Mueller investigation because of the need to protect Trump's business partners--Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
1
Robert Mueller is one of the few in Washington who has a proven record of objectivity and bipartisanship - a different person, but in the tradition of George Bush.
I have confidence that, in spite of the media's rush to judgment, he will complete the mission given to him to his satisfaction and release a report to the Congress. No amount of whining and complaining by the media will affect him. Paid talking heads may say what they wish, as it is a free country, but the facts,according to our justice system, will win out.
1
Just because there is no precedent that an attorney general had recused himself because of prior statements that showed an appearance-of-impartiality doesn't answer the question of whether there had actually ever been appearance-of-impartiality statements such as this made by any acting or sitting AG for which recusal was considered. Has there ever been a situation like this where the person who appointed the AG is the person under investigation in the case where recusal is being considered? If so, what were the details of that situation and what was decided and why? Whitaker's case may be as unique as the situation and his decision to not recuse himself partially based on lack of precedent seems shaky at best.
1
The Congress must pass legislation protecting the office of Mr Mueller or we will be in a Constitutional crisis the like of which we have never seen.
6
Any attempt to tamper with the Mueller investigation by any Trump appointee will be looked at by the American public as an attempt by Trump himself to tamper with the investigation. Trump may be ignorant of past history and Nixon's attempts to squash the Watergate investigation by firing his own justice department appointees. But Nixon was forced to resign in DISGRACE as will Trump if he appoints someone who tries to prevent investigation of obstruction of justice. This may go to the Supreme Court which Trump has already protected with his own appointees.
2
It all comes down to how much of a trumpie is he?
When talking of the future it inconcievable that they are so short sighted.
Again like so many others we look back at Gingrich and his crowd attacking and eventually impeaching Clinton for what amounts to a BJ and lying about it.
Whereas here we have a president who flaunts the law....in so many matters..
Will the gop remember this in the next presidency that is Democratic? Certainly not. Looking at their actions in several states when losing an elections the answer is simply change the laws...temporarily till we are in office again
Anything from anyone premising, "I realize I am in the dark about many facts, but I hope my views are useful," and then proceeds to pontificate for nineteen pages with his interpretation of case law and the constitution is unfit to another appointment as AG. The former AG makes several presuppositions that are not only incorrect, but outright silly. He sates that 45 was "democratically elected," ignoring that is the crux of Mueller's investigation; whether or not indeed 45 wasn't involved in a conspiracy. Finally, makes the assumption regarding Comey's firing as the foundation of his argument against obstruction. This partisan hack should've kept his mouth shut, and stuck to his private practice. One would hope the new congress keeps Mr. Barr in the dark.
3
How is it that people don't see what is happening? What we are witnessing is a slow-motion coup by a man who has denounced term limits, declared that his power is or should be limitless, insisted that both governmental branches which are designed to exert checks and balances on his power are illegitimate, praised bloodthirsty dictators, and bragged that he could commit murder in broad daylight in New York City without facing any consequences. Trump must be removed from power by any legal means necessary.
10
When you are on a TV show shooting spittle, it is easy to talk about shutting down the investigation. But when you are in position to do it and have the facts, knowing the investigation is legitimate, the question of your own possible criminal complicity arises and the inescapable fact that one day you won't be the AG and Trump will not be the President is staring into your eyes, I've found that smart men, especially experienced law enforcement agents, ease away from the trigger.
2
I wonder if Trump thought that by pulling out of Afghanistan and Syria, he would deflect attention from his Obstruction of Justice schemes?
4
Seems to me that the hysteria of the Democrats' and some members of the media over the Barr memo hinges on the premise that everything Mr. Mueller has done, is doing, or will do is based on the fact that Mr. Mueller is perfect and his legal reasoning for how he conducts the investigation is perfect. No one is perfect. Legal disagreements over the meaning or intent of statues among lawyers, or even the non-lawyers is hardly new.
1
@Oracle at Delphi
It is based on the premise that Barr was auditioning for the position of AG and that he is not capable of logical reasoning.
TRUMP IS GOING TO PULL EVERY DIRTY TRICK IN THE BOOK TO STOP Mueller's investigation. Whitaker is a filthy criminal for failing to recuse himself from oversight of Mueller's investigation. Will the Purple Kool Ade drinkers formerly of the Jonestown Massacre really take over the US without a fight from the oppisition. I hope that Lindsay Graham holds a hearing on the appointment for AG as well as on Trump's withdrawal from his duto the lead the country and to engage in the process of advise and consent with the Senate. Trump's withdrawal of troops from Syria against all advise is TREASON! Experts observe that ISIS is in the desert reconstituting and rebuilding itself. But Trump is immune from advice and counsel from experts who have forgotten far more than he has ever learned about anything. This is what happens when a slimeball usurps the office of the president--no thanks to putin puttin' him in--putin le putain!
3
Donald Trump is like the AIDS virus. He is first attacking our nation’s legal immune system. After he has destroyed that, he can do or be whatever he wants.
Those who continue to say that our laws and institutions will protect us have it totally backwards. It is we who must protect our laws and institutions, else are left with a nation defenseless in the face of tyranny.
4
Correct. He would replace the US flag with the Trump flag if he could.
2
Mr. Barr expressed his private opinion about obstruction charges. Loretta Lynch had a secret conversation with Bill Clinton regarding her investigation of Hillary. Barr just said what he thought. Lynch disclosed what she would do. Lynch acted much more improperly.
@michjas
Loretta Lynch did not have the conversation with Bill Clinton that you claim.
There is a way for Mr. Mueller to ensure that the work that he has been doing will not be discarded. He can make all of the information public. By doing so, he will compel the Attorney General's office to answer to the voters, not only to the President.
2
President Trump and his supporters delight in the fact that he is “breaking norms.” Okay, then let’s break another norm: the Justice Department policy — it’s not a law, remember — that a sitting president cannot be indicted on criminal charges. Break that norm!
4
When does this hypocrisy rise to the high enough level to finally call Trump and his continuing to serve himself and his ego to the carpet and the promised checks and balances kick in?
We, the people, are not happy, and our elected representatives need to step up to their duties and end this, now.
2
the only source to ferret out what is going on as the court of trump weaves and snakes away from responsibility and truth is to read and read and read Marcy Wheeler's blog
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/12/20/the-moving-parts-the-walls-come-down-around-trump/
1
Whittaker is very large to be a lapdog, but nonetheless.
Barr should be barred.
Both disgraceful.
Where do we get these vile creatures? Oh right, trump’s swamp.
3
Time for McConnell & the Senate GOP to do something!
2
Let's hope that Mueller has a draft of the investigation report ready to release as soon as Trump or his hand-picked acting AG decides to shut down the special counsel's investigation.
2
Best of a worst-case scenario: Trump stops the Mueller investigation and Mueller publishes all his findings in the NYT.
2
We seem to live in a banana republic. Only the criminal at the top seems able to effect change, and that change seeks only to exonerate himself. Nice to be above the law.
1
"Mueller's Last Stand" may be here before you know it. Don't forget that his much ballyhooed "process" is nothing more than going after rich white people, the same way inner city cops go after poor black kids.
Why has McConnell refused to bring legislation protecting the special counsel's Russia investigation to the Senate floor for a vote? What reason does McConnell have to suppress a vote protecting the investigation???
1
There is every reason to believe that Trump solicited from Whitaker his assurance that he had no reason to recuse himself and that he would not recuse himself. The only surprise to this outcome is the detail of the scheming to assure it.
A side benefit to Trump is that it is likely that Whitaker is keeping Trump informed of everything he learns of the Mueller investigation. It has previously been suggested that Whitaker was previously Trump's spy in the DOJ, being described as "Trumps eyes and ears there."
There remains open the question of whether it is lawful for Whitaker to have been appointed to this position. There are a number of cases challenging the appointment, but there is apparently no restraining order or injunction currently in force that restrains Whitaker's exercising the authority of his office. These plaintiffs should amend their pleadings to add a count pertaining to this ethics question and also to seek such injunctive relief.
As to Barr, his nomination is likely to fail as the release of his unsolicited memo so clearly describes his lack of impartiality that he will not get 60 votes to confirm.
1
It is time for a contingent of true Americans - those with power and average people across OUR country - to stop trying to pretend that The Con Don and the Robber Baron brethren he has installed in critical positions in OUR government and regulatory agencies will "do the right thing".
They will not. They are crooks. They must all be put under citizen's arrest and detained until WE THE PEOPLE can elect/hire Socially Conscious Women and men who have a strong moral/ethical compass and will work for 99.9% of us.
There is no time to waste. People who work in the government departments can put the crooks under citizen's arrest. It is the right of every American.
Please, Good People, let's stop the destruction of OUR country and lives before it's too late.
9
I find these articles and the comments discussions remind me of people on the Titanic discussing where the deck chairs should be and what the band should play as the ship sinks.
We Americans seem to be anesthetized when it comes to really standing up against the total corruption of our federal legislature and the executive branch.
We're like sheep, taught to trust Mueller and other individuals and systems.
It would be far better if we emulated the yellow jacket protesters in France.
They brought Macron to his knees and forced him to completely reverse the neoliberal policies he was attempting to force on them.
We need general strikes and other protests to drive Trump and the GOP from government!
6
It is not illegal for a candidate to enter into non-disclosure agreements with his own money. Ask Alan Derschowitz, Harvard Professor Emeritus.
The investigation is supposed to be focused on Russia interference and collusion. Collusion is not even a crime, again ask Alan Derschowitz, Harvard Professor Emeritus.
This investigation is going down the same road as the Clinton investigation and impeachment. The Republicans overreached there, and the Democrats, not having learned from history, are overreaching here. The battle cry of the Democrats at the time of the Clinton investigation stated correctly that the GOP was trying to reverse the results of a democratic election. This Russian investigation is the exact same thing in reverse.
Sessions recused himself without sufficient reason, why should Wittaker make the same mistake? Trump is not above the law but neither is Mueller or Comey or the FBI.
Flynn, a war hero and a man who served his country his entire adult life, was set-up and framed by Comey, who admitted as much on tv, again ask Alan Derschowitz, Harvard Professor Emeritus.
These investigations are nothing more than political witch hunts.
2
Despite the oft-repeated mantra that "No man is above the law," Matthew Whitaker who is ethically-compromised according to his own ethics experts and should recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller investigation has decided that he's above that law and will not recuse himself. This, of course, amounts to obstruction of justice by a man who is also under investigation by the F.B.I. for his active participation in defrauding would-be inventors. Just the perfect stand-in for Trump unless you like William Barr. "Winter is coming" and darkness is descending in Washington and across the land.
5
Whittaker elected not to submit to an ethics opinion from DOJ because Trump believes Republicans will confirm him in the Senate. And then Mueller will be dismissed.
What will save us is someone researching Whittaker’s academic credentials and events surrounding his passage of the bar exam. Anyone else watch Suits?
1
Because he was not appointed Acting Attorney General of the United States by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate, Matthew Whitaker is all act and no general. Everything that he does is shadow and smoke.
The failure of Whitaker to recuse from the Bob Mueller investigation and to opinion shop on this issue exposes a fundamental ignorance regarding the basic legal ethical obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
MAGA NOT!
1
Mueller is a smart man and this investigation has been under threat forever. I have faith that the findings will be protected and that the truth will come out eventually. Meanwhile, we're getting a new House in a few weeks and I have faith that they will also do what they can to protect the investigation's findings as well.
2
At the rate Mueller is moving Trump will be out of office before the report is released. So far, the biggest hope for those who hate Trump is possible blackmail payments to two women. (Will they be prosecuted?) Almost 250 current and former members of Congress made similar arrangements with taxpayer funds. When will we see the evidence that Trump spoke to the Russians and sought their help to win the election? That is, after all what Mueller is supposed to be investigating.
2
Jeff Sessions did not recuse himself from the Russia investigation because of his ties to the Trump campaign. He recused himself because he had been caught perjuring himself in front of the Senate when he denied having met with Russian officials before and after the election. It was obvious that if he oversaw the investigation, he would have to investigate himself. Way back then such things were thought to matter.
9
To test the Department of Justice internal rule that a sitting president must not be indicted, imagine that a president walks out on to Fifth Avenue with a gun and shoots the head Justice Dept. attorney of the Southern District of New York.
We would find out in a New York minute that the Justice Department's rule is not the law.
It is not the severity of the crime that dictates the American ideal and Constitutional provision that no person is above the law.
3
Reasoned adult supervision by Justice Department professionals of the Mueller investigation is not a “threat” to the investigation. This article belongs on the editorial page using language like that. If anything, such supervision has a chance of preventing Mueller from committing the same mistakes as Ken Starr did in over-reaching and wasting 6 months of the American government and American people on pointless accusations that could never get 67 senators.
1
If you have faith in the Justice system as opposed to the Legal system, surely President Trump’s best chance of escaping all this is to take his day in Court. A decision not to take this advantage, which is denied to individuals in many countries would imply perhaps one of two things, (1) something to hide or (2) Guilt. Embrace your Legal system, it’s not perfect as indeed is the one here in U.K., but it’s preferable to have that than to have no Press freedoms, detention without trial. The innocent man is innocent until proven otherwise.
Americans always hope that Justice will be blind and fair. This is not the case with Whitaker, or Barr.
The Constitution gives the President very limited powers. It does not, as Mr. Barr claims, give the president “all encompassing” and “illimitable” power over law-enforcement matters. Only Congress and the Courts have these powers.
The President can do little without a Congressional vote. He can be indicted while in office, and serve time afterwards. He can be impeached by Congress or his Cabinet. He is not above the law. Neither are his Cabinet members, also impeachable.
The A. G. has a Cabinry-level post. It's only his job to advise the President, not set policy. That is for Congress.
Whitaker stated that obstruction of justice can't be applied to otherwise lawful presidential actions, even if they are undertaken with a corrupt motive.
That's like saying, "I saved this money for my poor granny (legal) in an off -shore, tax-free account from which I benefit (illegal)." Wrong!
Whitaker'refusal to recuse himself from overseeing the Meuller investigation, after strigently and publicly declaring that Meuller's investigation was illegal, proving he's too biased to be impartial.
Fortunately, neither Whitaker's
not Barr's opinions are founded in law, whereas Meuller has been thorough and legal in his investigation, and has yielded results. Congress must support him.
2
The nation would have been better off with Candy Barr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Barr as A.G. than this guy. But, then again, Candy Barr passed away and if Trump and his collaborators remain in office this nation will, too, becoming a vassal state to Putin's Russia.
1
All I want for Christmas is to be able to call Donald Trump the "Ex-President."
5
It is now abc obvious that the Supreme Court needs to use its unique power as part of the checks and balances powers to ANULL the presidential election of 2016! Unlike almost rest of the other constitutional nations of the world that the only remedy for the current dire situation like we face, a coup performed by the mlitary would be performed. Even if we had a Congress that were not so badly subverted that it could successfully execute a fulfilled removal by completion of impeachment, the remedy would not be timely enough nor strong enough to effect undoing the catastrophic damage done by Trump, his family and the warped wealthy billionaires to halt the inevitable decline and destruction of our nation! Anullment, unlike removal by impeachment, is the almost perfect reverse time machine to remove the Pences, de Voss, cancel the most destructive executive orders, pardons, especially those of Libby, Arpaio and others, undo exiting of agreements and treaties. The ability of the interim president by the Court would make possible quick enough to reverse almost otherwise irreversible destruction of our international reputation and credibility.
1
There is always a beginning to an end. Hopefully the law of the land would be respected. Our government works on checks-and-balances.
It's time for Mueller's inquisition to be shut down.
If Whitaker doesn't end it, Barr certainly will.
2
Why? Are you afraid of what it may uncover? One has to be very naive to think there's nothing there now that so many have already been indicted. Why not wait and see how this plays out? Seems prudent, no?
6
The Barr Memo, written in June 2018, which I have read with great interest, is a testament to the uninformed legal writing of the equivalent to a second year law student. It is shocking to read given that it was written by a former Attorney General of the United States.
In the first place he states that, although he is opining on the subject of obstruction of justice, he is completely n the dark as to the relevant facts. Brilliant!
What is more egregious, while he presumes to know under what statute Mr. Mueller would be acting, he cites in his arguments to the wrong statute [18 U.S.C. section 1512] when the appropriate statute is according to The Dept. of Justice Criminal Resource Manual CRM 1500-199-1701-1799 that refers directly to U.S.C. section 1505 [1503] of the code.
The omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. section 1505 states "Generally, a defendant may be found guilty under section 1505 if the government establishes that: (1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States; (2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably founded belief that the proceeding was pending; and (3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was pending. United States v. Price, 951 F.2d 1028, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 163 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)."
Another hack with an agenda.
3
Odd that there was no ability to comment on the awful planned parenthood story. This is way happens when unborn life is not respected. They ought to be ashamed
Trump has become very dangerous.
1
Would really hate to see a President Pence, but those charged with the stability of the country are going to have to elevate him if this clown show continues under Mr. Trump. Who are the members of this "base" everyone keeps writing about, that supports the current president? Have kindergardners been given a franchise?
2
When will congress develop a backbone?
How many odd nominees is America going to have to face, due to Republican congressional acts of conspiracy and treason.
Mr. Barr requires random drug screens and ongoing psychiatric counseling.
2
Of course Donald Trump should pick someone to head the Justice Department who thinks like he does. Do you think maybe Barack Obama chose Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch because they were black people who thought a lot like he did?
To suggest that a smart, experienced lawyer who has already served as attorney general should be disqualified because he believes that the president's motives should not be questioned by his subordinates? Many smart, experienced lawyers believe the same thing. Myself included.
And this idea that Robert Mueller is some sort of Superman who can find evidence that regular mortals cannot is silly. Clark Kent, maybe. Without the glasses and without the superpowers. Just a comic book character who accomplishes nothing.
2
The Con Man in Chief continually utilizes lawful authority to achieve illegal objectives . The Con Man in Chief has declassified documents and publicly informed the Russians in the oval office and he has abused his power and authority by releasing law enforcement investigation information that he believes are helpful to his defense team and thinks will advance a false narrative. Two of many actions that he has used presidential authority to achieve unlawful results.
2
Unacceptable! It’s all obstruction of justice multiplied! Worse corruption every day. GOP??
2
And the GOP is going to sit on their hands rather than protect the investigation just because they can do what they want with the distraction of Trump feeding his ego with outrageous moves that hog the headlines.
Guess he was right when he said he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it...he daily sends shots directly through the heart of Democracy, honor, decency and humanity. Yet Congress and many Americans have allowed (and continue to allow) him to put nefarious, unqualified players into key positions in OUR government. I have said before and I will say it again...we have had a coup happen right under our noses. What remains to be seen is if we can recover from it or whether we will go the way of other countries who are destroyed by their dictators.
4
Looking at the utter chaos of today’s headlines {e.g., Mattis resigns over troop withdrawal; stock market tumbles; government shutdown looms} this also-important story ends up a bit buried. This occurred not randomly but for a reason: to divert attention is to deceive. Mueller is left unprotected. We are left unprotected.
Can someone please help me parse the paragraph below? I have read it slowly about a dozen times and cannot get a handle on what is being said. More specifically what is Mr. Barr's argument/assertion?
" Mr. Barr argued that the Justice Department must not accept the notion that a president can violate a statute that criminalizes obstruction of justice when he is exercising his constitutional authority in an otherwise lawful way — such as by firing a subordinate, pardoning someone or using his “complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding” — but with a corrupt motive."
@SuperheroMarvin: I agree that the paragraph you cite is convoluted. I think what you need to do first is drop the phrase between the dashes, so you’re left with, “…in an otherwise lawful way … but with a corrupt motive.” Looking at it that way, my take is that Barr is arguing that the President cannot be charged with obstruction for a given hiring, firing, or pardon, even if his motives are corrupt. It’s the familiar Nixon assertion that, “If the President does it, it’s legal.” Pretty scary stuff, IMO.
At, or about the same time as this decision was made, 45 rattled US foreign policy in Syria and Afghanistan and tweeted a video of himself singing the theme song from 'Green Acres'. Those are called a 'smokescreen' intended to distract attention away from that of greatest significance to 45, the Mueller investigation. FOCUS. Stay focused, America.
5
Lawyers in any state or federal jurisdiction where Whitaker is licensed to practice have an obligation to report his unethical behavior to the Bar Overseers in those jurisdictions. If they find actionable unethical behavior, then he may be sanctioned accordingly, including, but not limited to, reprimand, suspension or disbarment. They can also issue opinions regarding his behavior.
2
The crux of Barr's argument unintentionally reveals Trump's m.o.: "Barr argued that the Justice Department must not accept the notion that a president can violate a statute that criminalizes obstruction of justice when he is exercising his constitutional authority in an otherwise lawful way . . . but with a corrupt motive." That's pretty dense, but to me it seems to say that a president can do anything that presidents normally do (e.g., hire and fire at will) without being suspected of a corrupt motive. Trump has always walked that crooked line. He has a corporation that is many corporations, so that if one fails (as most of his do), its failure doesn't impact the others. He has a charitable foundation that has done some charitable work but reserves most of its charity for Trump. When Trump University is proven a fraud, Trump settles for $25 million with "no admission of wrongdoing." Barr's memo would almost make sense except for Trump's Trumpiness. In times when presidents understood and respected our political traditions and standards, the public would give them leave to hire and fire at will, to send our troops in harm's way or bring them home, to declare a border emergency, to badger companies for supposed abuses, to pardon a felon; but everything Trump does is suspect because of his overarching criminality--invisible to his supporters, ignored by Republicans in Congress.
6
If actions speak louder then words the President has been obstructing the investigation into Russian influence, via the so called legal actions of his presidential duties since Day ONE. It takes off with the firing of James Comey and just keeps rolling.
There has been a daily almost obsessive assault via the media almost daily to dispel any truth that there is collusion. There is a parade of partisan lawyers sprouting legal interpretations about everything related to the issue.
Donald Trump is his own “ propagandist . He knows that if he acts as if he is being presidential and he spreads lies and information he can win the media show. He has been doing this for years.
Limiting avenues of investigation is obstruction. Trump does what he does because he wants to Obstruct. Lackeys, lawyers and losers need to stop protecting Trump because that’s how he gets away with what he does.
5
It seems as if the laws of this country that we believed were always there to protect and strengthen us have instead been continuously and increasingly used to divide and conquer us. When a democracy becomes threatened by its own citizens, it forfeits the right to call itself a democracy.
2
Considering the need for Mueller to withhold much of the findings from public view in order to protect the building case against the primary targets, the number of indictments and guilty pleas his investigation has already produced makes Republicans and anyone else who criticizes, labels as “witch hunt,” or acts against the Mueller probe in any way, nothing less than supporters of crime.
Republicans call their party the “law and order” party. Not so much, not since its leaders, McConnell and Ryan among others, have turned their backs on Trump’s outrages and refused to protect Mueller’s investigation. But Republicans also call themselves members of the “austerity” party, upholding responsible spending within the constraints of small government; again, not so much, since they’ve proven that not to be true with their debt-soaring tax cut for the wealthy, and it should be no surprise that they’ve turned against democracy and law in their plunge into the abyss of extremism and self-interest.
Republicans have lost the legitimacy to govern.
2
If Barr orders limitations of Mueller's inquiry that decision could itself be considered as an act of obstruction of justice, subject to Mueller's mandate.
We live in interesting times.
3
I have enormous faith in Special Counsel Mueller and the staff members working with him. It is Mr. Mueller's honesty that frightens many, including President Trump, his children and his cronies. And believe it or not, that speaks to their healthy side, one is not supposed to feel comfortable in the face of dishonesty. But the difficulty is how far gone is Donald Trump mentally. The fear is that he is completely mad, having crossed the line from mental illness to deep evilness, mirroring Vladimir Putin and his associates.
For every ounce of dishonesty President Trump displays to our nation, Mr. Mueller counters with deep rooted honesty, which in the end prevails.
Despite the big I am attitude of Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Barr along with the President, his family and staff, they are no longer the hunters and are now being hunted. If Whitaker/Barr interfere with the investigation, it is my belief that Mr. Mueller will lower the boom with accurate, and intense fury.
This present situation within Washington underscores the deep wretched mess in which the Republican Party, and some in the Democratic Party have with intent undermined our democracy. We will overcome.
9
I trust nothing about Trump, his appointees, or Congress. Mueller is still there, and that gives some hope for truth. The judiciary is still there, and that is the cutch America can hope will ultimately stand tall. Many millions of Americans will take to the streets when, and I think it is a matter of when, not if, Trump's minions shut down the Mueller investigation and call it classified to keep it away from the prying eyes of the press and the people.
9
In the opening of Barr's memo, he asserts that he is in the dark about many of the facts. I contend that we all are in the dark about what Mueller has with the exception of what's been publically revealed.
It stands to reason that Manafort, Gates, Cohen, Flynn, and others in the Trump campaign with their Russian connections colluded during the campaign. By most accounts that I have read, Trump laundered Russian money through his properties and casinos for years. Regrettably, the Senate will confirm Barr.
However, based on the above, I have a naive hope that, if Barr is an honest man, he'll see the evidence that Mueller has against Trump and Russians and come to the right judgment about Donald Trump.
2
I cannot bear to see more political appointments to suit DJT's personal needs rather than to serve for the good of our country.
It becomes more clear every day that Trump's self-interest is all he can handle and our nation is at risk.
16
The theory contained in Mr. Barr's memo may be sufficient to justify the President's refusal to be interviewed by the Special Prosecutor for obstruction. However, it fails to provide a convincing rationale for throwing out the investigation of obstruction by any individual (including the President) whose behavior suggests possible obstruction.
Indeed, in the time since his memo was written and presented, the mystery of Trump's strange favoring of Michael Flynn is the one element of Mueller's work that is tantalizing precisely because it invites examination for obstruction. It may provide plenty of evidence of Russian influence on both the 2016 election and on Trump's apparent indebtedness to Russia. Is it possible that Flynn is secretly remaining silent about what he knows that implicates Trump and his Russian enablers in election interference and commercial crime?
4
I believe, with the appointment of Barr, that the new House's first order of business is to pass a bill protecting Mueller to the greatest extent possible. The second order, hot on the heels of the first, is to get Mueller on the record with everything he has so that if Emperor Benedict Donald and his mob try to derail the investigation and prosecution that would follow, it's all there. I used to feel that the House first needed to amass some political capital then go after the evil Trump empire, but it becomes apparent, considering their calculated thuggery and hijacking of the judicial process, that stopping Trump in every possible way has moved to #1 on the national to-do list.
6
The salient question is who or what prompted Mr. Whitaker to write the memo. Was a copy sent to Trump attached to his employment application?
5
It would be nice if Whitaker understood that was only acting and that he's not really the attorney general.
The senate never approved him and for good reason.
45 has got to go.
6
I'll try to be civil although it's difficult in the face of such monumental bad faith. Would Democrats be calling Mr. Barr disqualified if Mr. Barr had written a piece arguing that a president can be guilty of obstruction of justice based on his exercise of a constitutional power if the president has bad motives? If Mr. Barr had written a memo noting all of the convictions racked up by Mr. Mueller and encouraging Mr. Mueller to "finish the job?" Of course not. The Democrats' standard for disqualification is purely partisan - if you support getting the president by any means, you're qualified to be the AG, and if you have any contrary opinion, even one as careful and nuanced as Mr. Barr's, you're not. Republican Senators, and anyone else who cares about the rule of law and the impartial administration of justice, should just ignore the Democrats.
2
I’d be very happy with an Attorney General who simply adhered to the principle (essential to the founding and maintenance of our Republic) that NOBODY is above the law. That’s one antidote to partisan politics, which, especially on the right, are clearly threatening our nation.
12
Hogwash. Every GOP action to deflect an investigation into a matter rife with the smoke of illegality is derelict in their oath of office. Democrats are merely trying to defend a legitimate investigation against a mercurial President who has displayed little regard for the rule of law. That his hand-picked Justice Department heads back this man-child’s attempts to swat-away an investigation that matters to his political and legal survival should be of the gravest concerns to ALL Americans. Anything else is putting party over country.
8
Maybe the most important thing the GOP can do in returning to Washington is to first pass the Mueller protection legislation that the corrupt McConnell wouldn't allow to come to a vote. Then they could pass a veto-proof continuing budget resolution.
3
Our nation was founded through a sacrificial hard fought Revolution against England's King George. It appears Whitaker and Barr expect Trump to be as powerful as a King above the constraints of law of the people.
I formerly request the Special counsel and the F.B.I. to commence a R.I.C.O. and Treason investigation focused on the activities of many individuals within Trump's group. I think their is sufficient reasonable cause as described publicly for investigation. I cite numerous actions and policies that could be viewed as sabotaging America's government, alliances, economy and security.
Thank you, an anonymous citizen for fear of dangerous reprisal.
1
Too bad Mr. Barr is being cleared for the A.G. position, given he is so conflicted by supporting Trump's obvious malfeasance, and likely obstructing justice. He ought to recuse himself from uncalled- for comments about the special counsel, as he does not have the basic elements for judgement in the middle of an investigation into Trump's corrupted, and likely criminal, ways.
3
Whitaker and Barr both have deep conflicts and ethical problems with comments and written statements regarding Bob Mueller and the Russian investigation.
I think some legal action should be taken to block them from any involvement with Bob Mueller, these two have conflicts and I wonder how they are compromised by Russia or Putin.
5
If the Senate were to confirm Barr's nomination to the AG post, that would be a guarantee for the phase-out and termination of the Mueller investigation. Why do I say this? Barr laid it out plainly in his secret memo - he believes the investigation is improper and illegal. He deeply believes the president is above the law.
1
Americans are ready to hit the streets if the Mueller investigation is shut down. There will be protests in huge numbers in every state. This unstable president is putting the whole country on edge. I don't think Trump appreciates how tenuous things are. I hope Congress does.
8
Nothing that a misplaced USB drive on a Starbucks table across the street from the Washington Post couldn’t solve.
The truth will come out.The truth is like a mountain made from a diamond, it endures forever. The lies and cover up by Trump Inc will wash away like muck, and the diamond of Truth will sparkle and gleam.
3
This is easy! Just direct Mueller to investigate whether or not either campaign colluded with the Russians and exactly what the mechanism of collusion was. If Mueller's done this already, then direct Mueller to explain Trump's wrongdoing to the American people. See, easy!
However if Mueller is using his mandate to undo the 2016 election. If Mueller is attempting (which he seems to be) to meddle in and destroy America's democracy, then he should be shut down immediately.
The main problem is that half of America wants Mueller to find cause to negate the 2016 results. They want a mechanism - right or wrong, democratic or not - to disenfranchise the other half of America. And they seem to be willing to burn it all down in order to get what they want.
Trump is rightly concerned about this. He's rightly obsessed by this. It is a persecution plain and simple. And it IS the singular greatest threat to democracy we currently face.
2
How about if Mueller and his team just don’t listen to Whitaker and Barr? Just pretend they don’t exist. Let’s set up a showdown if that’s what the GOP wants.
If arguably, the obstruction law cannot be applied to otherwise lawful presidential actions if they are undertaken with a corrupt motive, so be it.
But such an action would most certainly constitute "high crimes and misdemeaners" by the president, as intended by the framers of our Constitution and warrant impeachment by the House. Then see if the Republican senators would shrink from their duty and their pledge to protect and defend our Constitution by not convicting such a corrupt executive. Now that would indeed be a true constitutional crisis!
1
Both Matthew Whitaker and William Barr have publicly and fiercely criticized or challenged the legitimacy of the Mueller investigation. Yet Whitaker was named acting attorney general and Barr has been picked by Trump to be the next attorney general. What a coincidence.
1
We are getting a pretty clear idea of Whitaker and Barr as two who will aid and abet criminal action as collaborators. It is time to stop using terms such as apologists and enablers. The words are too soft. They don’t fit Trump’s crimes or their complicity in a perversion of administering a justice department. Keep your eyes open for Trump pulling the plug and executing a Christmas Massacre. Trump should end up in jail, and those who commit overt acts to conspire with him should go there too.
1
Shameful.
In the face of genuine evil, pretending Trump is exempt from the normal punishments of theft, greed, exploitation, incitement to violence, participating in undermining the US on behalf of his autocratic friends (and are any of them friends? I doubt it) is flat out wrong.
Putting someone who does not believe in the law and the truth in the highest law office in the land is wholly wrong.
17
The premise here is that Mr. Barr, who criticized Mueller's investigation, demonstrated bias that requires him to recuse himself from the investigation.
Private lawyers and law professors frequently express their personal opinions on public matters. That is perfectly appropriate. The issue raised here is that Barr shared his views with the deputy attorney general and Trump's lawyers. And the question is whether that requires recusal.
The question is fairly debatable. But, in the end, Barr has done nothing wrong. His opinions were not expressed in an official capacity because he spoke as a private citizen.
He merely shared his personal views with administration lawyers.
The key question is whether a private citizen can properly state his private opinions to government officials without demonstrating improper bias. In this regard, a private lawyer has the perfect right to freely "petition the government" -- that is a right explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and First Amendment speech cannot properly be politically punished.
1
It looks like a clear case of quid pro quo, ergo Barr MUST recuse himself. “Appoint me to this position and I’ll make this investigation go away.” Trump defenders are so blinded to the truth that they’re ready to betray their nation too.
2
Of course, Trump's Attorney General nominee is vocally critical of the Mueller investigation. How could it be any other way, given Trump's belief that laws and the Constitution don't apply to him?
22
Who solicited and paid Barr for this alleged "unsolicited" legal memorandum? It's hard to believe that one day, he just decided to spend his"free" time to compose a 19-page legal memorandum without getting paid for it. At the time he prepared and submitted it, was he being considered for any Trump administration position? If Barr was in private practice at the time, why was the submission in memo rather than letter form, with letterhead showing where it came from?
These are just a few preliminary questions that need to be asked at the Senate confirmation hearing.
35
And this person will not recuse himself? Whatever happened to "The appearance of a potential conflict of interest?"
I guess when the Fed closely scrutinizes Trump's potential fraudulent financial transactions, he will appoint Bernie Madoff to head the appropriate department.
16
What about a president who intervenes in the enforcement of the law to protect a criminal family member? What about a president who intervenes to protect someone whom the president has directed to commit a crime?
Does this mean it is impossible for a president to have a corrupt motive? Does that mean we have to tolerate crimes by the people he protects?
Are there any remedies beyond impeachment and losing an election? And what if the president cheats in an election?
Is this what the Constitution forces us to accept?
16
I understand the president is the boss, and he can legally fire almost anyone. But if he fires someone who is investigating his potential misdeeds, then if he fires that person to prevent him from revealing his misdeeds, then that is obstruction of justice and the president should be fired even if the president didn't perform any misdeeds, which in retrospect he most likely did. It's as simple as that.
9
Why is that President Bush's ethics attorney Richard Painter, at the White House has clearly stated Trump's saying he fired Comey to get rid of the Russia thing...is in fact obstruction of justice? Maybe it is because what it is what it looks like. On national TV the president obstructing justice. It is so tiresome to watch Republicans advocate for the president to be above the law.
22
Soliciting an unsolicited legal opinion isn't so odd. Lawyers do it all the time. For instance, there's a healthy debate occurring right now on Brooking Institute's Lawfareblog over whether our president is indictable. The question has never been directly answered so professionals enjoy discussing the various arguments. The general consensus seems to be yes, the President can be indicted.
There's a similar debate surrounding obstruction of justice. Again, the question has never been directly addressed because no president has ever been found guilty of obstruction. Nixon and Clinton were both only accused. However, seeing as both presidents were seriously accused without any congressional or judicial objection, the answer is fairly well self-evident. Yes, a president can obstruct justice.
Actually, a president is the individual most capable of obstructing justice in the entire federal government but that's a discussion for another time.
The odd thing about Barr isn't the unsolicited opinion. The odd thing about Barr is he chose to forwarded that opinion to the deputy AG overseeing the Mueller investigation while the President was publicly undermining the current AG. If the opinion had simply appeared on some regular legal column, I doubt anyone would have noticed.
Just like motive informs obstruction though, you can't mistake intent for coincidence. Barr's opinion was a resume. Trump invited him in for an interview.
14
A memo? Seems more like a manifesto of his position. Let the confirmation begin and see how he fares.
4
Trump doesn't want to put his thumb on the Scales of Justice, he intends to sit on them in plain sight, and McConnell is going to join him.
12
Bar wrote a very narrow argument with respect to the firing of Comey. Comey was fired over a year ago yet the Mueller investigation continues. Not only is his reasoning sound but the facts bear him out.
3
Republicans can rationalize anything to justify the innocence of one of their own while condemning Democrats and demanding they be held to different, higher standards. Extreme partisanship of party power before the law and country is unacceptable. Republicans undermine democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution. Like Trump, Republicans only care about themselves and their hold on power. They are their own fascist special interest group, no longer a legitimate political party acting in good faith willing to play by the law. The law is only to be manipulated to serve their ends.
11
@scientist Couldn't have put it better! Great points.
1
Choosing a fox to guard the hen house.
5
It is Trump, not any legal theory that would hold him accountable, that is doing lasting to the presidency. If a president can obstruct at will then he could never be effectively investigated for anything be it murder or treason. Did we not rid ourselves of the King?
4
One thing is very clear.
The last two years of Republican dominance demonstrate it would be a miracle if there were a handful of Republican Senators possessing the moral character, respect for US constitutional rule of law, and political courage to vote against this predictably tainted nomination.
Republicans in congress, in think tanks and on Wall Street: no one's buying your claims that this is 'Trumpism.' He's yours. The results of the last two years are yours, with all their horrifying implications for the future.
Republicans: you've run a White House, and you've run a congress that are the shame of our declining democracy. Shame on you.
Go, House Democats! We, the people, are with you.
11
Barr has bipartisan support. Support of DO J that he once competently lead. Law enforcement agencies support him. Even civil liberties groups as well as the American Bar Associatio. A 19 page memo with his views as a citizen shouldn't block this good man from a job the country desperately needs.
1
Throw yourself down a flight of stairs already!
Barr's legal theory gives the presidency a corruption "get out of jail free card"? A president can't have corrupt intent?
3
I would respectfully ask Mr. Barr to tell the American public what he feels should be done when the President lies constantly, cheats, serves foreign interests over our own, and obstructs justice----all of which are blatantly obvious activities conducted by the current President. If those activities are allowed by the sitting President, but forbidden by any other citizen, the rule of law is dead.
6
What he would tell you is that the remedy is right there in front of you, in black and white, in the Constitution: impeachment.
Like the Iraq War invasion and the 2008 housing crash, this has been your regularly scheduled challenge to our faith in humanity.
5
Trump is throwing away the rule of law because he wants to be a dictator. Why do so many people want to give teflon Don a "pass" for his crimes? Or worse yet, aid and abet his bad acts?
8
In some ways I hope Barr steps into this vile mess, shows his fascist chops, and shuts Mueller down.
Then we’ll learn how Mueller prepared for this likely eventuality.
According to NBC, Mueller probably already has Trumps tax returns.
2
"He [Whitaker] had also interviewed with the White House for the job of being the main in-house lawyer for defending against the special counsel inquiry."
. . . .
WHAT? WHAT!
So instead of being put in the White House defending Trump from the special counsel inquiry, Whitaker is placed inside the DOJ and now will assume his role of the main lawyer defending against the special counsel inquiry as the Attorney General for the United States?
My god, has the world actually been turned upside and nobody noticed?
8
What would rise to the level of obstruction according to Barr's theory? Leaving aside the issue of indicting a sitting president, does this create a different legal standard for the president than for an ordinary citizen?
5
Like so many, Barr came to conclusions with incomplete knowledge of the evidence.
6
Just another Trump lacky. Probably corrupt, like his other choices. Trumps time is almost up....
6
Just what we need
An AG who does not respect our laws or constitution
The contempt these republicans have for America is disgusting
9
Let me get this right: The attorney general is not Trump's personal attorney, but both the acting attorney general and the person tapped to permanently fill the position criticized the Mueller investigation. That was just a coincidence, right?!
8
Another candidate for Trump's fixers.....
5
"In the memo, Mr. Barr acknowledged that he might not have a full understanding of which aspects of Mr. Trump’s actions Mr. Mueller has been scrutinizing or why, saying, “I realize that I am in the dark about many facts, but I hope my views may be useful.”
How can you have views when you don't have the facts? Some lawyer he must be.
9
Barr is another hack for the oligarchs. How much did they promise you, Bill? If Trump goes down, a lot more goes down with him, and the likes of Koch, Mercer et al. can't allow that to happen.
4
If it wasn't obvious before, it is now: This is just another choice made by the Kremlin, transmitted to Trump to help them with their efforts to control the country. I think Trump's thinking must be that once you are caught red-handed in treasonous activities, you might as well go all-in. They can only impeach you once.
5
As a private citizen, he is entitled to criticize the investigation. That doesn’t mean he won’t uphold the results.
2
@Jackson
" That doesn’t mean he won’t uphold the results."
Of course not, but if you were in front of a judge who prior to your trial had already criticized your case, would you want that person judging you? He could rule appropriately but if he rules against you, what would you say about the verdict.
No different in this case, except the credibility of the entire justice system is at stake in this case.
7
“We can all see what’s happening here. It’s past time for Congress to pass bipartisan legislation protecting the Special Counsel’s investigation from political interference."
Yes, they can waste time on this legislation, and it will be held unconstitutional in a nanosecond. The administrative branch can appoint and fire special prosecutors at will, and there is not a thing Congress can do about it. Article II.
1
Our blind spot is not the argument that Barr is advancing but that we are all Trump's necessary illusion. In other words, we do not actually exist, and we will cease to when all this that spins around him stops.
1
Fine - appointment with the same limitations as the guy he’d replace.
Well, that's a big surprise. Not!
What's wrong with William Barr? Obviously something, or Trump wouldn't have picked him. Remember, Trump has only the "smartest" and the "best" working for him. Donald even knows more than his generals.
Donald J. Trump, a stable genius.
6
Maybe when I see Robert Mueller walk on water rather than just stone face with that big square jaw, will I buy into the notion that he’s above criticism as Barr’s comments would serve to disqualify him for daring to make.
“I realize that I am in the dark about many facts, but I hope my views may be useful.”
So this is the pick for the person who will have our country's highest law enforcement and prosecutorial powers. Just be thankful he's not your defense attorney, I could see him in a courtroom now...
Your honor, I know that I have arrived here today unsolicited, without a prepared brief and that I am not privy to the actual facts of this case. That being said I have very useful views about my client's right to not be prosecuted. I therefore request immediate dismissal of the charges.
5
Trump has been consistent in one thing; his ability to choose tainted and suspect people to fill his administrative positions. As usual, no one with any self respect or honesty would even consider working for Trump, just the less credulous.
3
Well, we now know why Barr was selected by Trump. Barr, like Whitaker, is critical of the Mueller investigation.
It's very clear Barr is an obstructionist choice, the way Whitaker was.
4
I'm confused. Does Mr. Barr want to be our US attorney general or Mr. Trump's personal lawyer?
4
If the president does it, it can't be illegal, eh?
We've heard that before. Followed by a resignation.
7
Shocking!
1
Barr's memo was essentially an application to replace Sessions. He had to know that it would catch the eye of someone in the WH who read it to Trump and VOILA - Trump found an AG who would do his bidding and derail Mueller.
12
Of course this guy is criticizing the Russian tampering with our election. He could not get this job without slurping Trump’s kool-aid could he?
12
Is it really a memo if it’s 19 pages???
1
Recuse!
7
Without citing anyone in the Department of Justice you repeatedly referred to his 19 page memo as “unsolicited.”
You fail to mention he had a distinguished career as a senior attorney in the department and is an undisputed expert in this field.
There is no doubt Mr Barr knows literally all the players - both professionally and socially- in this debacle from Mueller on down.
Your bias is showing (again).
Nineteen pages of memo borders on mentally unstable. Unsolicited in what context? Are you sure you’re telling the whole story? I kind of doubt it.
1
Debacle? Methinks your bias is showing...
1
Hey Sarah H. Chief Liar ‘s Liar in Chief:
Your boss doesn’t need a single Democratic vote to fund his Great Wall of MAGA until January 1.
How dare you blame the other party when yours controls both houses.
Telegram: most House Republicans won’t touch that wall either.
10
This isn't rocket science.
If anyone, after all the men who have pleaded guilty and been sentenced, is still maintaining that there is no 'there' there, then that person is absolutely incompetent.
Republicans can 'say' anything, there is 'freedom of speech', but if they wish to be thought 'professional' then they really must stop this nonsense of making up their own facts.
Facts are facts.
Crimes are crimes.
Creepy.
16
I am glad that some adult talks about reality. The incompetence of the so called "leaders" conveniently ignored the the major problems, while simulating they where "leading" the Country.
I quote a French commentator, two weeks before the French Revolution , Marie Antoinete stated that everything was fine.
3
William P. Barr is an obvious choice. He would serve Trump, not the American people.
9
“Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the president submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction,” Mr. Barr wrote, adding: “Mueller’s obstruction theory is fatally misconceived. As I understand it, his theory is premised on a novel and legally insupportable reading of the law..."
Well, wait a minute. Mueller may have a theory about alleged obstruction (how does Barr know?), but he isn't going to make any legal accusations until he finishes investigating and has all the evidence he can obtain.
Mueller's alleged theory might not wash for a possible indictment, but it has nothing to do with the validity of the investigation itself. He might even find evidence that squashes his supposed theory but supports another that would pass muster. Thus, he certainly can demand that Trump submit to interrogation. Mueller's primary job is the gathering of facts, wherever that leads. For example, somebody may have been murdered; I might bring you into interrogation thinking you're guilty of manslaughter, and discover you're an assassin. Being wrong about an original theory of a possible crime doesn't mean I can't interrogate the possible culprit.
You see, this is the kind of legalizing you get when your aim is to fit facts to a theory (protecting the Presidency, assuming Barr isn't necessarily a Trump personal fan) instead of fitting theory to facts.
Now, I'm tempted to study up on Barr's turn as AG to see where else he might have performed such spurious legalizing.
13
if so, this is the tell: Barr takes the standard Republican method of first fixing on the outcome, then figuring out how to get there... while Mueller seems to be taking the opposite path: investigate like crazy and see what turns up and where that leads, the search for truth.
today's GOP is like something out of Lewis Carroll, the Red Queen screaming for punishment first, then the verdict. off with their heads!
2
Hey Trump, I don't think Mueller should be allowed to investigate you. Can I be attorney general now?
6
If this nominee won't recuse himself due to conflict of interest with being fair and impartial, he should not be confirmed. In Trump world they must always find transparently unsuitable candidates that require Senate confirmation, and then use their spineless GOP enablers to get them confirmed. It's hard to believe however, that they could find a suitable candidate that wants to be burned by this President on a regular basis.
2
He objected to Trump committing collusion. This is the same culture of corruption who support the truth isn't the truth to them . When you are an immoral group and can only win the White House with the electoral college corruption that speaks volume.
4
Initially I thought Barr's credentials qualified him to become AG. But his unsolicited memo that clearly demonstrates his bias is so troubling as to disqualify him to replace Sessions. Sessions did the right thing by recusing himself. For the Senate to confirm Barr would guarantee that Trump gets the hatchet man he seeks to derail Mueller.
250
@nzierler Brett Kavanaugh's bias did not prevent him from joining SCOTUS. Why should Barr's and Whitaker's slavish determination to protect Trump keep him from federal office?
6
@FreedomRocks76 - Two wrongs don't make a right.
1
My question to Barr is: If President Trump is firing someone or has fired someone or offers a pardon (ordinary acts of executive authority) in order to cover up the truth, how is that different that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton attempting to cover up the truth? It would seem to me that the net result is the same, one cannot obstruct justice by attempting to cover up the truth. And if the cover up is about treasonous activities, why in the world would "ordinary acts of executive authority" be a get out of jail free card? Barr and Giuliani are extremely twisted lawyers, contortionists actually.
6
So? Is legitimate legal policy debate now politically taboo?
1
Donald Trump fired Jeff Sessions because he wouldn't obstruct justice and intervene into the investigation of the Russian Cyber Attack. Donald Trump chose Matt Whitaker because he believed he would obstruct justice and intervene into the investigation.
William Barr wants to do away with all of that and say whatever a President does can't be called obstruction of justice, the most nonsensical argument ever foisted onto the American people.
If a President can't be charged with obstructing justice no matter what he does then we have just turned the Presidency into a dictatorship.
341
Go ahead Republicans, go easy on this guy. Cement your reputation for corruption for the next generation.
10
Can somebody please tell me where in our constitution or the Bill of Rights that says that the President is above the law?
Just because some self appointed political pundit or Fox New declares such does not make it so.
The President, if anybody, should be held to a higher standard since he should be ruling by example.
13
If reading of the same law by two persons can have diametrically opposite interpretations, either the law is too fickle, or one of the two persons is highly biased. Where does William P. Barr stand in this regard?
3
Diametrically opposed readings of laws by reasonable people is at the heart of our legal system, and is why we have courts and judges in the first place.
The question here is not whether Barr’s legal analysis is reasonable or proper on its face — it is — the question is whether its existence undermines his potential credibility as head of the DOJ.
And even on *that* question, there can (and will be) legitimate debate.
A simple analysis, made complicated only to obfuscate the answer. Trump has engaged in conduct to obstruct the investigation. Because he is chief law enforcement officer and can direct what does and does not get investigated, his conduct is legal and thus not a crime. But that is why the impeachment provision of the constitution cites high crimes or misdemeanors as a basis for impeachment. Misdemeanors didn't mean jay-walking in ye olden times, but rather abuse of powers. Trump, in moving to obstruct the investigation may have exercised valid executive branch powers, but did so as an abuse of those powers.
So, the investigation into the non-crime activity of the President is appropriate where he may have abused his lawful executive powers.
Not complicated - guys like Barr love to bang on the "not a crime" note when describing Trump's conduct, skipping past the real issue as to whether Trump has engaged in an abuse of his powers as President.
9
There are several issues with the Trump Presidency. Whether it is incompetence, dishonesty or corruption, they are just all getting worse.
Big business likes certainty so they can plan accordingly. With Trump in the White House instead of certainty, it is just rolling, tweet filled chaos.
The stock market is now partly reacting to Trump's inability to govern responsibly. When will the Republican Party, who backed Trump, admit their President continues to undermine all that the US used to stand for?
5
Look. We are stuck with this imposter until he is tossed out in 2020. His maneuvering shows his superficial "transactional" approach to the world and it is difficult to see Trump thinking more than what might happen to him tomorrow and tweeting about it tonight. He's a dunce. Pure and simple.
He'll get his due - in due time.
5
And rightfully so
Good.
Mueller has become an unelected and unaccountable 4th branch of government with virtually no oversight.
It’s about time someone checked his seemingly limitless authority.
1
he is investigated the most corrupt white house seen to date. how is he all powerful?
@JQGALT
Well, said fox no news!
&JQGALT. is that like the Benghazi investigation that would not go away. I know how you feel: “those pesky investigators meddling with my guy.” You should have felt that way during the torment of Hillary and Obama. Well, I suspect you might have enjoyed those times too.
Since Barr’s nomination to AJ post, I always asked, why would William Barr take a post that he occupied, in a much better era. Unless, he believes that he could impede the special council, Robert S. Mueller ‘s Russia investigation.
I guess he’s ready for the job.
This will be interesting.
Possibly the Bourke of our time.
5
It is joked that a good accountant, when asked “What is one plus one?” will answer “What do you want it to be?”. Mr. Barr appears to have a similar view of the law. Unfortunately, it’s not a joke at this point.
5
First, would ever think that two ostensible nominees for Attorney General, would first proffer partisan opinions as to what they felt would benefit the sitting President, say Trump, for at least alleged actions said President has taken, then have "interviews" with the sitting President, then be nominated by that President?
Second, can you imagine that President's party would have taken the same actions had that President been from the opposition party, say Clinton?
How sweet payback would be, if it would be if the same occurred in 2020, if the party of the other President did likewise.
Just maybe, the world is round!!!
1
So, how can Barr be open minded regarding this issue?
4
Baar should have the sense to keep his mouth shut, but then again is there any common sense in the Trump WH.
4
It makes me wonder of the kind of work William Barr has been doing since he was the Attorney General for Bush, and is he compromised by Putin and Russia, too.
7
Although Trump is currently an albatross around the American neck, the far greater problem is the office of the Presidency itself. American Presidents have assumed greater and greater power over the last 75 years or so. They are directly responsible for the deaths of millions, from Vietnam though Iraq to Afghanistan, aided and abetted by an increasingly supine and feckless Congress.The very notion that the President can commit crimes, feather his own nest and engage in unrestricted nepotism without fear of facing serious legal consequences is an invitation to despotism and fascism.If we're not careful Trump may just be the opening act in an American tragedy.
7
Trump is certainly true to his convictions about wanting only the "best people around (him)," Barr none.
2
Is it really a “memo” if it’s 19 pages?
5
I wonder - if the next president is a Democrat, will Republicans still be crying out for an "advancement of broader presidential powers?"
7
Put aside the tribalism and horse race, and judge this dispassionately. Any nominee worth his salt will have an educated opinion on this. There will be those pro SC and those anti SC. It isn't any more unbiased to be pro than to be anti. Anyone who has no stand on the use of SC shouldn't be considered for AG, unless just recently returning from Mars. The requirement is to be fair and understand the law. Barr has shown he will do that.
3
You gotta admire Trump. Every day he comes up with a new way to try to obstruct justice. About the only good thing one can say about him is that he is transparent.
3
Someone was looking for a job. In writing his letter, Mr. Barr disqualified himself to me and to any right thinking person, but I suspect the new Senate will find him acceptable. He's no worse than many of the judges they have approved. How could Whitaker suddenly look better?
Mr. Mueller should just keep doing his job until told otherwise.
3
Anyone who criticizes the "Russia" investigation needs to be investigated for his connections to Russian and foreign money influence. No AG in his right mind who is NOT also compromised would make this assertion.
Follow the money....
If he's not compromised then he's not fit to serve.
3
Perhaps DOJ is setting an "obstruction of justice trap" by not requiring him to recuse himself. I can already hear Giuliani saying as much on fox news.
No big deal, it would not matter who Trump picks, the Trump haters would find something wrong. Ignore them and continue to do the will of the American people.
@Tony J Mann
Which will? Cause over 60% are not in favor of Trump's policies. So be careful.
2
"Mr. Barr argued that the Justice Department must not accept the notion that a president can violate a statute that criminalizes obstruction of justice (done) in a otherwise lawful way--but with a corrupt motive."
Are you kidding me? So if the firing of certain government officials keeps the President out of jail, even if he and his motives are corrupt, it's okay?
Trump certainly picked the right guy to attack Mueller. However, so many indictments have been stacked up, and so much evidence uncovered, about the corrupt individuals in the Trump campaign and their close ties to foreign money and influence, it would be difficult for Congress to reject his findings.
It seems Trump's a worse crook than "I am not a crook" Nixon. He accepts emoluments, doesn't know the law or
Constitution, nor does he care to, and he keeps throwing out red herrings to distract the public from the real truth...his potential obstruction of justice, violation of campaign finance laws, accepting foreign money for personal enrichment...and that's just the tip of the iceburg.
Barr, welcome to Trump's swamp. You fit right in.
3
So the President can exercise all manner of authority, even if he has a corrupt motive?! He can pardon people involved in a criminal conspiracy even if he is the ring leader?! He can fire everyone in the Justice Dept. who thinks differently?! How, one must wonder, is such a leader reigned in? Only through Congress?
1
Sounds like the William Barr pick is yet another act of obstruction.
5
Womp womp.
Barr's letter was an obvious appeal for a job with Trump. Disqualifying.
3
Ah, what a elegant cast that memorandum was, Mr. Barr! And just the right lure! The big orange fish rose right to it and swallowed it whole. I thought John Yoo might get to the AG seat before you did, but of course Trump would think Mr. Yoo doesn't quite look right for the job. But you do.
4
One may be able to understand why a crooked president would want to appoint people who will try to prevent the long arm of the law reaching him. Why a majority of Republican senators would want to tarnish their reputation by endorsing such a nomination is scandalous and incomprehensible.
2
Given this highly partisan June memo from Barr (a former AG, no less) criticizing the Special Counsel and his investigation, impugning the FBI and disrespecting the rule of law, we are witness to yet another blatant attempt by Trump and the Republicans (assuming he's confirmed) to obstruct justice. This is the tactics of neo-fascists who are trying desperately to install a quasi-autocratic regime in America.
Barr had to pledge allegiance to Trump or he would never get Trump's endorsement. Ray Sipe
6
I had no idea that the foundation of our democracy was so critically infested with constitutional termites. Swarms of them. And only Mueller along with his brigade of loyal patriots to exterminate them. God bless and God speed before it's too late.
6
For a supposedly innocent man, President Trump certainly seems to care a lot about preventing investigation into his suspicious behavior.
8
@M.
I would like to write a book on "How to Act Guilty," but I can't keep up with the new material that Trump gives me every day.
2
Mr. Barr is certainly a wordy fellow with his expansive memo that ultimately reduces to another example of back to the bad behavior during Clinton years. Is "Yeah well... but what about Clinton" the only avenue DJT defenders have? DJT does not like nor read long memos but surely someone pointed those juicy bits out to DJT, aka victim-in-chief.
Mr. Barr carefully couched his reasoning in terms of "his current understanding" presumably translates to his not having the slightest notion what Special Council Mueller has learned and documented about DJT's activities regarding obstruction. Mr. Barr's expansive memo defines in great detail his opinion about what obstruction is and how sitting president could commit (and in earlier cases has commited) obstruction.
Again the Senate Judicial committee is presented with the opportunity to conduct itself in the ways imagined by the Founders and take a serious deep dive into Mr. Barr's suitability as Attorney General. Should Mr. Barr be confirmed as Attorney General the issue is what he would do or not do with respect to the Special Council's investigation. Would he recuse himself for admitted bias about something he acknowleged he knows nothing about? What would he do if he learned from Special Counsel Meuller there is evidence consistent with his own interpretation of presidential obstruction? Move forward or block and delay?
4
Of course he did, this is not really news...
1
Definitely sounds like he was auditioning for a job!
4
After 2 years, absolutely no links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government have been found. We have found out that the "Russia conspiracy" suspicion was started by paid opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign. This information was withheld when the paid for Dossier was circulated. Which lead the appointment of Mueller.
We also know of corrupt FBI agents who were looking for an "insurance policy", who compromised existing investigations, we know of Comey leaking information to the press, and Obama administration officials who spied on the Trump campaign.
One could go on and on.
This investigation has been unethical since we've known the above in 2017.
1
35 indictments
6 convictions
17 ongoing criminal investigations of 45
Dozens of ongoing ethics investigations of Pruitt and Zinke
1 shuttered DJT foundation
How on earth can you (or anyone else) say that the Mueller investigation is “unethical” when it has rooted out some of the most unethical practices in the history of the United States?
For how long can Trump supporters claim that everything is fake news?!
7
Charles, where have you been? Are you aware that General Flynn has confessed to discussing with a Russian rep. favors that may occur after the election. Are you aware of the many Russians that have been indicted? Are you aware of the Russian interference in the election of 2016? All in favor of the Republican candidate. If your tv is permanently affixed to fox news, at least listen to Shep Smith. He will broaden your scope a bit from the usual slant.
2
@Charles - No links at all unless you count the fact that every single one of Trump's associates and family members have ties to Russia and have lied about it.
Then of course there's Trump himself doing Putin's bidding. Check out today's headlines.
3
This man's preconceptions make any notion of a Senate confirmation to the AG spot, if it comes to that, fatally misconceived. They're absolutely disqualifying, even to fill the position on a temporary basis.
4
This seems grounded on the concept that the president is supreme over all government but is checked by a Congress with the authority to impeach him. The theory he can't obstruct fails by reductio ad absurdum. The founders never intended to give the executive the power to thwart the very investigation necessary to the impeachment.
5
Good!!! It is about time someone stood up to this corrupt special counsel leading this corrupt investigation, invented by a losing candidate, and initiated by her criminal sycophants in the FBI, DOJ, CIA and NIA. I hope his next move is to appoint a special counsel to look into the roots of this illegal investigation and prosecute any and all officials who committed crimes in conducting it and who committed true perjury in trying to hide and cover it up. I want to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, including anything Trump did involving Russian collusion, BUT ALSO ABOUT ALL OTHER COLLUSION BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND ANY INVOLVED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS.
1
Another example of people willing to convert the USA into a supreme leader autocracy.
6
something fishy about bar's memo. the letterhead is blank and there is no cover sheet. isn't he associated with a firm? so are we to believe that Mr Barr wrote this memo as an expression of his personal opinion without any affiliation of his firm and/or a client?
I have never met a lawyer who writes a 19 page letter without getting paid for it. NYT needs to keep digging. I have a hunch one of those arch, conservative non-profits borne of Citizens United is behind this.
7
NO ONE, including the POTUS is above the law! Period.
2
Who, in his/her right mind, would ever think that Trump would hire an AG that had the best interests of the country in mind?
It's all about narcissism, personal loyalty and selling the U.S. down the river to the Russians. How stupid does he think we are?
6
Well, that explains why Barr was nominated....
3
Opportunism and ambition know no limits in DC. Mr Barr clearly wants to be in the room where it happens.
1
He's a plant and toadie. Pure and simple.
4
Sounds like Mr. Barr was angling for a job, the one he’s now gotten.
1
The President that Barr describes is one who is using all the authority that the office specifically or implicitly possesses to protect the hundreds of millions of citizens from dangers that only the head of government may fully know the extent of.
Technically, it's the constitutional "unitary executive" that was, with trepidation, bestowed on the presidency. Our society today is like the frog in the pot of water, that failed to jump out as the temperature was slowly raised to kill of the animal --or destroy our democratic country.
Do we dare admit that in implementation of universal suffrage, certainly right to eliminate faux literacy tests, but should have been replaced by actual ones. When unlettered mobs get to choose their leaders, in our complex world it translates to the right to anoint one who is a cheerleader for praise of ignorance and violence.
rump is not the POTUS that the founders visualized and memorialized in the authority of the position. Yet that is our country's rule book, which only has a single procedure for ending a term of office, which depends on a super majority of Senators -- the founders never anticipating that the body would be controlled by the same faction as the President.
Slowly, like the frog in the pot, our country has become inured to the incremental transition from a constitutional democracy to an autocracy. If he can use our military to construct a wall, what else could he order them to do?
3
As if this isn't the only qualification Trump looks for these days ... whether it's a Supreme Court Justice or an Attorney General.
3
So if it’s the president’s right to do something, they can only do it as long as the other side doesn’t object and construe their motive to be nefarious? That’s real executive power all right. All it takes then is one conspiracy theorist to bring down the whole house of cards? I can see why every country on earth would want to govern like that for itself.
1
As I wrote elsewhere, since when does Bob Mueller, who was tone deaf (or worse) to the point of hiring an overwhelmingly partisan (indeed, pro-Clinton, pro-Obama) staff, get to operate unsupervised, as if he were the plenipotentiary Czar of America?
Many believe that the problem with the Special Counsel is that it is investigating too much, and that it has metastasized far beyond its original charter.
That may be true. But I think the bigger problem is that the Special Counsel is doing too little.
Mueller was charged by DOJ with conducting a "full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election". A prosecutor with that broad charter who fails to investigate, as Mueller has, the chain of events that runs from the Hillary Clinton campaign, through the Perkins Coie law firm, through Fusion GPS, through Christopher Steele and his Russian" sources", to the notorious "dirty dossier", thence to the monkey business surrounding the bogus FISA applications, investigates not enough.
1
Barr's memo has been overtaken by the more recent and growing catalog of Trump's actions in plain sight to obstruct justice: witness tampering and suborning perjury among them.
Nonetheless, Barr's proposition that the president, the one executive explicitly enjoined by the Constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, can act legally and with corrupt intent is, fatuous.
Researchers vetting Barr's nomination should look into an article published in the late 1980s -- thus unlikely to be online -- that describes a meeting of Barr, then in the Justice Department; then-Governor Bill Clinton, and others, at which Barr, a Republican, told Clinton that he was on the short list to be the next president. The article is likely tied to Mena, Arkansas and its role in Iran-Contra. Was Barr speaking for some cabal?
Trump is already providing us with adventures in extralegal conduct. The country does not need an Attorney General eager to endorse and magnify that behavior.
to a layman, all this noise around the possibility of interviewing or deposing President Trump in an investigation of his own deeds and those of his associates and underlings sounds a lot like Trump taking the Fifth in an indirect way. people who do not want to incriminate themselves take the Fifth because they know they are guilty of something.
Mr. Barr, no surprise, supports a very strong presidency - one might infer one of limitless powers and almost no accountability, something that, again, a layman might easily mistake for a king.
at this point, I just wish Trump would take the Fifth Avenue bus and get out of there. maybe there's an express to Mar-a-Lago.
1
@[email protected] With abdication, we get Pence. I'd rather have Trump twisting in the wind, if we can stand it and survive it for two more years.
This was an advertisement by Barr for the AG position.
Unsolicited.
Written in June, 2018 when Sessions’ fate was clear.
Making it absolutely clear to Trump that he would not support the Mueller investigation.
He might as well have worn a flashing neon sign on Pennsylvania Avenue saying: “Give me the job! I won’t support Mueller!”
4
Does Mr. Barr contend that Mr. Trump's firing of Comey and his other efforts to thwart Mueller's investigation did not have corrupt intentions? Does he believe that a corrupt president can do as he pleases, using his powers to obstruct and pardon to block efforts to uncover collusion and self-enrichment? Wow! Then what would be the difference between a nominally free democratic republic and a dictatorship--other than that it takes a few hours more for the former to do whatever it wants, regardless of the law?
2
Barr's stance is reminiscent of Nixon's "When the president does it, it's not illegal." Barr is an extreme authoritarian and an exponent of unbridled executive authority, a la Cheney. This is much more dangerous than just having a bearing on the Mueller investigation itself. As we've seen with respect to Syria (and Russia), Trump is a very loose cannon and an unstable president's fire should be the last thing that should be stoked by extremist right-wing views in the AG's office.
2
Mr Trump fired Mr Comey because of the “Russia thing.” His own words. What more needs to be said? Is he excused from obstruction of justice because he is bold and naive enough not to hide his reasoning?
William Barr’s unsolicited opinion (“resume”) is the epitome of what is legal and is right or just are not always mutually inclusive.
I am rather amazed that Trump didn’t shove Sessions our earlier in light of this memo’s timing. One would think scuttling Mueller’s investigation earlier with a willing AG would have been beneficial?
Or would that act have been considered obstruction of justice?...
1
Would you be surprised if on 12/24/2018 or 12/30/2018 Trump directs Whitaker to curtail or end the Mueller investigation?
Appears to be his application for the job of Attorney General.
1
So? There is a lot to critisize, so why shouldn't he. He isn't like this paper that essentially imposed a news blackout concerning the alarming facts that have been uncovered about the so-called investigation.
1
No one should doubt for one moment, this isn't the reason [others] had Donald Trump nominate William Barr.
Would that we all could just shoot-off 19 page missives to the Justice Department and expect our wishes to be considered:
Government Of...By...and For...whom?
Trump is running scared and seeks all the help he can get to prevent indictment for his obvious multiple crimes against our nation. This appointment is exactly what can be expected from Trump and his Republican lackeys.
1
Partisans would be wrong to view Mr Barr's idiosyncratic legal theory on obstruction as a calculated move to rescue Mr Trump and end the Mueller investigation.
Remove your blindfolds and see it for what it is, a patriot's heroic move to save the Republic. :-)
Dangerous precedent indeed. Americas' march toward empire, led by the oil oligarchs is coming to a head. Will our democracy go down in flames? Or will we be rescued at the 11th hour by justice and integrity? He is a criminal, known to the attorney general of NY state as a tax evader and fraud. He has sold our country down the drain to the Russians and Saudis (and god knows who else) to raise his ilk above the people, the planet and all who live here. I feel like I'm in some terrible dystopian trilogy, and this is the first part....
No time to peruse the statement right now. I know I don't like aspects of his conservatism, but he is no fool, and not out of his depth as AG, which was the case with Sessions. Trump picked someone with substance this time. He's not a lightweight politico like Whitaker.
The Senate - Congress should take the reins in to protect Mueller's investigation from direct Presidential interference.
The Senate Judiciary Hearing should be top notch political drama.
1
Everyone has legal rights that, in context, can be violations of the law.
I have the absolute right to loan my car to a friend who I believe to be duly licensed to drive, correct?
However, if I’m home, and hear gunshots, and screams, and police sirens, and my friend comes to the door bleeding and smelling of gunpowder, and asks me to lend him my car, it’s an emergency, is my right still absolute?
2
@Paul '52 Yes
I would think the validity of Mr Mueller's legal theory would properly be tested in a court of law, not by a political appointee.
5
Why shouldn't the Russian Collusion investigation be criticized?
There was no collusion. There was no evidence of any crime or wrong doing. It was started based on lies by the FBI.
It has turned into a political witch hunt by people who are rejecting the results of an election.
It is a disgrace.
35
@George Orwell
The investigation is not over yet. You'll have to wait for the final report to see if your statements hold up!
97
@George Orwell Thanks Boris. Weather getting permafrost like in Moscow?
135
@George Orwell
A message from George Orwell, who still appreciates
Irony from the Great Beyond.
93
Like the lawyers who populate the Office of Legal Counsel, just another self-indulgent political hack.
2
The Mueller investigation should be criticized. It was initiated because of the infamous Fake Russian lie dossier paid for by Mrs. Clinton. The very same fake Russin lies that were used to obtain FISA warrants to spy on Trump associates.
2
I agree it was dirty politics to commission the report but there is no evidence that it’s contents were faked. Indeed, the reputation and background of the author suggests much of it was true.
1
Oh please. I've lost count of the indictments, the violations of campaign finance laws, and now all aspects of Trump (Organization. Campaign, inaugural, charity Etc) are under investigation. Wake up and smell the coffee.
And endlessly hyped by the NYT.
1
The only reason I can think of for these "conservative" legal beagles to consistently argue against holding a president accountable for corrupt motivations and corrupt acts is because there have been so many crooked republican presidents. The glorious US Constitution came into existence after a war to get rid of a crooked king: I just don't understand this conservative desire to make the president an untouchable king.
11
@Rw Because Republican presidents serve their plutocratic and oligarchical masters very well. "Follow the money": Where has the money flowed in the last 40 years?
(And I include in this some "Democrats" who are stealth Rockefeller Republicans, such as the most recent two "Democrats," who really only continued the Reagan Restoration. We haven't had a legitimate Democrat in the Oval Office in over 50 years now.)
Barr's appointment to Attorney General is a thinly veiled invitation to a stolen 2020 election and marshall law in the U.S. The Russian oligarchs are brilliant chess masters after all.
4
Whitaker, Barr: All they have to do is say something negative about Mueller and that is enough for trump. "You're hired!"
2
"....with a corrupt motive." It would seem that proving a "corrupt motive" would require a mountain of evidence, something understood at the outset of any investigative proceeding and not ventured into lightly or without significant cause. Few except fools would enter that arena with frivolous, vexatious lawsuits. In Trump's case, that mountain clearly exists!! What, again was his role in advising the first Bush to invade Panama? Oh, and don't forget his views about the right to abortion. I smell the evangelicals at work here as well. Trump's looking for a two-fer??
2
No wonder he wrote his dear donny letter when he did... He knew Trump was looking for a replacement so he penned his dear donny letter so i would show up on Trumps desk as a resume!!! Hopefully the Senate confirmation panel will see this also for what it was.... an audition for a job!!!
3
Had current investigatee Clinton won the election - whether or not any substance of crime or collusion occurred - none of the Mueller inquisitional circus would ever had happened. Very poisonous sour grapes by the Demi-Socialust left. The corruption of the Washington government has reached abcess stage. The truths in matters of this and 60 years back need come to light to right our “ship” of state
1
@SMPH Clinton did win the election since more voters chose her than those who chose Trump. Trump became President because of the white racist Electoral College which was created to give extra voting power to the slave south.
@Jeff Get a life! While doing so, read our Constitution. Enough of this "racist" stuff as an excuse for losing.
So Barr argues that a president is king and above the law. Now we know why Trump selected him.
7
Mr. Barr wouldn't have been nominated for the job if he had impartial, non-partisan views of obstruction of justice.
Duh!
4
It appears that Barr meets all of Tramp's requirements to be AG.
1
The audacity and hubris of Trump and his GOP lackeys knows no bounds. They shamelessly put party ahead of country. Power and money are the only things that they care about. In their world, a Republican can do no wrong, so they deny or rationalize away all of Trump's unprecedented corruption.
Barr personifies their latest assault on the rule of law. He has been chosen precisely because he is chomping at the bit to sabotage Mueller and the US Attorneys who are investigating a myriad of illegal activities undertaken by our felon-in-chief. The Republicans are fully complicit in Trump's effort to allow him to function as a dictator, like his hero, Putin.
228
Makes me wonder what Mr. Barr has against Mr. Mueller. I wonder what their interactions have been like, previously? Is Mr. Mueller on the outs with the Federalist Society? Something else?
9
@Doctor B
Like his puppet-master, Putin.
15
@Doctor B
It's been two years and they've found no crimes tied to Trump or ties to Putin. Mueller found a possible campaign finance violation, which isn't even that, because Trump can contribute to his campaign, and the trial of John Edward ruled that paying off a mistress isn't a campaign finance contribution. It's not the case that everything he spends is a campaign contribution. It has to be intended as such, with no other motivation.
1
"Mr. Barr argued that the Justice Department must not accept the notion that a president can violate a statute that criminalizes obstruction of justice by exercising his constitutional authority in an otherwise lawful way"
This is a routine application of Myers v. U.S. and the PCAOB decisions of the Supreme Court - both of which are cited by Barr. Any decent constitutional lawyer who is familiar with the separation of powers cases understood that from the very outset of this "debate." The alternative is both legally and practically unacceptable - it would allow Courts to second-guess the motives of every President in every Article II decision.
For example, a President might choose to appoint officials based on their actual or presumed 'friendliness' to the President's agenda (see, e.g., Sessions, Barr); a President might choose to veto Congressional bills that seek to expand agency or prosecutorial power; a President might choose to negotiate international trade agreements that favor some over others. The notion that Courts can sit in review of the exercise of a President's Article II powers and say, in effect, "yes, I know that's a Presidential power, but I think you used it with the wrong intent, so now it's criminal" is both unworkable and legally untenable. No matter how much you dislike the decisions being made by the current President.
2
"But he distinguished their actions, saying that they centered on efforts to cover up the truth, such as by suborning perjury, rather than ordinary acts of executive authority."
Okay, how is covering up the truth not part of every obstruction of justice? Or is he saying that the President cannot be held to have obstructed justice if he tries to cover up the truth but is really bad at it and we find it out despite his best efforts? That, to me, is to require that the obstruction be successful before we can charge someone with obstruction, which is nonsense.
Barr is making Whitaker look like a legal genius and honest civil servant already.
1
William Barr suggests in his memo that the statute used to subject Nixon and Clinton to impeachment proceedings was appropriately used in their cases, because they were trying to cover up the truth.
But Barr claims that same statute doesn't apply to Trump because, Barr says, firing Comey was not part of an attempted cover-up.
If Barr believes that, I have a bridge to sell him.
9
Even as a layman, I can see that Barr's argument is flawed. Trump clearly stated in a televised interview that he fired Comey because he sought to end the Russian investigation, which by the way, has produced over 100 criminal indictments and several convictions. Comey himself testified and produced corroborating evidence that Trump pressured him to end the investigation of Michael Flynn.
Barr's supposition that the president cannot possibly obstruct justice in executing the duties of the office would confer dictatorial powers on the American president.
A person who would not allow a criminal investigation to conclude before reaching a conclusion does not qualify to lead a justice department.
5
Mueller has two.essential tasks: to investigate how malign foreign actors influenced the 2016 election to favor Donald Trump and secondarily whether that influence was coordinated with the candidate's campaign. IF there is evidence for the latter, Mueller is obligated to pursue Trump and any attempts to hamstring the investigation. Is Barr no more comfortable with the legal concept of Mens Rea, the mental state or knowledge that your actions are illegal, which might explain Trump's obstruction than the current temporary AT is about Marbury v Madison?
Trump has lost his mind. No longer is the criteria for effective legislation “What is best for the country”. It has become “my way or the highway”.
1
Mr. Barr is obviously playing politics here, because as a lawyer he knows that details matter. Like Trump requiring Mr. Comey to pledge loyalty, pressing Mr. Comey to lay off Flynn, and saying in plain sight that he fired Mr. Comey to sideline the Russia investigation.
So no Mr. Barr, a president can be held to account if he fires someone in order to cover up crimes. That won't damage the office, on the contrary, it will make it stronger.
2
The Trump presidency requires comprehensive redaction from the historical record. No more nominations.
1
Barr is a staunch Republican who aggressively supports the Party and its candidates having given nearly a million dollars in campaign contributions in the last election. In his law practice he represents the oligarchs who are only interested in the preservation of wealth in the hands of the few. The Mueller inquiry is anathema to Barr and his clients.
3
Trump's attempts to protect himself seem to be failing. There are too many "threads" of possible criminal activity with too many shady characters & too much money changing hands.
2
Everyone surrounding Trump is either a criminal or without morality or all of the above, all willing to lie to the American people in a last ditch effort to save the Presidency from impeachment. We will impeach Donald Trump.
1
I am no lawyer, but the arguments here strike as both ridiculous in their potential scope and offensive as an everyday American subject to the law. If a president can not be questioned in the exercise of a power granted, even the declaration of marshal law for obviously corrupt purposes would be legal. If a presidents motives for their exercise of legal power can't be questioned, how about a member of Congress? Or a judge?
He even goes so far as to argue that a Justice Dept officials motives can't be questioned. What about an official of the EPA, or Commerce Dept?
This would effectively legalize government wide corruption. It's the most ridiculous nonsense I've seen in some time.
2
But Mr Barr we're already at the point where Trump can be accused of suborning perjury in pursuit of obstruction of justice, see e.g. Donald Trump's jr. Surely otherwise legal steps taken in support of the suborning are legitimate targets of investigation and prosecution or impeachment. That being so, your memo is either irrelevant or tendentious or perhaps a job application.
I have a hunch Trump is going to be charged with far more tangible crimes than obstruction, when all is said and done.
1
Under Mr. Barr's theory, no law enforcement officer, prosecutor, governor, attorney general, president could ever be guilty of obstruction of justice for covering up their own criminality, so long as they had the "authority" to use whatever method they used. That is ridiculous on its face. People with that authority are the ones who should be held to the strictest accountability, not the other way around.
4
I wonder whether any of these appointees actually believe that trump is innocent of wrongdoing, or whether they know he is entirely guilty and want the position in order protect him? It does seem to be getting rather Godfather-ish, with all this talk of "flipping," rats, and so on.
Well we know the main reason he got the nod, don’t we. Thanks, reporters.
1
Conversation with Comey only needs to be evidence of intent. Dangling pardons clearly an effort to deprive the government of evidence as were tweets of encouragement to Manifort, etc.
I see a pattern here. Judge Kavenaugh writes the President is above the law, no matter what and he gets nominated for the Supreme Court. Mr. Barr writes his memo stating that the President cannot obstruct justice, no matter what and he gets nominated for the Attorney General. I wish there was a cute way to end this post but I fear not.
1
William Barr is but another brick in the wall to shield Donald Trump from justice. He is, obviously, a devoted sycophant with peculiar and dangerous views of expansion of executive power that threaten the core values enshrined in our constitution.
His memo offered us significant insight into his prejudicial views on the Russia Investigation and now we also have definitive evidence that the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel in advising that he need not recuse himself may be a part of the problem.
Even the appearance of bias should have been ample to have him recuse himself from this vital investigation.
The ancient Blackstone adage that the "King can do no harm" has resurfaced in our modern democratic republic as a complete and shameful repudiation of our constitution.
Perhaps we will have a miracle and the Senate will not confirm him but do not hold your collective breath.
186
@Stewart Rein
This senate has yet to stand on principle above party. Holding my breath would be suicidal.
17
@Stewart Rein
Correction of an error. It was Mr.Whitaker who was advised about recusal, not Mr. Barr but it is assumed that he has already had a private advice or that it will follow on the Whitaker advice.
6
@Stewart Rein
We already had the problems that resulted from Sessions recusing himself, for no substantive reason. It allowed biased prosecutors to corrupt investigations.
This probe was established to investigate Russian election interference, which was silly. But it was never intended to just go after the Trump administration. The Clintons and John Podesta have more ties to the Russian government. There was more proven foreign involvement in the Clinton campaign.
So much for impartiality of the position of attorney-general.....
1
This article colors free speech with dark hues and shadows.
Mr. Barr, has the right to express his opinions, then if one disagrees with them one should express a better opinion. His opinion was based on the law and the limitations which should govern over the special prosecutor.
The fact that his opinion benefits the President in this instance does not erase Mr. Barr's previous professional experience and be considered a partisan political hack.
3
@F1Driver Do you think Barr is being considered because of his previous professional experience under George Bush, or because of his completely gratuitous opinion that the law cannot reach Trump? Since it's the latter, your choices are limited to: Barr is a poltical hack, the people suggesting Barr are political hacks, or both.
2
@F1Driver Your comment is a blatant attempt at diversion. The issue isn't whether Mr Barr has the right to express his opinions -- even in a 19-page memo sent to the Justice Department. Of course he does, and I haven't seen anyone challenging that right.
The issue is whether a person who believes that the president can legally obstruct justice by firing federal prosecutors is a proper nominee for AG by a president who is already facing multiple federal investigations. The answer to that question is clearly "no."
@Chris M Nowhere in this writings he indicates the President is permitted to obstruct justice. The U.S. President nor any other person is allowed to obstruct justice.
The issue is whether the special counsel should have limited authorities of review and whether he should be accountable to anyone? The special counsel as it is, is accountable to no one. Democracy requires government officials to ultimately respond to the voters. To whom should Mueller respond?
In the case of Bill Clinton the special counsel investigation was supposed to be limited to fraud, it ended up with tawdry sex affair.
Special counsel Mueller task is to investigate Trump and Russian Collusion to subvert the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections. He is investigating and sentencing people to jail for 2005 wrong doings and pressuring people to confess to crimes not yet committed.
No more Trump nominations or appointments until all of his legal entanglements are resolved, or more likely, he's removed from office. A criminal (suspect) cannot be allowed to exert their influence over the American government. Period.
51
Am I going crazy here or just incapable of reading comprehension?
"In criticizing the notion that this law should be applied to Mr. Trump, Mr. Barr acknowledged that the two modern presidents subjected to impeachment proceedings, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, both were accused of obstruction of justice. But he distinguished their actions, saying that they centered on efforts to cover up the truth, such as by suborning perjury, rather than ordinary acts of executive authority."
sub·orn
/səˈbôrn/
verb
gerund or present participle: suborning
bribe or otherwise induce (someone) to commit an unlawful act such as perjury.
"he was accused of conspiring to suborn witnesses"
This hack is arguing that Trump has not induced someone else to commit an unlawful act?
15
@Andrew; No, he is saying the simple act of firing Comey which is part of his Article II powers, is not obstruction of justice or suborning perjury.
@Jamie, Trump admitted on TV w/ Lester Holt he fired Comey b/c of the "Russia thing". If that is not obstruction, nothing is.
@Andrew, Trump didn’t suborn Stormy to lie about it, just not talk about it. Can someone who doesn’t speak commit perjury? Maybe after we determine if a falling tree makes a sound alone in the forest, should we then pursue those sticky riddles.
He wrote the opinion criticizing the Russian investigation to get the A.G. nomination. He got it. The question now is whether the same opinion will sink his nomination in the Senate. We can only hope for a thumbs down.
19
@Purple Spain, he complains that, because some of the members of Mueller's (who is a Republican)team have given money to Democrats). He has given substantial sums to Republicans over the course of his career. Should that not also disqualify him?
@jonathan Yes. Barr and his wife contributed a total of $789,000.00 to Republican candidates over the past two decades. This put Barr in the running for a top Administration position in the first place. The opinion served as a little reminder to Trump that he had a friend waiting and willing to help him who paid his dues.
Its pretty clear that Barr wrote the letter under at the direction of higher ups. Barr was out of the mix, a reliable conservative from what might be considered another era. He allowed himself to be a pawn to forestall his fading irrelevance, Barr has entered the Trump orbit and the stench will never leave him.
16
I am no legal expert, but any reasonable person can see: 1) A person being investigated should not over see the investigation. 2) the more you try to defend with stupid arguments sure make you look guilty 3) Every thing Trump is involved with is under investigation 3) Trump has never told the truth 4) Trump changes the story line once facts are presented to show he was lying 5) Trump constantly says no conclusion with Russia --REALLY 6) everything Trump is involved in is under investigation. The whole world is wrong and against Trump and Trump is right -- REALLY. I do not think a reasonable person believes a word from Trump. Everyone enjoy the holidays
16
Everyone who supports Trump is either an outright crook, or someone whose 'laissez-faire' views embrace frauds, lies & betrayals as just another form of transaction -- as good as being honest, being transparent, being scrupulously fair.
The inaugural oath Trump swore does, however, emphasize integrity, duty of care. It ends with the words, "so help me God." Please note: "so" refers to the preceding series of declarations. In other words, the official making the oath invokes the Help of God, that his or her actions might be just & virtuous in God's eyes.
God's Help is not available for the commission of frauds, the dissemination of untruths & the concealment of self-serving money-grubbing schemes. Officials who swear an oath in the USA are vowing to be serving the people, not themselves, for the duration of their tenure.
Trump clearly lied when he made that oath. WP Barr's defense of Trump's self-serving schemes strongly suggests that Barr himself is not a man of integrity, who swore truthfully when oaths were administered to him.
Oaths are not an arcane, nor an archaic feature of US public life. They are a powerful reminder, at every turn, that we exalt the Law, that we uphold Truth & that we place the public good above whatever personal interest an official might be tempted to indulge.
T openly explained his firing of Comey as way of ending the investigation of his Russian ties. Those ties have now been shown to be both lucrative & extensive. Barr's memo is corrupt.
12
So, draining the swamp was Trump's battle cry. Actions speak louder than promises broken.
Justice has taken another exit off the freeway of truth.
Why does anyone continue to support this fake leader pretending to do the right thing?
I think the Southern District of New York is our only hope of getting rid of this false hope of the common man.
4
Can't imagine why he nominate someone who disagrees with his distaste for Mueller III and the investigation of "No Collusion".
2
What a relief! I was afraid he might be fair minded.
5
If Barr wrote this memo would that be reason that he would need to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation if he were confirmed as AG?
11
It never fails to amaze me how this gang is so proud to commit crimes in broad daylight and the glare of klieg lights. In real time!
4
If the law can be bent to the point it is unusable it really doesn't matter if it is broken. j
7
The AG nominee is correct as a prudential matter. It would be unwise for Congress to use its plenary power of impeachment to pursue the politics of "corrupt motives".
However, these are the trees. There is a forest. To suppose that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are limited to statutes on the books is to misconceive the import of Congress' plenary power. It is a Constitutional power and responsibility, not a mere judicial exercise.
The challenge for Congress is not to parse existing law but to address the question whether the conduct of this president -- or any president -- so undermines the foundations of our democracy that the holder of the office should be removed. It would be a legalistic contortion to try to fit this concern within "obstruction of justice".
This president has consistently berated our institutions -- not only the special counsel but the Department of Justice more generally, the judiciary and the intelligence community. He has a cramped style of leadership devoted to fulfilling yesterday's campaign promises. Are we resilient enough to survive what could most charitably be described as inattention to what is important about our democracy?
I trust that we are. Where this president has defaulted in his duty to build up rather than weaken this country's foundations it becomes the responsibility of Congress to make suitable inquiry. Should this president be impeached? Probably not, but Congress should take seriously the country's foundations.
2
"But he distinguished their actions, saying that they centered on efforts to cover up the truth, such as by suborning perjury, rather than ordinary acts of executive authority."
How is that different from Trump's situation? By definition, obstruction of justice is an effort to cover up the truth.
If a president fires the people investigating him and goes on national TV to say why, that its because he thinks the investigation is a hoax--code for, I'm going to shut it down--how is this not obstruction of justive to cover up truth?
This guy Barr is off the wall and a perfect person to enter Trumplandia.
Too bad it's our democracy that hangs in the balance. This president's main requirement for a new AG is someone who promises to "lawyer" him out of being investigated.
9
“If embraced by the department, this theory would have potentially disastrous implications, not just for the presidency, but for the executive branch as a whole and for the department in particular,” he wrote, adding: “All that is needed is a claim that a supervisor is acting with an improper purpose and any act arguably constraining a case — such as removing a U.S. attorney — could be cast as a crime of obstruction.”
Trump's actions go well beyond firing someone out of personal disagreement. Trump's firing of Comey from the FBI was directly related to "that Russia thing" vis a vis Michael Flynn. It was classic obstruction, undertaken with a corrupt motive, and indeed designed to cover up the truth of Trump's involvement with Russia. Comey's firing was not an ordinary act of executive authority since the only motivation for Trump's firing him was Comey's and the FBI's investigation of Russian ties.
Barr's submission of this unsolicited memo directly on the heels of the Trump legal team's memo was nothing less than Barr's telegraphing of support for Trump's dubious claims and illegal actions. That memo was an audition for Trump. Given Barr's belief in "a broad view of presidential power" Barr can be expected to protect Trump against the Mueller investigation regardless of what damage THAT will actually do to the presidency, the executive branch, and the rule of law.
It looks like Trump finally found his Roy Cohn.
302
@Dominic
Maybe this memo will also serve to show why Barr is unfit to lead the Justice Department; but this would require Republican Senators to abandon the Trump ship, which they have done on a rare occasion, to be fair.
23
@Chuck
Eventually Roy Cohn was disbarred and died in disgrace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn
12
@DFS . This hasn't stopped Trump's Adoration of the One of the Worst People in the History of the United States.
8
Barr is a former AG of the United States and his views can not be simply dismissed. Trump had to have known of his views as to Mueller when he made the appointment. Barr's name was not just picked out of a hat. But, having the view that he does as to Mueller et al, is going to subject him to intense attack and some including members of both parties will demand he recuse himself from Mueller oversight. However, unless the Republicans bungle this one, the 53 to 47 advantage in the new Senate will result in confirmation even if Alaska and maybe one other balk. But, then will Barr shut down Mueller? He can. If he does, does TD get the blame and the Democrats push for impeachment all the more? Maybe, but short of somehow a real crime( other than paying call girls to keep quiet) coming to the surface, Trump will not be convicted in the Senate. He will be like Bill Clinton: impeached but not convicted. America really does not need this, but we are stuck with it for maybe two more years.
39
Barr was chosen because of his views, not despite of them.
18
@Bian
He's not going to fire Mueller.
The smart move is to reopen investigations on the Clintons, and other democrats for possible pay to play, and destroying classified documents, etc.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
That's what the Democrats seem to have forgotten.
@Charles Yes, let's reopen investigations on the Clintons. We need a few more years' worth of those, that go nowhere. (Whitewater? Benghazi? Emails? Thankfully, we didn't waste taxpayer dollars again on Uranium One. Yet...) Even while Mueller's investigation opens one can of worms after another, and he's not finished yet. LOL, Trump is doing pay for pay right in front of our eyes, just as he might actually be able to shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters.
Republicans own the federal government, so you can't blame Mueller on Democrats. And if Democrats were to ever respond to GOP shenanigans in kind, there really would be mass chaos in the USA. They'd be sending cronies out to steal absentee ballots like in NC. Or looking to crimp the powers of GOP officials after losing an election, like in Michigan and Wisconsin. Or not recusing themselves from maintaining control of elections that they are running in like in Florida. Or holding court spots open for a year, without even a hearing for nominees of an outgoing President because "an election is coming up", then asserting that the same reasoning doesn't apply to them. That's not even all I could list.
I dare you to list Clinton/Democrat transgressions even approaching that, and unproven or debunked conspiracy theories don't count.
Mueller's got Trump's number. Don't believe me? Just watch.
23
If Barr's view is upheld, a president can fire anyone in the Justice Dept. who is investigating possible criminal activity that might lead to the president.
In other words, in a nation where everyone is equal before the courts, the president is above the law.
In other words, for the duration of his term(s), the president is in fact invested with the powers of a king.
I'd like to read commentary on this issue from legal scholars.
503
@Taz
I agree that some legal analysis of Barr's claim is in order.
It seems as though Barr is doing a clever lawyer thing and making an argument that on its face doesn't make sense and even seems flat out fallacious.
Maybe before a legal scholar chimes in, a philosopher skilled in logic could give us some tips on making sense of this and many of the other weird reasonings that emanate from the White House.
I read echoes of fake news, a fancy form of denial.
In the end, we will look back on the Trump presidency and what will stand out is the corrosive affect his term has had on all institutions he has touched; no one makes sense anymore. The Senators and Cabinet heads, and the President himself all speak gobbleygook.
27
@Taz
That's always been the case.
Trump could fire Mueller now.
I'm not sure if the president could end an investigation. But most of these "investigations" that are intended to take down Trump are just plain silly. The latest is that Ivanka is being accused of overcharging for the inauguration. But if you actually read her emails, you find that's a lie; she charged a lower rate than normal.
The president also has the power to declare marshal law. If the use of presidential power is legal, regardless of motivation, the president could use this power to suspend elections and it would be legal. King for life.
15
Another term for the letter Barr wrote, at a time when Trump was already signalling Jefferson Beauregard Sessions was toast, is "resume".
Twisting fine points of law with false analogies while ignoring the larger picture of suspicious contacts and lying about them all the way back to 2015 seems like the worst kind of lawyering to me. In other words, he is Trump's kind of guy. If the AG thing doesn't work out, he'd certainly be a Trump kind of Press Secretary.
Now we have to wonder how the Senate will regard such an obvious effort to side step consequences for findings in 17 different investigations underway into the Trump campaign, family business and Presidency.
The recent history is not reassuring. But Mueller has been steadily farming out different cases to US Districts and each still has the potential to point right back to the President.
Meanwhile, subpoenas and public hearings in the House will be creating horrible optics for the entire GOP, especially if they try to cover for Trump, as they have for the last two years.
Its about two years too late for a rescue of Trump by the AG.
210
@Look Ahead - The real term or phrase is C.V., or criminal values.
6
@Look Ahead - A whole lot of us sure hope you're right.
4
@Look Ahead
Unfortunately the temporary AG is at least as bad as Barr so stopping the nomination won't help.
Throughout US history, one thing has been consistent: Presidents have always nominated AGs who sided with their political enemies and even hoped that they would be impeached and removed from office--that is, until now. Now, in yet another Trumpian violation of norms and practices, the president nominated someone who supported the viability of the administration he would join--in opposition to a prosecutor guided by an invisible light. It is truly shocking that anything should stand in the way of Mueller's noble and selfless vocation. Barr must immediately stand down. In the interests of long-standing US presidential norms, Trump should nominate instead an Attorney General who will work with Mueller to perform his job. I suggest the former Attorney General of New York, Stuart Schneiderman who, I understand, doesn't have a job.
4
@Burroughs I don't think one could call Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy a political enemy of his brother, President John F. Kennedy.
if anything, our nation's trump experience doesn't only refute advancement of "a broad view of presidential power," but screams for a narrower view.
To me, reforming the presidency - redefining and limiting - is a key lesson to be considered as a result of the trump catastrophe.
Reforming the powers and the vetting process of both the presidency and vice presidency is a critical opportunity for debate and action. What can be reformed? What should be reformed? How much better vetting of presidential candidates is necessary and possible?
Our system of government and outdated electoral process is failing us with trump. What can be done to prevent this disaster of incompetence and corruption from recurring?
329
Absolutely!
18
@Murray Bolesta
Campaign Finance Reform.
You are talking about re-writing the Constitution. The Constitution is fine. It's the electoral process that needs "redefining and limiting." We would also do well to bring back the equal representation rules for media coverage, because trump got elected using billion$ of free air time not afforded other candidates. Some countries have limits on when a political campaign can begin. Oh! For such wisdom here.
30
@Murray Bolesta
Yes, limiting presidential power is a must. This presidency is case in point. The man holding the office of the presidency is nothing more than a crime boss who is abusing and destroying the office and what it stands for, let alone the undermining of the rule of law and democratic norms.
28
You know, I'm pretty smart. I've gained a lot of experience over the past 25 + years of my career. Maybe I should write an unsolicited letter expressing my opinion? I could write one about many things. Maybe I'll write one to a company I worked for many years ago and tell them how to run their company?
Free advice is nearly always worth what you pay for it.
8
In companies that I worked for, managers were instructed not to retain unsolicited job applications. DOJ never had that policy?
4
Of course, Trump would try to stack the deck. Did anyone actually think he wouldn't?
And let's be honest here, if you were in his shoes, wouldn't you? Mueller has got the goods on Trump, and his only hope now is to appoint someone who tells him he can't use it.
7
When someone in the Trump Cabinet or Administration leaves, there is a momentary, misplaced sense of relief when, in fact, the incoming replacement is a worse case scenario for the person who is being replaced. With more people leaving (Zinke, Ross?, Kelly), this is going to be an on-going issue.
5
Just what we need, another attorney general with his foot firmly on the scales of justice. Recuse, recuse, recuse.
13
Wait for "thoughtful concerns" and words just short of admonition, then votes to confirm, by Senators Susan Collins and Joe Manchin.
9
At Barr's confirmation hearing, I hope one senator will start with the hypothetical situation of a president that is a double agent and a traitor, and work the privileges of a special counsel from there.
Then ask, how is a president that obstructs justice, lies to the people and puts such hurt on our judicial system that even the chief justice cries foul, represents a different case.
10
As sad as it is, I realized as I read this, I can't imagine Trump doing anything WITHOUT corrupt intent.
13
Anyone taking a job from Trump now is fully anticipating his removal from office and them working for a President Pence.
1
If someone does something with improper purpose isn't that... improper?
3
Another autocratic tool ready to join the Trump tool chest. Maybe the Trump supporters are like children who need a parent to lead them. an group of incompetents lead by Trump who selfish, egotistical and unworthy of leading this country.
2
Mr. Barr makes the case for permissive autocracy in our Constitution which may have lurked since the document's
enactment.
If this be so, Mr Trump, in his "current" reading, may feel emboldened to use executive orders as fiat, leaving him free for further encroachment of legislative and judicial domains.
1
The surprises in this article are few...
1
All these trump supporters were born in the wrong country, the are not Americans.
3
Well of course he wrote a memo protecting Criminal #1. That's how he got the job.
8
Mr Barr's memo: ". . . . .obstruction-of-justice laws did not apply to Mr. Trump".
Whoever says No One is Above the Law in this country. OK, Mr Barr, I got it. The president is above the law.
Now let us usher in shades of Hitler who won power in democratic elections in a democratic constitution - but then whittled away the Rule of Law. And, no institutions like a Special Prosecutor to stop Hitler. The rest is history
8
Trump will hire those who thinks like him (Kavanaugh and now Barr)
2
Well who knew, this mob boss president picked a general attorney that believes that the president is not only above the law, he is the law. The real sad part is that the republicans in the senate will likely go along with it. Then we can just call him the mob boss.
13
It’s a big fat no on Barr. If you’re not the absolutely wrong candidate for the job you’re not going to be nominated by this president. The end.
2
"`Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the president submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction,' Mr. Barr wrote..."
Not permitted by who? It's a question for the courts.
4
The fact that Trump picked Barr after the DOJ (most likely Whitaker) told Trump about this memo, tells me that this is ANOTHER way Trump is trying to obstruct justice.
Oh, and BTW Mr. Barr, you ARE in the dark about many facts.
4
Has Mr Barr su[port pre-empting any other investigations ?
Who in the Trump Organization, Trump Cabinet and Trump White House is not working for and doing the bidding of and is not beholden to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin?
2
So Trump really can shoot someone and it’s ok because he’s president. Wow, the next presidential debate could be a “serious”.
Have not seen this memo that Barr wrote, but it seems to focus on a narrow point that Trump firing Comey was not, per se, obstruction of justice, and for that matter, neither would be firing Mueller. That said, Barr apparently leaves open the possibility that a President can obstruct justice (given that he acknowledges the cases against Nixon and Clinton), so Mueller will have to predicate his charges of obstruction on any cover up that Trump engaged in. The persistent flaw that those who object to this administration (count me among them) seem to have is assuming that Trump is an idiot and that he lacks subtlety. As David Frum has observed, Trump is very wily. He seems to know what he can get away with, even if it appears to be illegal, forcing his accusers to litigate even the most seemingly absurd and obvious facts. The one troubling aspect of Barr's view, based on what's in the article, is that acting, even with a corrupt motive, is okay given the pandora's box that would seem to open. This is certainly something Congress can and should act on, perhaps soliciting Barr's commitment to work with them to clarify and strengthen the terms under which official acts with intent of corruption constitute obstruction.
Barr must be withdrawn or recuse on any areas concerning the Mueller investigation.
3
While a GOP majority almost ensure his confirmation, Barr should be asked the following question by all Democratic Senators: “if you recuse yourself from the Mueller investigation I will support your confirmation. Will you?”
2
Let's call the unsolicited letter to the DOJ what it is - a job application. The depravity of opportunistic republicans knows no bounds.
5
They could find more qualified candidates from any temp agency compared to the crew of cheap hacks, shills & lackeys they hire...all on our dime btw.
4
How in the world can this guy (if confirmed) not recuse himself? He interviewed for the McGahn job at one point. That would be problematic in overseeing the probe which is now known to have a focus on the POTUS.
1
And Trump, by broadly and publicly hinting about pardons for anyone questioned or charged in connection with his actions as president or candidate thus far, is NOT suborning perjury?
Trump's own view, and now apparently Mr. Barr's as well, is that he can commit cold-blooded murder, in public, and go directly to McDonald's for a Big Mac, unhindered in any fashion. Mr. Barr is just the kind of boy Trump likes to have near at hand.
2
If this story accurately describes Mr. Barr's letter, I am surprised at Mr. Barr's position for a number of reasons. First whether someone violates a criminal statute depends on the interpretation of the statute. Second the statute's interpretation is only significant to an investigation to the extent that the statute exceeds the scope of the related common law crimes. Third Mr. Barr's position makes a mockery of the elements of both statutory and common law conspiracy. In simple terms a criminal conspiracy is an agreement with an illegal objective (not just crimes but other illegal goals too). The crime is complete when any conspirator commits an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The criminality of the agreement is not determined by the legality of the act, but rather determined by the illegality of the purpose. Therefore I suspect Mr. Barr's motives in sending the letter with these comments to DOJ. If the letter was sincere, then he would be a very poor choice for attorney general.
1
If he has any integrity at all, he will withdraw his nomination. If the Senate has any, they should not confirm him. I’m not holding my breath.
But on the bright side, firing Archibald Cox did not shut down the Watergate investigation. Firing Mueller will not stop the investigation into Trump’s dealings, either.
So William Barr has established his bona fides.
To Trump, his letter saying a president's seemingly corrupt motives for acting are his own business means Barr is eminently qualified.
To millions of Mueller backers, it means Barr should have to immediately recuse himself as the investigation's overseer.
To Senate Republicans charged with determining Barr's fitness for the job, it means taking an extra hour or two before pulling out the rubber stamp.
9
How can Barr criticize something he knows nothing about? He's not privy to any information (except what has already been made public) that Mueller and his team have discovered.
3
Wait a minute: Why is it news that Barr, a high visibility, much touted attorney, would have an opinion on this hot issue. My politics are significantly different from Barr's, but a person in his position is all but expected to express his ideas to his colleagues. I suspect it is standard practice. So, what is the newsworthy part of this report, or is this more propaganda, which is rushing at us from all corners these days?
2
@Gilin HK
He doesn't currently work for the Justice Department and they are not his colleagues. He hasn't worked for the Justice Daprtment since 1993. His opinion was unsolicited.
1
@Gilin HK
What's newsworthy about this story? Here's a start:
1. Barr didn't simply share his ideas with his colleagues, he sent a 19-page (!!) memo to the Justice Department. He is, of course, entitled to do that, but since he is a former AG, that alone is newsworthy.
2. Barr's memo takes a controversial position, arguing that the president may obstruct justice by exercising presidential powers. For example, under Barr's analysis a president could fire a federal prosecutor who was investigating a member of the president's family for money laundering. Again, newsworthy on its own.
3. Out of all potential AG picks, the current president, under federal investigation on multiple fronts, has chosen someone who believes it would be acceptable for the president to fire the people running those investigations.
@Chris M
1. This was helpful, thanks. As I recall, when he was nominated, the word on him was that he favored broad presidential privilege.
2. Yes, but a repeat of what we already knew and there is nothing surprising about Barr's position. So the piece did little but repeat that and somehow attempted to make his already known position sensational.
3. Now you're talking. But still sort of a repeat.
Problem: There are many Barr's (maybe too many) out there. The press, as always, is selling "newspapers."
Does Mr Barr support the idea that the American presidency comes with unlimited authority and impunity from the rule of law? I thought the American Revolution was a rejection of monarchy. The Senate should certainly require an oath from him that he will recuse himself from the Special Counsel investigation if they are to confirm him.
5
Hmm. This sounds familiar. Didn't someone say, "If the president does it, that means it's not illegal"?
Oh, now I remember. It was Richard Nixon, he of Watergate infamy.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
4
Barr's views about presidential power is more befitting to an imperial power. President does not have unlimited authority to thwart criminal investigation into his own conduct that may jeopardize national security.
3
I hope he enjoys his new job appearing before house committees.
1
Senate Democrats must do everything in their power to reveal all relevant documents related to Barr and must take a stand to prevent his confirmation.
Now is the time for at least a few courageous Republicans to do the same.
2
@Casey Penk. Courageous and republican is an oxymoron.
By this time, given all that has become known, that any sane person would criticize the Mueller investigation is flabbergasting. I don't need to list all of the points--multiple points--that have already shown that the investigation has been totally necessary. I'll join the intelligent chorus of people commenting here. All I can think is that Barr is yet another moth drawn to the Trump flame. Barr is perhaps naive or opportunistic. If the latter, he may have a book deal under consideration, so the failure can have him, like similar types already, crying all the way to the bank. If the former, then he'll certainly wise up fast.
2
Mr. Barr is a highly respected attorney. He has every right to express his opinion, including a legal one. That Democrats don't agree with his analysis is irrelevant.
I hope under his leadership as AG the entire truth will come out about the questionable methods used by the Mueller and investigation team. Moreover, I hope Barr will now investigate how Hillary Clinton managed to avoid indictment for the several illegalities she and her associates committed as a result of Comey and Lynch's cover up.
4
@MCH
Yes, and other "highly respected" attorneys, including those in Congress, have a right to express their opposing
opinions. Even those who are not attorneys, and those who are ignorant, can express "opinions" about "questionable methods" and "illegalities."
1
@MCH
Although your comments are more articulate than the misspelled word-salads that Trumpies usually post, they are nevertheless woefully misguided. Trump is the most corrupt man ever to hold the office of President. His demise is inevitable. And save your breath about Secretary Clinton. That nonsense is old and dried out.
2
@MCH Hillary? Really?
This country has a president who has surrounded himself with criminals and Trump has more legal issues than one can imagine for a sitting president and you still want to change the subject to Hillary? Open your eyes. Your president is a fraud, criminal, con man, shyster, malignant narcissist, misogynist, little boy who has sex with a porn star weeks after the birth of his son, creepy guy who looks at Miss Universe contestants while they change their clothes behind stage, buddy with Putin, liar...............the guy is a total mess and has no business in the White House and you want to focus on Hillary?
It's OK to admit that you shouldn't have voted for him.
No article of this sort should ever omit the facts behind the donald fired Comey, McCabe, and Strozk. They are intertwined.
25
@Currents - understood - Comey, McCabe and Strozk have been unfairly characterized by Trump and his supporters. Well stated.
2
He will be confirmed, fire Mueller and throw his hands up in the air when the fan gets hit. His love of "presidential power" smells a lot like a dictator lover or wannabe. Subjugating himself to the most hated man in America will take a toll on him and one he certainly will deserve. Shame.
74
@max buda He will be confirmed because he will obfuscate and refuse to directly answer the question f whether he will "fire Mueller". However, he will NOT dare to fire Mueller or interfere with the Special Counsel investigations. Although his ultra conservative anti-American views have certainly not changed since June, when he wrote that disgraceful memo, an incredible amount of incontrovertible proof of an ever growing tangled web of obstruction of justice and treasonous behavior and numerous indictments and guilty pleas and flipping witnesses has been uncovered , much of already made public and which is just the tip of the iceberg. He wouldn't DARE interfere with the Mueller investigations or the Southern District, any more than that big mouthed coward Whitaker had the guts to do it.
3
@Alice's Restaurant Wrong
3
bought and paid for. amazing how little Trump cost
43
@sb
It's more amazing that anyone think Trump has worth.
1
It looks as if Barr may have been auditioning for the attorney general position when he wrote this memo back in June. (Just like Matthew Whitaker auditioned to get a job with the Trump administration by criticizing the Mueller investigation while a pundit on CNN.)
He absolutely must recuse himself from the Russia investigation if confirmed by the Senate. What a lackey.
105
@L Nonsense. The President likely wants Barr as AG precisely because he will shut down the never-ending special-counsel's investigations. That's consistent with the law. The special counsel will presumably file his (hopefully public) report to Congress and we will move on from there.
@Donald Champagne
Except that the report goes first to the AG, and if that's Barr, we can look forward to all sorts of shenanigans that would be hilarious if our country wasn't at stake. Trump and Co. are utterly self-serving, scurrilous, scared and slimey. They'll go as far as they have to to keep on "winning."
5
Well, since the only qualification to serve the despicable man in the White House is personal loyalty to him, Barr clearly is qualified. The president* wins, the American people lose....again.
52
What do you expect? Mr. Barr is a flunky. I would take any claim that he makes defending the actions of this president with an aircraft carrier full of salt.
19
19 Pages? 19 Pages!
Sounds a lot more like soliciting for a job than writing a “memo.” Memos are more like a shopping list. Barr has much in common with Rudy, General Kelly and even Mad Dog Mattis. Cranky old men seeking one last sip of POWER (ruining their reputations) in their twilight years. Disgusting.
81
All the President Trump haters spewing their vile nonsense again. As usual.
5
@DAB what part of the article are you referring to? What facts support your comment? What are your counterarguments to those facts?
2
@DAB No, simply lovers of the “no one is above the law” mandate. Try reading, if you can, the historical documents upon which this country was founded. No one has the time or energy to hate an idiot.
2
Why else would Trump appoint him?
35
@eliseo34
"Why else would Trump appoint him? "
Because he's qualified?
and republican senators still publicly say there is no need to protect the Mueller investigation.....do they have their heads in the sand or are they part of the Trump Mob Family?
51
And no one thinks Whitaker told Trump about this memo?
10
Seriously? And Eric Eric Holder said he was President Obama's "wing-man". I don't recall seeing you hyper-ventilate over that. Some balanced reporting that doesn't fall under the category of "hypocritical" would be nice...but not expected.
8
@dave
But, but, but that would mean COMMON SENSE and critical thinking, not getting ideas from text book examples and applying them uniformly over and over again like a social worker.
@dave Obama used the term "wing-man" in the context of policy. Sessions acted as "wing-man" for Trump in this capacity. But Trump wants the AG to lead his personal protection squad.
9
@dave The hypocritical part is on those who refuse to see what's going on despite an Everest of evidence and blindly accept criminality in the administration.
Was Obama guilty of crimes? Did he start Obama University to bilk thousand make a settlement of pennies on the dollar? Or build a fool's casino and bilk contractors and investors? Or a foundation that was shut down due to serious criminal activity? And did the majority of his inner circle go to jail?
And please don't compare Barr, Guiliani, or the other "legal" team with Eric Holder.
8
To gain the attention of the "God father" trump, Barr must be corrupt like the GOP law makers or must have corrupt tendencies. this is fact. No decent human being will want to work for trump, period.
24
but he turned down Trump to his lawyer. curiouser and curiouser
4
Dear Mr Barr - In the US no one is above the law. We are not a banana republic.
32
@David
Accept California
@DABX - Do Texas schools teach the difference between "accept" and "except?"
2
@DAB
Sure, I think they are already in the Union.
something about that 'corrupt motive' seems to apply! the president is not above the law and lets hope that Mr Barr has seen enough that he has had a change of opinion. i for one am with Lawrence Tribe, Ken Starr and believe that if a president is guilty of a crime he should be indicted and removed and if he and his ticket "won" the election fraudulently they all should go! What is more disruptive to the nation than having a criminal as President?????????
22
Packing the courts and now the Attorney General position has become business as usual in this country and that should terrify every American. A corrupt and criminal minded President brazenly displaying all of it in plain sight and still we can't stop him? Americans better wake up because it's getting even worse than it was just a year ago.
32
Mr. Barr wrote a 19 page criticism of Mueller’s investigation AS a red flag job posting to President Trump.
And it worked!!!
His entire career - especially as a former AG of the United States- is now tainted with a show of bias and very poor judgment.
Disgraceful.
26
Why am I not surprised. Isn’t siding with trump the only qualification someone needs to obtain employment in his administration?????
20
Now we know why he was picked, was the President aware of this memo before he was chosen and could this now be a conspiracy to obstruct justice.
17
Now we know why Trump nominated him.
Barr has essentially disqualified himself from overseeing the Mueller investigation.
What we don't know is what Republicans in the Senate will do.
Based on Kavanaugh's confirmation process, we should assume the usual pusillanimous partisan approach.
47
If there is a colorable claim that an elected official who is charged with upholding the law as one of his major jobs, has proposed or taken an action with the specific intent of obstructing the very law he is to uphold, what more does Barr need for a criminal charge? Not every act taken by a federal prosecutor would pass the threshold test of being designed to obstruct justice. In fact, very few if any would, but those that did should be challenged. Let a jury decide if the act was, in fact, done with that intent, rather than saying that the President, by the nature of his position, is incapable of obstructing justice. That is unvarnished dictatorship.
69
@The Lone Proteste; How does firing the Director of the FBI constitute obstruction of justice? The investigation didn't stop because Comey was no longer there. As a matter of fact, the President said he knew by doing so the investigation would continue. Read the whole Lester Holt transcript, not just the soundbite the media plays.
@Jamie While I admit that I haven't read the entire Lester Holt transcript, I did see Trump yukking it up with the Russians Lavrov and Kislyak in the oval office the day after Comey's firing. He told them "I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off". What could he have meant by that? What does this reveal about his mindset with relation to dismissing Comey? Please take your head out of the sand. Trump has been actively obstructing the Russia investigation since day 1, often in plain site. His AG nomination is a part of this same effort as was the nomination of Kavanaugh. He knows he needs someone on the inside to protect him. And he needs that because he and his spawn are guilty as sin. I am still hopeful that they will all face justice, Merriam-Webster's 2018 Word of the Year. An interesting choice.
2
So did he just forget about Nixon's obstruction of justice?
22
Maybe Mr. Barr could illuminate what system of oversight would exist in the event a thoroughly criminal individual got elected and whose actions were clearly not in the interests of our nation and obviously against our national security and congress was compromised by abject individuals who did not uphold their constitutional duty to serve as a check on said president?
35
@Gerard Cantor I hope the Senators ask that question at his confirmation hearing! I would be very interested in the response.
1
From the article: "William P. Barr, President Trump’s nominee to be attorney general, wrote an unsolicited memo to top Justice Department officials in June objecting to the notion that Mr. Trump may have committed the crime of obstruction of justice."
Mr. Barr: Your president, his voters, toadies and fellow travelers have committed a crime far worse than obstruction of justice. They have committed the gravest unforgivable crime of destruction of common decency. This deliberate--even if ignorant--act assigns them to permanent purgatory regardless of what lies they may tell themselves or try to pass off on others. A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.
Fact is, when people gather the only question they wonder is, Did You Really Vote for Him?
12
Hold his feet to the fire!
Thank you, voters, for our Democratic House!
12
@TheraP Which unfortunately has no say in the nomination and confirmation of the attorney general.
"Mr. Barr argued that the Justice Department must not accept the notion that a president can violate a statute that criminalizes obstruction of justice by exercising his constitutional authority in an otherwise lawful way..."
So he argued that a president cannot violate the law by obstructing a criminal investigation into himself/herself. In other words, he argued that a president is above the law. That is the sort of rubbish that we see in countries under authoritarian rule. No thanks, Mr. Barr.
62
It appears that this guy is going to be in Trump's vest pocket. When does our Republic come first and Trump second?
8
Is anyone surprised that 45 nominated Barr to be his Attorney General? It's not just that the lies, obstruction and overt Trump family criminality are happening -- it's that they're happening transparently, right in front of our eyes.
I wouldn't put it past the GOP Senators to make some sort of stink about Barr, then push him through anyway.
Unbelievable. Truly unbelievable.
16
Can anyone be surprised that Trump is hiring yet another sycophant to support his criminal empires? Men and women of questionable character have been drawn to, and/or recruited by our mob boss-in-chief in the pursuit of personal gain.
Think of common street thugs taking their tarnished and fraudulent resumes to a mob boss seeking a regular paycheck for what comes so naturally: corruption, lying, and all to line their own pockets.
As W.C.Fields said in a line from one of his films, "Thrown him [them] overboard and let the sharks take care of themselves."
10
Republicans since Nixon have decided that for their con to work presidents must be above the law. Once they have power they do not want to relinquish it, as usually they are mid-crime.
6
Please don’t feign surprise that Trump has nominated someone for an office who seems to want to protect him from criminal liability. Trump only gets the best people.
8
It seems that this unneeded and unwanted memo would preclude Barr from overseeing the Mueller investigation. Like Sessions, he would have to recuse himself. Certainly this puzzling move on Barr's part will be front and center at his confirmation hearing. In the meantime Matt Whitaker our illegal acting AG continues to hold similar views.
Trump's "get out of jail free card" seems to have a pretty low value.
6
Not surprisingly, the Barr has been set very low.
14
And, after a lot of hot air, he'll get the job, because that's how things roll in DC these days. Forget America - it's all about Trump.
3
No wonder Trump dredged up this dinosaur. In a reasonable world, the Senate would refuse to confirm such a nominee.
16
"When the President does it, it's not illegal"
- Richard Nixon, 1977
So here we are again, with a claim that the president defines the law and is therefore above it.
This is the road to dictatorship, and only the cowardly Republican senators can stand in the way now. Cry for our country.
40
Well, I think there’s no mystery as to why William Barr has found favor with the president. And unless I haven’t been paying attention, the Robert Mueller investigation is lapping at the very doors of the West Wing’s Oval Office.
Golly, what a coincidence, what with court filings and sentencings and sentencing postponements and new tributaries springing out of Donald Trump’s Russia House, also known as his 2016 presidential campaign? And William Barr has a problem with all of these threats to the Republic? That a candidate-turned-president cannot commit obstruction of justice? Say what?
This gift-wrapped godsend to the Republican-laden Senate means that William Barr will be confirmed along party lines. That’s the bad news. The good news is that unless Matthew Whitaker fires Mueller before the Democratic-heavy House is sworn, the president’s newly-minted Attorney General won’t be able to summarily dismiss the Special Prosecutor’s appointment.
Where does Donald Trump find these people? At Laws Are Not Us?
14
@Red Sox, '04, '07, '13, ‘18,
Mostly he finds them on Faux News. Sometimes from tips in the Mar-a-lago dining room. Sometimes while golfing. Some probably from the incubus that apparates in the presidential bedroom at 3am while he is tweeting.
I actually understand Barr's point but I don't think any legal experts are going to agree with it. For example, Barr is correct that you cannot convict Trump of obstruction of justice simply because he fired Comey. The problem is this: Trump said the reason why he fired Comey was to end the Russia investigation, which makes the firing obstruction of justice. Barr is trying to say that even if Trump's intent was to obstruct justice, even if Trump tells you his intent was to obstruct justice, as was the case with the Comey firing, you still cannot investigate Trump for obstruction of justice. I don't buy it. I don't believe legal experts will buy it. I don't believe the American people will buy it.
623
@Bill Please show where the President said he fired Comey to end the Russia investigation. I remember him saying that he fired him because of the Russia thing and that he understood that doing that would not affect the investigation and as a matter of fact, if any of his satellites were involved he would welcome the knowledge. Thank you
2
@Bill
You make a valid point! Comey had a target on his back no matter who won the election. Hillary would have fired him for reopening the email investigation just weeks before the election [whether it had merit or not] as the investigation would have continued.
3
@Bill
" I don't believe the American people will buy it."
Which American people are you talking about?
20
Whatever happened to this country? We are no different than Russia. We have a segment of the ruling class that believe that there are laws that are applicable to the common man and that they have the "privilege" to do whatever they would like to do without consequences. If William Barr is confirmed as AG, the Senate should be shamed by the People. People may have hated what the Clinton's stood for, but is Trump and his band of grifters any different? Think about it.
167
@John Yes, Trump and his grifters are MUCH different. Several orders of magnitude WORSE.
38
@John -What did the clintons stand for, in your opinion?
14
@Crouton Rockefeller Republicanism in sheep's clothing, essentially. And their ambitions blind them to minor character demands such as honesty and credibility.
1
I love how involved the "Vetting Process" is at the White House.
Whoever is in charge needs a basic list of things to look for and clear. We seem to always be right on the edge. Always with really sticky problems. One would hope the overall thought process of this branch of Government was intelligent and forward-looking.
How can we face these types of problems time after time?
22
Really? Sounds like more obstruction to me.
158
What else was to be expected?
After the parade of conflicts of interest, self-dealing, procurement violations, lying to Congress and law enforcement, and the all rest, could any sane person expect a Trump AG to support the rule of law and separation of powers?
306
@thomas briggs
My sentiments exactly!
8
@thomas briggs
Barr, could be a devil worshipper, the only thing that matters to Trump is that he gets unwavering support and control of the entities pursuing him and his family.
As for Barr, that letter he wrote, may have got him nominated for AG, but his historical footnote will be as an enabler of a felonious President. I have to question his intelligence, since he could get himself disbarred after Trump gets him to commit unlawful acts protecting the Trump crime syndicate.
Sessions, had the air of country bumpkin, but recusing himself, was genius. Once that happened Trump lost control far earlier than he wanted.
3
And he got the nomination from Trump because he was unbiased and only cared about the rule of law?
165
From the article: "Mr. Barr acknowledged that the two modern presidents subjected to impeachment proceedings, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, both were accused of obstruction of justice."
So, literally the only relevant precedents contradict his claim. Do we really need further evidence to rebut Barr's argument that the president is above the law?
127
If confirmed Mr. Barr would need to recuse himself.
Trump could always quit too.
321
Yes and take pence with him.
Perhaps refuse to return from Florida after his soon to be extended vacation.
17
I'd say @Kay Johnson has the most correct interpretation of the law.
4
Only, the best legal interpretation would render the Donald Trump "could" quit, too, into the judicial "should."
2
Regardless, the GOP Senate will likely vote to confirm as conflicts of interest seem to no longer matter.
57
Nothing like hiring a fox to guard a gaggle of lying, grifting, mean-spirited and bigoted chickens.
Bad news for America.
177
Given the overwhelming number of crooks and sycophants in this oligarchic administration, is it ANY surprise that the new Attorney General would be picked for his loyalty to Trump?
I mean, we just found out this morning that Wilbur Ross, someone Trump apparently despises, hasn't bothered to comply with the divestiture agreement he signed!
This administration is the expression of Republican corruption. This party is owned and operated by the oligarchy and nothing it does is on the up and up.
The 2020 Congress should roll back, automatically, everything the Trump administration and Congress has done.
These people belong in jail!
---
Things Trump Did While You Weren’t Looking
https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2ZW
279
@Rima Regas - Should any serious time and effort be expended on putting old Wilbur's business under a magnifying glass I'm certain his criminality would be exposed. Alas, so much crime, too little time (and not enough sheriffs). At present, I can only hope he gets caught up in Mueller's net, and that his net is cast as far and wide as I think it is.
4