An welcome bit of truth about our hyper-politicized society
I think this speaks for itself
JAN CRAWFORD: But when you came into this job, you were kind of, it's like the US Attorney in Connecticut, I mean, you had a good reputation on the right and on the left. You were a man with a good reputation. You are not someone who is, you know, accused of protecting the president, enabling the president, lying to Congress. Did you expect that coming in? And what is your response to it? How do you? What's your response to that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well in a way I did expect it.
JAN CRAWFORD: You did?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, because I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don't care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that's antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn't make any difference.
26 comments:
It’s as if nothing happened. Special counsel Robert Mueller and the Justice Department found no wrongdoing by President Trump, so House Democrats stepped up their calls for impeachment. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler issued a subpoena for millions of pages of evidence gathered by Mr. Mueller, including grand-jury material, which is secret under the law. When the department didn’t comply, Democrats said there was a “constitutional crisis,” and the committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt.
Yet if there is a constitutional crisis, its source is the Democrats. They are abusing the powers of investigation and impeachment in an illegitimate effort to unseat a president they despise.
Congressional Democrats claim they have the power to investigate the president to conduct “oversight” and hold him “accountable.” That elides an important constitutional distinction. As the Supreme Court said in Watkins v. U.S. (1957), Congress may “inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of the Government.” Executive departments and agencies are created by Congress and therefore accountable to it. The president, by contrast, is not a creature of lawmakers. He is Congress’s coequal, accountable to Congress only via impeachment.
To commence impeachment, the House has a constitutional obligation to articulate clear evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” A two-year Justice Department investigation did not find that Mr. Trump had committed crimes. On the Russian collusion issue, Mr. Mueller reported that his investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Regarding obstruction of justice, Mr. Mueller “did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” so the duty to do so fell on his boss, Mr. Barr—who, with senior Justice Department officials, concluded that the evidence was “not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
House Democrats claim they’re entitled to see Mr. Mueller’s underlying materials. But Congress may not use its subpoena power for a prosecutorial do-over. . . . Turnover of prosecutorial materials would allow Congress to hide behind the fact-finding and legal determinations of the other branches, thereby diminishing its own political accountability. Because the nation’s law-enforcement officials have concluded Mr. Trump has not committed any crimes, Democratic representatives cannot legitimately draft articles of impeachment accusing him of criminal conduct involving the same offenses of which he was cleared by the Mueller investigation.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-cant-outsource-impeachment-11559341259
Barr doesn’t just assert Trump’s innocence. He says there’s no evidence that Trump is damaging American institutions. “People are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that,” Barr told Crawford. The real “shredding of our norms and our institutions,” Barr contends, is coming from “the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him.”
Again, that’s boilerplate spin from the Trump camp. And again, it flies in the face of the Mueller report. In addition to Trump’s attempt to subvert the Flynn investigation, the report details how Trump sent back-channel messages to then–Attorney General Jeff Sessions to abort the Russia inquiry, tried to overturn Sessions’ recusal, tried to cover up the Trump Tower meeting between Russians and his senior campaign aides, tried to fire Mueller, and tried to create a false witness statement that he hadn’t tried to fire Mueller. Every one of these incidents is a documented assault on American institutions. Barr’s claim that he has seen no evidence of such assaults is, in effect, a confession that the attorney general hasn’t read or refuses to accept the report.
While denying any evidence of Trump’s corruption, Barr insinuates that Trump’s investigators behaved improperly. “The use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented. And it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed,” Barr told Crawford. “I have not gotten answers that are at all satisfactory,” he said of the investigators’ conduct. “Some of the facts that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations.” Barr doesn’t explain on what basis he’s casting these public aspersions, which ostensibly derive from an ongoing internal probe of the investigators. Nor does he reject Trump’s claims that the investigators betrayed their country. When Crawford asked whether Comey and other top FBI officials “committed treason,” as Trump alleges, Barr replied: “Not as a legal matter.”
Throughout this performance, Barr depicted himself as an honest guy just trying to call balls and strikes in a world gone mad. He lamented that others don’t share his objectivity. “Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest,” he told Crawford. “Sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don’t realize.” If Barr is lucky, he’ll be remembered as one of those people—and not as an accomplice who lied through his teeth.
Link to follow
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/william-barr-cbs-interview-lies.html
He's saying that he can act as the lawyer for the President and that any criticism is just politics in the Trump era.
The real “shredding of our norms and our institutions,” Barr contends, is coming from “the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him.”
Couldn't be more obvious. From day one they called themselves the "resistance".
And quickly they are now being shown that they are on the wrong side of history.
RRB , exactly.
"Because the nation’s law-enforcement officials have concluded Mr. Trump has not committed any crimes, Democratic representatives cannot legitimately draft articles of impeachment accusing him of criminal conduct involving the same offenses of which he was cleared by the Mueller investigation"
The Mueller Investigation Was Always an Impeachment Probe
Why mention the OLC guidance at all?
That is the question for Bob Mueller, left hanging by the statement his office jointly issued with Justice Department flacks on Wednesday, clarifying (as it were) remarks he had made hours earlier at his parting-shot press conference.
At issue is Mueller’s decision to punt on the question of whether President Trump should be indicted for obstruction of justice. In his startling remarks, Mueller sought to justify himself by citing instruction from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. The longstanding OLC opinion, an outgrowth of Nixon- and Clinton-era scandals, holds that a sitting president may not be indicted. The two press offices were struggling to reconcile (a) Mueller’s pointed reliance on this OLC guidance at the presser with (b) his prior disclaimers of such reliance.
According to Attorney General Bill Barr, in a meeting over two weeks before Mueller submitted his final report, the special counsel emphatically denied that his refusal to render a prosecutorial judgment on obstruction hinged on the OLC guidance. Naturally, in their continuing quest to frame Barr as the most diabolical villain since Lex Luthor, the media-Democrat complex insisted that the AG must be lying.
This is what derangement will do to you. I do not think Mueller’s contradictory assertions are that hard to figure out. But if you were inclined to blame sleight of hand, the culprit would be Mueller. You’ll notice that when we finally heard from him on Wednesday, he lauded Barr’s good faith, never claiming that the AG had misrepresented him. Moreover, the conversation between them on the OLC guidance was not a one-on-one affair. There were other people in the room when Mueller denied that the OLC guidance was his rationale for abdicating.The unimpeached evidence is that Mueller said what Barr says he said. continues:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/robert-mueller-investigation-was-always-impeachment-probe/
Still waiting on do nothing Polosi to put up a Budget for a vote.
Where is her Middle Income tax cut she promised.
The real truth is that the old white man party sees the end is near and will do anything to keep their old scrawny knarled hands at the control of the country...and the old white non working goat fuckers will just slurp along and ignore what is going on!!!!
By Dana Milbank
Columnist
May 31 at 3:41 PM
This week, the hood came off.
The Trump administration has devised a fundamentally racist policy: adding a question to the 2020 Census that will suppress participation by nonwhite people and, therefore, artificially increase white (and Republican) power in a new round of gerrymandering.
To do this, administration officials falsely told the public, the lower courts and the Supreme Court that the disadvantage to nonwhite Americans was statistically questionable and that the Justice Department needed the change to enforce the Voting Rights Act.
But documents released this week prove this all to be a ruse. Officials lied about their motives.
The documents, from the files of the late architect of the plan, show that this gerrymandering expert (Thomas Hofeller, whose role the Trump administration did not disclose to the courts) wrote a 2015 study saying his scheme (to use voting-age citizens for redistricting rather than total population) would require a “radical redrawing” of legislative districts that would “be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.” This “would clearly be a disadvantage for the Democrats,” he wrote, packing Democratic voters into fewer districts and “strengthening the adjoining GOP districts.”
ADVERTISING
He warned that Latino voters would perceive it as “an attempt to diminish their voting strength.” Hofeller proposed laundering the idea by having the Justice Department claim it needed the citizenship question for voting-rights enforcement, and he wrote the framework of the request that the department eventually sent.
The Trump administration’s top lawyer, Solicitor General Noel Francisco, told the Supreme Court in April that voting-rights enforcement was “the principal benefit” of the proposed change. That was false. The “principal benefit,” we now see, is to increase white power. In my column about the Supreme Court argument in April, I wrote that “it is difficult not to be cynical” about the administration’s true motive. Now, the racist policy is spelled out in black and white.
This is shocking but not surprising. We tend not to realize how much of the president’s appeal is about race. Studies show the primary indicator of support for Trump isn’t economic insecurity but racial resentment. This doesn’t mean Trump supporters are torch-carrying racists; it means they fear losing their place. Racial tension has fueled our tribal partisanship, as party becomes a proxy for race and racial views.
Amazing all the slurpers ignoring the latest trump tax hike on the middle class.....I guess you all have plenty of money to fund the stupidity of trump and think it is wonderful policy......IDIOTS....
There is no white supremacists in hiding....they just get promoted on Faux news......and no one does a thing....Like high capacity magazines....just sit around with your thumbs up your asses and wait for another justice to die.....sad how fucking transparent you all are!!!!!
A photo-printing company has pulled its advertisements from Laura Ingraham’s show after the Fox News program aired a graphic featuring white supremacist and anti-Semite Paul Nehlen.
The controversy stems from a Thursday night episode of "The Ingraham Angle,” in which the host lamented recent comments made by Hillary Clinton and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), criticizing Facebook’s refusal to take down an altered video of Pelosi.
Speaking with conservative activist Candace Owens, Ingraham likened the altered video to a work of satire. Clinton’s and Pelosi’s complaints, she said, were simply a coordinated effort from the left to “silence conservative voices” ahead of next year’s election, a common accusation by conservatives, including President Trump.
“Facebook now, what do they monitor, hate?” Ingraham asked. “That sounds good until you realize hate — and these are some of the people that they’ve shunned.”
Hey lo iq "anonymous" we know you are lo iq and have ingrained TDS but could you try to keep on topic with your cut-n-paste opinion pieces?
Well I guess it's kept you off your fucking goats obsession.
and assholes.
While locking down the lowest lo iq mantle.
ROFLMFAO !!!
In a wide-ranging interview Friday on “CBS This Morning,” Attorney General William Barr once again expressed his concerns about the mishandling of the FBI investigation into the Trump presidential campaign in 2016.
Without naming names, Barr hinted that former top officials may have abused their power by violating department protocols to launch an unprecedented counterintelligence probe into a political rival.
“These counter-intelligence activities that were directed at the Trump Campaign were not done in the normal course and not through the normal procedures as a far as I can tell,” Barr told CBS News’ legal analyst Jan Crawford. “And a lot of the people who were involved are no longer there.”
Barr added that the questionable activities were “undertaken by a small group at the top,” not rank-and-file FBI agents. This would refer to former FBI Director James Comey and his high-level deputies including Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok.
Both Comey and McCabe verified the official application presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to seek authorization to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page; the warrant cited political propaganda and news reports sourced from the so-called Steele dossier as evidence.
Strzok and Page allegedly were lovers; text messages between the two revealed a deep bias against Donald Trump as well as plans to derail his presidency if he won. (Barr, in the interview, called the text messages “appalling.”)
Baker, the former general counsel, also is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation for illegally leaking government information.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/31/barr-small-group-at-the-top-directed-investigation-into-bogus-collusion/
dOpie that rant and spam won you an
"ALKY" Trophy
Socialist Democrats best policies for 2020?
Doesn’t Trump know these tariffs cost Americans, not the countries being boycotted against.
The Deep State Conspiracy theory is a staple of the President and his pathological supporters.
Barr added that the questionable activities were “undertaken by a small group at the top,” not rank-and-file FBI agents.
This would refer to former FBI Director James Comey and his high-level deputies including Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok.
The questionable decisions allegations are not illegal or proof of collusion to get the President.
"Doesn’t Trump know these tariffs cost Americans, not the countries being boycotted against."
And yet inflation is tame, Companies are booking record income and increasing dividend payout and stock by backs, and Consumer Confidence is Strong.
Roger, stop being an emotional drag queen.
Doesn’t Trump know these tariffs cost Americans
He is as clueless as the goat fucking asshole when it comes to GW......stupid is their way of life!!!!
Now a pure statement of fact causes suddenly single Roger to trigger.
"Barr added that the questionable activities were “undertaken by a small group at the top,” not rank-and-file FBI agents. "
Yep, we have been saying it for years.
And yet inflation is tame,
And as usual the goat fucking asshole shows us the depth of his stupidity with another non sequitur he so often makes....Dumbass!!!
You don't read Alky's post . Ok. Understood.
Understood.
You understand diddly squat goat fucking asshole...your post was stupid even for a dumb fuck like yourself...and again shift the blame like a stupid trump sucker......asshole.!!!!
In a wide-ranging interview Friday on “CBS This Morning,” Attorney General William Barr once again expressed his concerns about the mishandling of the FBI investigation into the Tru
As he wiped trumps cum off his chin. as the coward got on his knees with his old white ass in the air to make it easier for the goat fucker to aim at!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
The questionable decisions allegations are not illegal or proof of collusion to get the President.
Well, we will find out one way or the other, huh Roger?
Post a Comment