September 17, 2020

"In recent years, the Justice Department has sometimes acted more like a trade association for federal prosecutors than the administrator of a fair system of justice based on clear and sensible legal rules."

"In case after case, we have advanced and defended hyper-aggressive extensions of the criminal law. This is wrong and we must stop doing it.... We should want a fair system with clear rules that the people can understand. It does not serve the ends of justice to advocate for fuzzy and manipulable criminal prohibitions that maximize our options as prosecutors.... Advocating for clear and defined prohibitions will sometimes mean we cannot bring charges against someone whom we believe engaged in questionable conduct. But that is what it means to have a government of laws and not of men.... If criminal statutes are endlessly manipulable, then everything becomes a potential crime. Rather than watch policy experts debate the merits or demerits of a particular policy choice, we are nowadays treated to ad na[u]seum speculation by legal pundits — often former prosecutors themselves — that some action by the President, a senior official, or a member of congress constitutes a federal felony under this or that vague federal criminal statute. This criminalization of politics is not healthy. The criminal law is supposed to be reserved for the most egregious misconduct — conduct so bad that our society has decided it requires serious punishment, up to and including being locked away in a cage. These tools are not built to resolve political disputes and it would be a decidedly bad development for us to go the way of third world nations where new administrations routinely prosecute their predecessors for various ill-defined crimes against the state. The political winners ritually prosecuting the political losers is not the stuff of a mature democracy.... Our job is to prosecute people who commit clear crimes. It is not to use vague criminal statutes to police the mores of politics or general conduct of the citizenry. Indulging fanciful legal theories may seem right in a particular case under particular circumstances with a particularly unsavory defendant—but the systemic cost to our justice system is too much to bear."

Said Attorney General William Barr at the Hillsdale College Constitution Day event yesterday.

The NYT covered Barr's speech under the headline "Barr Defends Right to Intrude in Cases as He Sees Fit/The attorney general’s remarks scanned as a rebuke of career Justice Department lawyers who have questioned his level of involvement." This article portrays the speech as a response to accusations against Barr:
For months, Mr. Barr has been accused of politicizing the Justice Department, particularly by interfering in legal matters that benefit President Trump or his allies. In February, Mr. Barr overrode a sentencing recommendation for Mr. Trump’s longtime friend and ally Roger J. Stone Jr. with a more lenient one. And in May, he directed the Washington federal prosecutor’s office to withdraw the government’s case against Michael T. Flynn, the president’s first national security adviser, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I....

But in his speech on Wednesday night, Mr. Barr said that it was well within his power as the attorney general to be the final arbiter in all cases before the Justice Department. While that assertion is technically true, past attorneys general have typically let the deputy attorney general run the day-to-day matters of the department and have even distanced themselves from politically fraught issues....
The Washington Post article is "Barr accuses Justice Department of headhunting and meddling with politics." The article observes 2 points of hypocrisy. First, Trump seems to like the idea of prosecuting his political enemies:
When he was a candidate in 2016, Trump’s rallies frequently featured chants of “lock her up” in reference to his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. Since he became president, the list of officials Trump has called to go to jail has expanded to include former FBI director James B. Comey, former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe and others at the FBI involved with investigating his campaign....
And, second, Barr is said to have mentioned using the federal sedition law against the rioters (who are called "those committing violence amid the protest" by WaPo):
[Barr] specifically cited text having to do with opposing the government by force, one of the people [on a Justice Department conference call] said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal considerations.
WaPo signals to its readers not to go big on the drama over the mention of the sedition law: "In 2010, during the Obama administration, the Justice Department charged nine people with seditious conspiracy over an alleged plot to attack law enforcement."

What was that Obama era case? Speaking of politicized selectivity, it was against a Christian militia group. Here's the NYT article on the resolution of the case, "U.S. Judge in Michigan Acquits Militia Members of Sedition":
Members of a Christian militia accused of plotting an antigovernment uprising were acquitted on sedition and conspiracy charges on Tuesday by a federal judge who said prosecutors had failed to prove that the group had concrete plans to attack anyone.

Judge Victoria A. Roberts of Federal District Court dismissed all charges against five members of the Hutaree militia, who the authorities claimed had plotted to kill a police officer and then ambush those who attended the funeral. She dismissed the most serious charges against the group’s founder, David Brian Stone Sr., and his son Joshua, but said they must remain on trial for some lesser weapons charges....
The problem wasn't the use of sedition law, but lack of evidence.
The defendants’ lawyers had maintained that while Mr. Stone and others in the group openly talked about their dislike of the police and other government officials, they were not planning to take any action and thus were protected by the First Amendment.
The rioters today are, obviously, already taking action. And, of course, they openly speak of "their dislike of the police."
During opening statements, one lawyer said the Hutaree, which held training exercises in the woods near Adrian, about 70 miles southwest of Detroit, was essentially a “social club.”

“It shows how hard these cases are when you’re talking about groups engaged in political speech,” said Peter J. Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University and a former federal prosecutor. “This was a fairly disorganized group that talked big but didn’t seem to be doing much.” Professor Henning predicted that the Hutaree’s acquittal “will make the F.B.I. more hesitant to intervene early on when you’re talking about domestic threats.”
A few days after that article, the NYT ran a forum about the case and asked: "As the government deals with the re-emerging militia movement, what did it learn from the experiences of the 1990s, from the disastrous sieges in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Tex., in 1993 to its handling of Oklahoma City bombing case?" Whatever the participants in this forum said relative to right-wing groups should apply in exactly the same way to today's left-wing groups. Anything else is plainly unethical.

Here's the text of the federal sedition statute, 18 U.S. Code § 2384: "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

That law was used successfully in the case against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman — the blind sheik — in 1995, as the NYT reported in "THE TERROR CONSPIRACY: THE CHARGES/A Gamble Pays Off as the Prosecution Uses an Obscure 19th-Century Law":
At the outset of its seditious-conspiracy case against a blind Muslim cleric and 11 of his followers, the Government was thought to be taking quite a gamble in pinning its hopes on an obscure 19th-century law that makes it a crime to "conspire to overthrow, or put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States."

Before yesterday, Federal prosecutors said, the last time seditious-conspiracy charges had been brought successfully was in 1987, against a group of Puerto Rican nationalists in Chicago. In two seditious-conspiracy cases in the late 1980's, one in Arkansas and one in Massachusetts, jurors acquitted all the defendants....

[I]n the case of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and his nine co-defendants (two others pleaded guilty shortly after the trial began), the prosecution may have calculated that it would help to cast their case in political terms, linking the defendants to Middle East terrorism.

The sedition law presented other advantages for the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White, and her aides. It allowed them to charge defendants, like the Sheik, who did little more than talk about the plot with others. According to Federal law enforcement officials, until the defendants' indictment in August 1993, many prosecutors and F.B.I. officials said that the Sheik could not be charged unless he could be tied to a specific criminal act, but that Ms. White was determined to include him in the case and saw the seditious-conspiracy law as the way to do it....
That makes me wonder, is Barr suggesting the use of the Sedition Act because it is a way to reach leaders of the movement? One hears so little about leaders.
The law has historically been used against groups with unpopular views. It was enacted after the Civil War, intended for use against Southerners who rejected the authority of the Federal Government, and amended in 1918, with Socialists and anarchists in mind.

103 comments:

tim in vermont said...

I have a friend who both brags about reading the New York Times and about being well informed. “Can’t be both,” I would like to say, but I don’t really want politics to intrude on an otherwise good friendship.

Barr is right though.

Kevin said...

I love how Hillary is always portrayed as Trump’s political opponent rather than someone who clearly violated a law for which others were severely punished.

Likewise, Trump’s Impeachment was all about the fact that Biden was running for President and therefore was immune to prosecution — or even inquiry.

Yet the irony of Crossfire Hurricane not only honoring, but obliterating, this idea two years into Trump’s Administration is lost on the political left.

Until they can honor their own rules, let alone abide by the laws of the nation, they show themselves unfit to hold power.

rehajm said...

Once again the propaganda manipulates, as if the Antifa 'militia' and their politically elected enablers are an American borne grassroots uprising when facts are clear they are part of a larger, fully funded foreign enterprise.

Kevin said...

Barr is a smart man.

Not only is he correct, he’s preparing the nation for whatever Durham hands down.

Left and right will likely be disappointed, but at least he’s laid out the framework from which he asks to be judged.

Tom said...

Barr is spot on.

It’s nice to see an attorney general standing up for the rule of law.

rehajm said...

So Durham will produce the report, it will be placed in a file box wheeled to the storage room next to the crate containing the lost ark.

rhhardin said...

Advocating for clear and defined prohibitions will sometimes mean we cannot bring charges against someone whom we believe engaged in questionable conduct.

Who, not whom. He's in officious mode. Thurber says the rule is use "whom" when a note of austerity and dignity is wanted.

David Begley said...

Durham better make arrests this Friday or we’re fucked.

Wilbur said...

"Mr. Barr said that it was well within his power as the attorney general to be the final arbiter in all cases before the Justice Department."

Well, duh. The Attorney General is responsible for the actions of all of the AUSAs. Get a clue, NYT.

Mr. D said...

So the Mueller cabal won't get the same treatment it dished out to Trump. You would think NYT and WaPo would be happy about that.

Kai Akker said...

----Trump seems to like the idea of prosecuting his political enemies:

And that would be because

"The criminal law is supposed to be reserved for the most egregious misconduct"

... such as attempting to subvert a Presidential election; and, using the intelligence agencies to mount a coup against the man who thwarted those subversive efforts and won the election anyway.

David Begley said...

The thing that infuriates me is how Hillary and the rest of them commit crimes but are never prosecuted because they are immune due to their high office.

If all of Mueller’s lawyers aren’t indicted for wiping their phones, we are really fucked.

stevew said...

Barr says going after political opponents is a bad idea and poor law enforcement. The reporter then cites examples of Trump calling for prosecution of his political opponents, "Lock Her Up!", in an attempt, I guess, to undermine Barr's argument. Trump's Justice Department hasn't actually prosecuted any of the folks he's spoken about. Just a new example of Trump being held to account for things he says as if they are things he has done.

Barr's intervention in the two cases mentioned is consistent with his argument: he is saying Stone and Flynn were unjustly prosecuted for their politics (aligned with Trump) via a manipulation of the law.

And I agree with rehajm in that part of the purpose of this speech is to explain in advance why Durham's investigation will not produce any charges. Just a wrist slap memo, a la the IG report.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"The article observes 2 points of hypocrisy. First, Trump seems to like the idea of prosecuting his political enemies"

That's only a "point of hypocrisy" if the political enemies are actually prosecuted for non-serious crimes. Which, of course, hasn't occurred.

JAORE said...

Media has already painted Barr as a Trump puppet.

Of course Trump is portrayed as a Putin puppet.

Somewhere there is indisputable proof that everyone is within six degrees of Putin puppetry.

iowan2 said...

The lip service to the notion of independent prosecutors, is just that. Lip service. The constitution is clear. The Executive Branch controls the Justice Dept. The left has always operated that way. The Right wants to desperately be respected, so practices the "hands off" approach. It's not working well. The only way to make leftist toe the line, is to return fire. Explain to them, they will be subject to the exact same debilitating experience of partisan lawfare.

To be clear, the President and the AG have the uncontested constitutional power to review any and all federal criminal investigations and prosecutions.

tim in vermont said...

"Until they can honor their own rules,”

It’s about the power to inflict and obvious double standard, nothing more and nothing less.

doctrev said...

Given the sheer volume of corruption among judges, never mind prosecutors, the concept of law in America is stone dead. Absolutely everyone, but especially actual professionals, knows that if they destroyed records, encouraged perjury, and attacked the innocent the way government does, they would go to jail without question. What's new is that thanks to BLM, the police have a real reason to turn violently on the prosecutors.

It's going to be wonderful.

tommyesq said...

The law... was enacted after the Civil War, intended for use against Southerners who rejected the authority of the Federal Government, and amended in 1918, with Socialists and anarchists in mind.

So it was created with this exact situation in mind, and then further amended with even more of this exact situation in mind.

Temujin said...

Say what you will about William Barr, at least he did not plan and execute a gun-running operation to Mexican cartels.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Wow the DNC-Media Complex really obsesses endlessly over that “Lock her up!” chant don’t they? But somehow they have never understood why THE PEOPLE would choose to, not be lead in a chant like the prog sloganeers trying to make “yes we can” into a thing, but spontaneously joyously break out in a wish to see justice. The law was clear, yet Hillary and her aids were not held to it, and the media had no interest in her crimes at all. When the Law and the Media refuse to do their jobs the People make their feelings known and one of the strongest objections people have to our political class is the way many act like they are above the Law. When the FBI is both obsequious and deferent towards one candidate while literally spying on the other respect for the Law declines.

So it continues to fascinate me how the DNC-Media take umbrage at the LOCK HER UP chant and blame Trump for it. Yet Biden voters yelling DEATH TO AMERICA do not in any way reflect on their candidate-figurehead. And get no media shaming. Quite the opposite. Sedition is in the air. Thank God we have Barr willing to guard against these anarchist revolutionaries.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Just compare the application of obstruction charges, given Hillary and Huma and Cheryl’s blatant destruction of evidence under subpoena. Name even one act by Trump that equals it. Their are none. He was accused of obstruction for firing the FBI leaders who were spying on him illegally.

Larvell said...

Another word for “technically true” is “true.”

Sebastian said...

"If criminal statutes are endlessly manipulable, then everything becomes a potential crime."

Endlessly and selectively: where was the endless prosecution of Hill's obvious crimes? You know, like, actions that violated an actual, like, clear statute, for violation of which others had been severely published?

But everything becomes a potential crime because the PTB like it that way. Pious speeches about rule of law do not change the calculations fo the PTB. The only thing that can is vigorous tit-for-tat and a balance of power. But since progs are entrenched in the deep state there can be no rule of law.

"This criminalization of politics is not healthy."

No, but it is useful. So it will continue. Unless and until all sides sense equal fear.

By the way, Bob: you are not saying that holding the deep-state hoaxers accountable is "criminalizing politics," are you? Your speech is not a rhetorical gesture to hide a kowtow to the status quo, is it?

Larvell said...

“The article observes 2 points of hypocrisy. First, Trump seems to like the idea of prosecuting his political enemies:“

Normal people might think it’s a good thing the attorney general seems to disagree.

Leland said...

First, it was the AG shouldn't be listening to the POTUS, despite decades of administration with AG's that were close friends or even brothers with POTUS. Now, the AG shouldn't run the DOJ? I know the NYT wants to fool us and has no problem with lying, but at some point, they ought to realize they are lying to themselves that people believe their bullshit.

gadfly said...

@tim in vermont said...

Barr is right though.

Billy Barr is wrong in his loyalty to an authoritarian president and he effectively lied to the Senate about his intent in carrying out AG duties under oath.

Going back to his time as George H.W.'s AG, former Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer called William Barr, "un-American" because the man has always believed that presidents are above the law.

Beginning with his games and lies about releasing the Mueller Report, Trump has continued to ignore the fastidious work of the special counsel team, instead shutting down ongoing indictments began under the SCO - obviously at Trump's direction. The move to withdraw charges against Mike Flynn was the be all, end all, exposure of a crooked Attorney General. The fake investigation of the FBI supposedly by Connecticut AG Durham is too obvious to ignore as well. Get Trump reelected by falsely implying that the investigators were the supposed crooks instead of the Trump gangsters.

J Melcher said...

One does wonder though. If "political" figures have immunity from acts that a "citizen" would be prosecuted for as crimes, isn't that a 3rd world offense as well.

To stay away from the disputes of the day, consider Jon Corzine. The former governor of NJ walked through the revolving door to become CEO of MF Global -- where he bilked investors the same way he bilked campaign donors; making promises he couldn't deliver.

Never been prosecuted. Maybe he shouldn't be. Maybe being "cancelled" is enough. Maybe.

But I do wonder. Would he be re-invited to advise a President Biden as he was President Obama?

Ralph L said...

Julius Caesar took his army across the Rubicon (and killed the Roman Republic) because, having left office, he was no longer immune from certain prosecution by his political enemies in Rome. When he took sole power, he pardoned most of those enemies, to their surprise, and then look what happened.

Someone needs to pay for the Russia hoax and misuse of FISA. DC juries cannot make Democrats immune from punishment for crimes against the undeep State.

Bruce Hayden said...

“For months, Mr. Barr has been accused of politicizing the Justice Department, particularly by interfering in legal matters that benefit President Trump or his allies. In February, Mr. Barr overrode a sentencing recommendation for Mr. Trump’s longtime friend and ally Roger J. Stone Jr. with a more lenient one. And in May, he directed the Washington federal prosecutor’s office to withdraw the government’s case against Michael T. Flynn, the president’s first national security adviser, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I....”

Trump wasn't the one to politicize the DOJ. Bill Clinton started it, and Eric Holder shifted it into high gear, by filling the DOJ prosecutor ranks with Dem partisans. Let’s start with Flynn. He didn't actually lie to the FBI. He did plead guilty to it though, in response to gross, political, prosecutorial abuse. The original prosecutors, starting with Brandon Van Grack, on down, abused their positions as federal prosecutors to get the plea deal. They charged Flynn (Sr) with lying to FBI agents (despite it having been an illegal setup, the agents not believing that he had lied, and submission of fabricated evidence by the prosecutors), FARA (despite it almost never having been criminally enforced, esp against Dems, he always kept DIA informed, and acted completely on the advice of counsel), and the Logan Act (never tried in court by the DOJ, over 200 years old, assuredly unconstitutional, and Flynn acting within the scope of his employment, at the time, as the incoming NSA). His son and attorneys were also threatened with FARA charges, forcing the latter into an unwaivable conflict of interest. The prosecutors prosecuted Flynn for one reason, and one reason alone - he was the new NSA in the brand new Trump Administration and he knew where the bodies were buried in the Intelligence Community, from his time running the DIA. It was purely a political prosecution, by rabidly partisan career prosecutors, with no underlying law or facts, utilizing gross prosecutorial abuse, for nakedly partisan reasons. And the NYT is blaming AG Barr, along, of course, with Trump, for being the ones who transgress the law and morality.

The implicit assumption behind the NYT article is that federal prosecutors have some sort of legitimacy and morality beyond the power they are delegated from the Executive, through our multi generational contract of self governance, our Constitution. This is no different than Vindman testifying that the bureaucrats should be the ones making foreign policy decisions, and not the President.

They might make an almost colorable argument for bureaucratic superiority, based on their neutrality and expertise, except that the career bureaucracy is far from politically neutral in the DOJ. It has long been evident to most everyone, that government employees mostly tend to vote for the political party that attempts to grow government, and, thus the bureaucracy - the Democrats. All you have to do is look at the voting history of DC to see this. But the Obama/Holder DOJ greatly increased the Dem leaning in the department from Day 1. They practiced litmus test hiring and promoting. They intentionally hired and promoted highly partisan Dem prosecutors, like the entire Mueller prosecution team. This has been well known for better than a decade - it became public probably in Obama’s (and Holder’s) first year in office.

The NYT, being fellow travelers, was, and apparently continues to be, supportive of this gross politicization of the DOJ, simply out of political convenience. It helps the Dems, and hurts the Republicans. Their morality here is pure political expedience. It cannot be based on anything else, since the moral and legal authority wielded by these federal prosecutors is completely derived and delegated from the duly elected Executive, Trump, and, yet, they used it, and grossly abused it, to attack him and his Administration.

Bruce Hayden said...

Continued.

No one should be surprised at AG Barr. He was brought into that position primarily for just this - to cleanup the gross partisanship in the DOJ built up over eight years by Obama, Holder, and Lynch, as well as the routine abuses of power that federal prosecutors wield, esp against those they owe a Constitutional duty of loyalty to. (He was also brought in to shut down the Mueller SC investigation, probably the most egregious example ever of the permanent bureaucracy attacking their Constitutional boss, the President, for purely political reasons).

Todd said...

While that assertion is technically true, past attorneys general have typically let the deputy attorney general run the day-to-day matters of the department and have even distanced themselves from politically fraught issues....

Everything said after this could/should have been deleted.

Just like when someone said "I'm sorry BUT..." they an't sorry.

Also, Barr is RIGHT, the law has become a plaything for those with power over those without. Those with power is the Government (at all levels) and their friends. It needs to be more defined and simpler. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" was valid when the law was basically some variations/extensions of the 10 commandments. Now no one "knows" the law, not even lawyers. It needs a reset.

Craig said...

The NYT prints lies and distortion to deliver on their value proposition, which is to make their pseudo-intellectual readers feel superior to Republicans. To be fair, if the NYT did not feed these narcissistic emotional needs, the WaPo would.

And it's a reinforcing feedback loop. The more lies and hate the NYT prints, the bigger the demand they create for TrumpHate. And so we're here, and it will only get worse.

Drago said...

rehajm: "So Durham will produce the report, it will be placed in a file box wheeled to the storage room next to the crate containing the lost ark."

Correct.

Durham's report will detail the first ever coup attempt in our nation's history and the massive corruption of our law enforcement and intel agencies as the violation of laws against targeted Americans and then.....thats about it.

The republicans who actively participated in this with dems, at least 50% of DC republicans, also want it shut down and to go away.

Drago said...

gadfly must be done egging cars and painting on buildings because he/she/xe is back at Althouse cutting and pasting the ideas of others that he/she/xe doesnt understand.

Amadeus 48 said...

Strange things are happening.

Did you see Harris Faulkner and Marie Harf say Newt Gingrich couldn't say Lord Voldemort's--sorry, George Soros's name in connection with the election of soft DAs around the country? I guess the word has gone out at Fox that He Who Cannot Be Named cannot be named.

So they won't have Soros to kick around anymore.

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/09/16/__trashed-3076/

TreeJoe said...

I literally cannot remember a better attorney general than Barr in his speeches and careful actions.

Words COMBINED with actions define character. Not words alone. You could define character by actions alone, but that has some risk to it.

Barr is an attorney general who has said and performed actions consistent with upholding JUSTICE AND LAW. Together. Not using the law to enact justice, nor deciding what would be just and then figuring out how the law should fit that.

This speech is a beautiful thing. This is an AG who has held himself to the standards he's enunciating AND IS PREPARING to likely lose his position in 4-5 months.

Bryan Townsend said...

We have been waiting a long time to hear this kind of common sense from an Attorney General. I want to send two Christmas presents: to William Barr, a case of P├ętrus, and to the New York Times, a sack of coal. How could what was once a great newspaper have fallen so low?

narciso said...

yes it's a powerful tonic, but like atreides on arrakis, he's full of enemies,

as I included the michael waller thread about the vilification of telizhenko, proven by documents,

Amadeus 48 said...

As to the Durham investigation, I have thought from the beginning that "expose and admonish" was a likely outcome. All the people involved are no longer at the FBI or the DOJ (except for Pientka)--many of them got fired. Remember when Wray wouldn't let McCabe come back to the building on Monday after Wray read the Nunes memo and backup file on a Sunday?

This conjectural outcome seems light because of the brutal way that prior administrations and DOJ prosecutors have criminalized political disputes--Scooter Libby, Michael Flynn, Raymond Donovan, Ted Stevens, the many people in the Nixon administration (who had done what FDR, JFK, and LBJ had routinely done) and, yes, Iran/Contra.

I don't care whether Comey and co. go to jail. I just never want to see them in government service again.

Roger Sweeny said...

Wow, I remember when the left was all about civil liberties and the right could legitimately be accused of thinking, "I know they've done something wrong, so whatever we can put them in jail for is okay."

Big Mike said...

That makes me wonder, is Barr suggesting the use of the Sedition Act because it is a way to reach leaders of the movement?

One hopes so. Someone is financing the rioters. The financiers need to be arrested, given a fair trial, and incarcerated.

Yancey Ward said...

At the bottom of the successful sedition prosecutions were actual violent acts of sedition. The unsuccessful cases were people who just talked about it, but actually did nothing.

Should it be a crime to talk about overthrowing the US government? Should it be a crime to do so while legally buying firearms and ammunition? I have long believed, and still do, that only actions should be criminal and prosecuted. The world isn't Minority Report, nor should it be.

Yancey Ward said...

Everything Barr said is exactly right, and just you watch- if Biden wins the election, his DoJ will harass and prosecute everyone in the Trump Administration, including William Barr. It will be thought crime prosecutions on a massive scale.

tim maguire said...

Regarding the two hypocrisies cited by the WaPo,

1) "Lock her up!": Clinton was guilty of crimes that other people are in jail for. Prosecuting her falls squarely under "no one is above the law." Also, as the WaPo surely knows, Trump has done nothing to act on that campaign chant. But he should.

2) Sedition: the rioters are not Trump's political opponents. They are street thugs and the ones who have declared that their violence is motivated by a desire to overthrow the government should be charged with sedition. That's why the law exists.

The WaPo is a garbage publication that lies to its readers in an attempt to foster division and strife in the American public.

Marty said...

Bryan Townsend said, "How could what was once a great newspaper have fallen so low?"

When, exactly, was the NYT "a great newspaper"?

tim maguire said...

tim in vermont said...I have a friend who both brags about reading the New York Times and about being well informed.

Those who depend on the New York Times as the main source of their news cannot participate in the debates of the day as their understanding of the issues is too shallow and incomplete.

Yancey Ward said...

The only reasons Stone and Flynn were ever targeted by the FBI and Mueller were because both worked for Trump- no other reason. The same clearly applies to Manafort, too- all of the crimes he was accused and convicted of were with evidence the DoJ had shelved in 2014, and this was only taken off the shelf when Manafort has hired by the Trump Campaign- this was a straight up political prosecution, and if Barr is replaced by a Democrat AG, it will only get far, far worse.

daskol said...

It's a remarkable thing to watch Trump and Barr fend off a coup in real-time. Less exciting than I thought it would be, but then it's not the "send it the troops and decapitate the leadership" type coup, but following the color revolution template we developed to get rid of, originally, E. European leaders we're not fond of. I would imagine that among other people Barr is implicitly addressing, Norm Eisen, the new super villain of the left is part of that audience. Trump may be a climate arsonist, but these folks are playing with fire. Here's hoping Barr burns them.

MikeR said...

"Trump seems to like the idea of prosecuting his political enemies" That proves Barr's hypocrisy? If Trump had ordered him to do it, and Barr had gone along with it, maybe then.

Francisco D said...

gadfly said...
Billy Barr is wrong in his loyalty to an authoritarian president and he effectively lied to the Senate about his intent in carrying out AG duties under oath.

Althouse should be flattered that Adam Schiff (aka gadfly) participates in her blog.

I understand the obligatory "authoritarian" bullshit, but I am left wondering about the difference between a "lie" and an "effective lie."

BUMBLE BEE said...

Hillsdale certainly could not exist in Wisconsin.

Owen said...

Bruce Hayden: your score for that beat-down:
Creativity: 10/10
Cogency: 10/10
Style: 10/10
Measured fury: 10/10
Effectiveness: 10/10

Thank you.

Ray - SoCal said...

Compare and contrast AG Barr with Sessions rhetoric and actions.

Just think if Barr has been AG since the start of Trumps first term.

Sessions could not be replaced till after the midterms, where Trump took out 3 sitting Senators. Amazing after that how the Senate was more corroborative with Trump.

I’ve been surprised that Trump with his administration, has acted very lawful, abiding by court decisions, and with restraint. The amount of lawfare used against him has been staggering.

Who would have thought Trump would be the President to work on depoliticizing the executive branch.

Seems there is a lot of projection by Trumps opponents. Where they project how the would act onto Trump, and that’s terrifying.

Bob Boyd said...

I don't anticipate a reining in of prosecutorial abuse under a Harris administration.

Bruce Hayden said...

“ Beginning with his games and lies about releasing the Mueller Report, Trump has continued to ignore the fastidious work of the special counsel team, instead shutting down ongoing indictments began under the SCO - obviously at Trump's direction. The move to withdraw charges against Mike Flynn was the be all, end all, exposure of a crooked Attorney General. The fake investigation of the FBI supposedly by Connecticut AG Durham is too obvious to ignore as well. Get Trump reelected by falsely implying that the investigators were the supposed crooks instead of the Trump gangsters.”

Ha! Ha! Ha!

You apparently have no idea what “fastidious” means.

Was it fastidious of the SC to charge Flynns (Sr & Jr) and their attorneys with criminal FARA vIsolations, while the accused pedophile Podesta brothers were allowed to pay a civil fine instead? Indeed, was it fastidious, when almost all other FARA allegations are settled with a civil fine?

Was it fastidious for the SC to charge Flynn’s attorneys with FARA violations in the first place, forcing an unwaivable conflict of interest (undisclosed to Flynn, until he obtained new counsel)?

Was it fastidious for the SC to repeatedly lie to the Flynn court about the evidence it submitted as Brady material? Was it fastidious to submit 302s fabricated several months after Flynn was interviewed as accurate? Esp knowing that the originals had been filed in the FBI’s Sentinel change management system the day of the interview?

Was it fastidious to charge Flynn with a §1001 lying to the FBI when they knew that Flynn hadn’t lied to the FBI?

Was it fastidious for the SC to suborn perjury on Flynn’s part that there were no side deals, when the side deal of letting off his son, attorneys, and his FARA and Logan Act charges were dropped to get him to plead to the falsely alleged §1001 violation?

Going a bit further afield.

Was it fastidious to file the third FISC extension for Carter Page, knowing that there was no Russian collusion on the part of Pate or Trumpnat the time, and that the application depended on the Steele Dossier that had been shown to be junk after the FBI interview of Steele’s primary sub source almost six months earlier stated that it was almost entirely drunken bar talk?

Was it fastidious for the SC to submit that FISA application to the FISC, without the legally required Woods file? And then to reconstruct the Woods file years later, in response to discovery, without notifying court or defendant? (IG Horowitz determined that the 2nd and 3rd extensions were illegally obtained. The FISC in June extended this to the original and 1st renewal - all 4 FISA warrant applications have been determined to be fraudulent).

Was it fastidious for the SC to keep their investigation open a year beyond when they had definitively determined there not to have been any collusion between Trump or his campaign, and the Russians, by utilizing an egregiously misinterpreted Obstruction of Justice statute, with their interpretation having been rejected by the DOJ (including OLC which makes definitive interpretations for DOJ), violated centuries of accepted statutory interpretation rules, and had never been tested in court?

Almost forgot. Was it fastidious to conduct official business on privately purchased, but federally reimbursed, cell phones? Was it fastidious to scrub the contents of over 30 phones, after receiving a request for them from USA Durham?

hombre said...

My physician neighbor gets her “news” from NYT, WaPo, and NPR. When I speak of their bias she defends with “good journalism.” In reality, she is a rabid Trump hater who is reluctant to “talk politics.” She’s a Democrat so “politics” includes everything except food and wine - so far.

Barr, like Trump, is a wealthy man who holds public office to serve his country and it’s people. Democrats and their mediaswine consorts simply can’t tolerate that.

Aggie said...

Once again, Bill Barr confirms my life's experience that the real badasses almost never look like one.

hombre said...

By and large, I find Barr commendable. It is, however, seeming likely that prominent Democrats, including Hillary (emails) and Biden (extortion aiding graft), will not be held accountable for their crimes.

His reasons for that may be noble, but that nobility will not be reciprocated by ignoble Democrat if they steal the 2020 election.

Drago said...

I believe Barr with get a report out with the details of all the corrupt actions taken, but that he and Durham will not prosecute any others beyond Clinesmith because there is enough ambiguity purposely built in to the system along with the minimal deniability available (who is going to disagree with Strzok when he argues "hey, I really am dumb enough to believe Trump was colluding with Russia!) combined with the impossibility of effectively prosecuting any democratical anywhere near DC given the jury pool and leftist judges.

Having said that, Barr signalled last night during his speech that he is fully aware of what is happening with democratical/LLR/ChiCom/leftist billionaire/EU globalist revolution tactics that are being employed in the US to create the conditions for leftist revolution modeled on the same tactics our own government has employed in Georgia, the Arab Spring, Ukraine and now Belarus.

We see it all playing out in real time and the lefties aren't even bothering to hide it.

By Barr moving immediately to recommending the use of charges of Sedition as a means of fighting back against the democratical/LLR-lefty/ChiCom (yes, the ChiCom's are directly involved thru several of the lefty groups at the center of this revolution activity) Color Revolution activity, I think we can trust Barr's focus is on the election itself. And without a victory in November, none of these other arguments will ever matter.

rcocean said...

Its getting to the point where every article in the WaPo, NYT, and WSJ (news), has to be fact-checked to see if we're getting the truth or liberal/left propaganda.

Its a good thing trump got rid of Sessions and replaced him with Barr. I can't see Sessions making this kind of speech, unless Diane Fienstein approved it first.

rcocean said...

Any use of the word "Authoritarian" to describe Trump or any other US President is bullshit. You might as well use "Fascist" or "Nazi", it'd make as much sense. Any time someone uses it, I write them off as a partisan hack.

rcocean said...

There was never any desire on the part of Republicans in the Senate to find out the truth about Trump-Russia. Many of them were friends of McCain and were working with the D's to undermine and destroy trump. Romney is an out-and-out enemy. Rubio is refusing to share data with Johnson/Grassley because he too, wants to destroy Trump.

And of course, Ryan was always discouraging any R Congress investigations or subpoenas. He had already sold out, and was undermining Trump.

Wilbur said...

"gadfly must be done egging cars and painting on buildings because he/she/xe is back at Althouse cutting and pasting the ideas of others that he/she/xe doesnt understand."

A mirror of my reaction. I wouldn't have guessed that a tissue (of lies) could survive such cutting and pasting.

Mike Sylwester said...

gadfly at 7:33 AM
The fake investigation of the FBI supposedly by Connecticut AG Durham is too obvious to ignore as well.

Please explain why Durham's investigation is "fake" and why he is only "supposedly" conducting it.

RobinGoodfellow said...

When he was a candidate in 2016, Trump’s rallies frequently featured chants of “lock her up” in reference to his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, siccing federal prosecutors on your political enemies is exactly the same as as chanting “Lock her up!” at a campaign rally.

Idiots.

iowan2 said...

gadfly serves nicely for the proxy of Democrat reasoning abilities. By that I mean, spew accusations of criminal activity, without identifying a single activity, or citing a legal statute that would apply.
The entirety of of Democrat/leftist talking points lack any supporting facts.

Michael K said...

Did you see Harris Faulkner and Marie Harf say Newt Gingrich couldn't say Lord Voldemort's--sorry, George Soros's name in connection with the election of soft DAs around the country? I guess the word has gone out at Fox that He Who Cannot Be Named cannot be named.

I saw that video and it looks like Marie Barf is in charge of censorship now. It was odd and Newt seemed perplexed, as if no one had mentioned that before.

Drago said...

Francisco D: "I understand the obligatory "authoritarian" bullshit, but I am left wondering about the difference between a "lie" and an "effective lie.""

What the writer that gadfly copied (there is no such thing as gadfly generated content) meant by "effective lie" was: This is not actually a lie at all but I need to make it sound bad enough for morons online to pick it up to advance the narrative.....

.......and then along comes innocent, naive, li'l gadfly, licking his lollipop and throwing rocks when he/she/xe spies this tantalizing and shiny lie, so he/she/xe picks it up and brings it here.

Like a cat that brings a dead mouse to the door to impress the owners.

Todd said...

Yancey Ward said...

At the bottom of the successful sedition prosecutions were actual violent acts of sedition. The unsuccessful cases were people who just talked about it, but actually did nothing.

Should it be a crime to talk about overthrowing the US government? Should it be a crime to do so while legally buying firearms and ammunition? I have long believed, and still do, that only actions should be criminal and prosecuted. The world isn't Minority Report, nor should it be.

9/17/20, 8:37 AM


Agreed. Acts matter. Thoughts acted upon matter.

I think "hate crime" is a travesty for a similar reason. They too should not exist nor be a "double-plus un-good" thing.

Drago said...

Yancey Ward: "The only reasons Stone and Flynn were ever targeted by the FBI and Mueller were because both worked for Trump- no other reason."

I would add that Flynn's understanding of the intel community and the certainty that he would uncover the crimes the democraticals were committing for years meant he had to be sidelined immediately.

Bay Area Guy said...

Barr is the boss!

Memo to "career" prosecutors - hey, dipshits, you don't run the show. Article 2 of the Constitution says that the elected President runs the show. He appoints an AG to run the big show for him. He appoints US Attorneys to run the local shows.

Have a nice day!

khematite said...

A rather Trumpian-sounding FDR, from the memoirs of Francis Biddle, his attorney general during World War II:

The President began to send me brief memoranda to which were
attached some of the scurrilous attacks on his leadership, with a notation: ‘What about this?’ or ‘What are you doing to stop this?’ I explained
to him my view of the unwisdom of bringing indictment [sic] for sedition
except where there was evidence that recruitment was substantially
being interfered with, or there was some connection between the speech
and propaganda centers in Germany. . . . He was not much interested in
the theory of sedition, or in the constitutional right to criticize the government in wartime. He wanted this anti-war talk stopped. . . .

After two weeks, during which F. D. R.’s manner when I saw him said as
plainly as words that he considered me out of step, he began to go for me
in the Cabinet. ...When my turn came, as he went around the table, his
habitual affability dropped. . . . ’When are you going to indict the seditionists?’ he would ask; and the next week, and every week after that, . . .
he would repeat the same question.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

"Trump seems to like the idea of prosecuting his political enemies"

Really? Which ones ahve been prosecuted? What crimes have they been prosecuted for?

Yes, he wanted to prosecute Hillary, for the very clear crime of violating the laws about handling classified material. Laws that other people get sent to jail for violating, on a regular basis.

Note for the stupid: "Twisting the law so you can go after 'bad people'" is not the same as "enforcing the same law against everyone, even the politically connected."

I suppose if you have no concept of "right and wrong" beyond "anything good for my side is right, anything good for teh other side is wrong", and if you have no concept of what "the rule of law" actually means, then this is a hard concept to follow.

But, for the rest of us, it's pretty straightforward.

Birkel said...

Bruce Hayden:

The DOJ/FBI and the FISC have all acknowledged that all four...

I repeat:

ALL FOUR...

of the Carter Page applications for FISA warrants were frauds on the court.

Just a small point of clarification.

SensibleCitizen said...

Although the Russia collusion scam was monstrous in its scope and audacity, the Republicans flogged the Benghazi and Hillary email scandals mercilessly. Both parties weaponize the judicial powers of Congress and the DOJ -- and Barr is correct that it needs to stop.

Although DJT bloviates endlessly about putting people in jail, he has never ordered a special prosecutor or ordered the DOJ to indict anyone. Trump makes hollow threats routinely to make the specific point: I could do this if I wanted to -- but then he never really does it.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Here's the text of the federal sedition statute, 18 U.S. Code § 2384: "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

Now, let's take a look at the Mayo of Seattle, and CHAZ. I'm going to say that this: "or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States" happened in CHAZ. And that he Mayor aided it to happen.

Were I a prosecutor I'd be willing to take that case and see if I could put together a good argument. Were I a juror I'd be willing to be convinced. You'd have to show me that she was working with the CHAZ people, but that shouldn't be too hard to do.

For all those outraged at the above:

Imagine the mayor of a southern town that allowed the KKK to take over part of the town, post armed "guards" to keep "undesirables" out, and shake down the residents for support money.

How outraged would you have been at the Federal Gov't prosecuting that mayor?

That's the Seattle Mayor

Greg The Class Traitor said...

gadfly babbled:
Beginning with his games and lies about releasing the Mueller Report, Trump has continued to ignore the fastidious work of the special counsel team, instead shutting down ongoing indictments began under the SCO - obviously at Trump's direction. The move to withdraw charges against Mike Flynn was the be all, end all, exposure of a crooked Attorney General.

OMG. Serious, Gadfly, you're still a desolation "Russian Collusion Hoax" truther?

The SC established in 2017 that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. They spent the next 20 months trying to invent criminal charges against their political opponents, and keeping teh lie of "Russian Collusion" alive in an attempt to influence the 2018 election.

Thank you for establishing there's no value or worth to anything you have to write.

As for Flynn, the charges were dismissed by the DoJ because of obvious corruption by the prosecutors. you don't get to withhold exculpatory evidence from a defendant.

narciso said...

enabling the rendition and assasination of an american ambassador by multiple al queda factions, yes there has no accountability there,

was fernando wood prosecuted for collusion with confederate blockade runners,

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Yancey Ward said...
Should it be a crime to talk about overthrowing the US government? Should it be a crime to do so while legally buying firearms and ammunition? I have long believed, and still do, that only actions should be criminal and prosecuted. The world isn't Minority Report, nor should it be.

I'm ambivalent, so I'll let the lefties here decide:
To be a communist is to want to overthrown the US Government. Should the US Gov't be able to arrest and prosecute any armed group of Communists in the US?

Heck, attacking teh Electoral College could reasonably be defined as attempting to overthrow the US Government. Shall we arrest every group of armed friends that advocates getting rid of the EC?

No? Good.

Now, let's look at it from the other side: is it "political persecution" to arrest, charge, and prosecute people for crimes they have clearly committed? Crimes whose basis act was a violent attack on people they don't like, or the property of people they don't like?

Think carefully here, because you don't get to say "only if I don't like their ideology". If it's good to target "violent white supremacists", it's equally good to target violent BLM and / or Antifa supporters

Michael K said...

Almost forgot. Was it fastidious to conduct official business on privately purchased, but federally reimbursed, cell phones? Was it fastidious to scrub the contents of over 30 phones, after receiving a request for them from USA Durham?

It is as useless to argue with gadfly as with Inga. Freder is almost as bad but at least he tries to respond.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Michael K said...
I saw that video and it looks like Marie Barf is in charge of censorship now. It was odd and Newt seemed perplexed, as if no one had mentioned that before.

I was disappointed in Newt. He should have told them to get stuffed.

"Wait, you're telling me that Fox News doesn't allow me to discuss the known fact that Democrat Georige Soros is spending millions of dollars to get elected DAs who then refuse to prosecute criminals? When did this become Fox new Policy? Who created this policy?"

And on and on.

Always make you enemies own their evil.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

SensibleCitizen said...
Although the Russia collusion scam was monstrous in its scope and audacity, the Republicans flogged the Benghazi and Hillary email scandals mercilessly. Both parties weaponize the judicial powers of Congress and the DOJ -- and Barr is correct that it needs to stop.

Hey, look we have a new troll!

Benghazi? You mean where four Americans, including the US Ambassador, were left hanging out to die, because of either criminal activity or utter incompetence by the Obama Administration?

Hillary email scandals? You mean where the Sec of State willfully violated the law by sending and receiving classified information on her non-secure email server? Laws that are regularly enforced against "the little people", and result in them getting fired / sent to jail?

You have a problem with Republicans pursuing those actual scandals?

Nice try, troll. Cute name, too

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Imagine the mayor of a southern town that allowed the KKK to take over part of the town, post armed "guards" to keep "undesirables" out, and shake down the residents for support money.

Things like that have happened in the past. That's why the language of the Insurrection Act was changed to allow the President to invoke the act and send Federal troops into a state where the legislature and/or governor were "unable or unwilling" to request that that be done.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Sessions could not be replaced till after the midterms, where Trump took out 3 sitting Senators. Amazing after that how the Senate was more corroborative with Trump.”

Not exactly. Barr entered the scene in June of 2018, when he submitted a legal memorandum to the DOJ arguing that the Lawfare misinterpretation of that Obstruction of Justice statute being used so egregiously by the SC prosecutors to keep their investigation open, and to protect the FBI from Congressional oversight, was based on smoke, mirrors, and a bit of fraud. His memo was very well written, as legal memos go (probably got a lot of help from his associates). Very persuasive. To this day, I have never heard a good explanation of who got him to do that. In any case, Trump’s attorneys, like Rudi Giuliani, were impressed. They knew at that point that they could, ultimately, shut the SC investigation down. They just needed the right guy to do it - Barr. My understanding is that they were talking to Barr about taking the AG job again by maybe July, and figured that they could have him in place by fall. Then Justice Scalia died (or was murdered?). Their focus turned to getting his successor confirmed before the election. The Senate Judiciary Committee could do one, or the other, but not both at the same time. The logic seems to have been that the Dems might have been able to retake the Senate in the upcoming election that year, and if they hadn’t gotten Kavenaugh confirmed, Chuckie Scheamer, presumably the new majority leader, would just “Garland” the nomination, running out the clock, over the next two years. And then in the Biden/Harris Administration following Trump’s one term, could nominate and confirm a justice to the left of RBG, likely to affect the balance of the Supreme Court for the next generation, or two. The bigger risk to the Republicans was losing the Senate, and ultimately, the majority in the Supreme Court. After all, Trump could run the DOJ with acting AGs, if they were desperate. Turns out, the Republicans didn’t lose the Senate that year, so had Barr confirmed as AG shortly thereafter. Needless to say, AG Barr knew just how he needed to legally shut down the Mueller SC investigation, leaving its rabidly partisan prosecutors almost no wiggle room, and executed that plan soon after his confirmation.

holdfast said...

I am seeing commentators in other publications criticizing Barr for making this statement, and its implicit criticism of the local US attorneys, in a public statement. I think Barr was correct, since any private statement or admonition would immediately leak anyway. Given that, might as well make it public. And maybe restore a little bit of the public’s faith in federal prosecutors. God knows that rogue megalomaniacs like Fitzgerald and his persecutions of Scooter Libby and Conrad Black have eroded that confidence among anyone paying attention.

Rabel said...

"I was disappointed in Newt. He should have told them to get stuffed."

"It is verboten?" was pretty slick off-the-cuff response from Newt.

Drago said...

Greg: "OMG. Serious, Gadfly, you're still a desolation "Russian Collusion Hoax" truther?"

No, gadfly is not.

The person gadfly is cutting and pasting from is a "Russian Collusion Hoax" truther?"

That's how it works with gadfly.

It would be easier if gadfly simply posted a link to the person whose work he/she/xe is pretending to understand.

Amadeus 48 said...

Also, the Congress doesn’t have any judicial powers.

The administrative agencies have been allowed to write rules, bring administrative proceedings to enforce them, and have those cases decided by administrative law judges who are employees of the agency.

Something isn’t right here.

Drago said...

rcocean: "There was never any desire on the part of Republicans in the Senate to find out the truth about Trump-Russia. Many of them were friends of McCain and were working with the D's to undermine and destroy trump. Romney is an out-and-out enemy. Rubio is refusing to share data with Johnson/Grassley because he too, wants to destroy Trump."

All true.

Now look at it from the republican Senators perspective: pretty much every one of them simply went along quietly after being told in 2016/17 that the intel/DOJ/FBI had Trump dead to rights on corruption and collusion and bad behavior and horrible sexual depravity, etc.

That's why judges were being approved left and right but Trump was never allowed his own people into any key roles and only deep staters/never trumpers were allowed in.

Of course, by the time 2019 rolls around it has become clear to the full republican caucus that it was all a setup but now what do you do?

If it gets out that you, as a republican senator, were helping the dems all along, you're dead politically. In fact, in the age of Trump you are radioactive. Meanwhile, the dems and lefty media, whom many republicans leaked to and "confirmed" rumors for are essentially hostage to these lefties who can go public at any time.

At. Any. Time.

So that's the bargain: the dems have the republicans over a barrel, the republicans dare not speak out too loudly and dare not push back too hard against the dems or Romney's by name or else these republican schmucks will be outed.

I'll bet Ron Johnson and Lindsay had to get permission from the democraticals to even appear outraged on TV and to fake "push" for investigations that never materialize.

In the end, this November, the "best" political outcome, as seen by the democraticals AND most of the republicans, is for Trump to lose so all of this, ALL of it, can be buried forever once and for all.

And the very sad truth is that the republican senators are willing to sit back and not fight against the democraticals and allow full blown marxism to the American people if that's what it takes to save their pathetic political hides.

Or so they think.

Drago said...

Ray - SoCal: "Compare and contrast AG Barr with Sessions rhetoric and actions.

Just think if Barr has been AG since the start of Trumps first term."

I don't think the republican senators in 2017 would have allowed Bill Barr to become AG.

No, the republican senators, convinced by obama/biden/comey/brennan/clapper, would ONLY allow Sessions into that role and that was no doubt with the full understanding that Sessions would immediately recuse himself (without telling Trump), and there is no way I will ever be convinced the republican senators didn't know Sessions would recuse ahead of time, and that Sessions would then recommend Rod Rosenstein as the leader of the band who would let the already identified SC team led by Weissman carte blanche to do whatever it took to get Trump out of office.

That's just one of several reasons I was pleased to see Sessions sent packing in Alabama. Farmer always claims Sessions was Trump's biggest fan.

BS.

The recusal puts the complete lie to that "analysis".

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Greg the Class Traitor said (very well!):
Here's the text of the federal sedition statute
...
That's the Seattle Mayor


That goes 10x for the mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler. He's let Antifa run riot over the rights of the citizens for 4-years. Antifa has blocked streets, blockaded the ICE office for a month, beat up citizen-reporters. The local prosecutors have no interest in prosecuting Antifa's crimes.

Night said...

Does this mean Justin Timberlake gets a "tenner" for his bail work?

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

I had a Top Secret plus security clearance before I retired. We were admonished to protect classified matter and to self-report for any violations or classified spills. The TS computers were not connected to any unclassified computers. Removing classified data to an unclassified environment required that two Subject Matter Experts review the material and sign-off that it was unclassified matter. Only certain file types could be moved because other file types could hold hidden, classified matter. Physically transferring media required special handling.

For Hillary to spill classified matter in her emails required multiple security violations. Her spills went beyond just simply leaving classified matter sitting around, say on a park bench. Someone had to print it, remove it from the SCIF and then type it into her email. Anyone else doing what she did would be spending 20+ years af Ft. Leavenworth, in solitary confinement.

Michael said...

But they have super smart lawyers there and justice by the bucketful. Over 90% conviction rate. How would you like to see your wife in prison. How would you like your assets frozen and then try and pay your lawyer.

n.n said...

I'll bet Ron Johnson and Lindsay had to get permission from the democraticals to even appear outraged on TV and to fake "push" for investigations that never materialize.

... and more:

Thanks, Fox News, for reminding us of the Soros role in creating America's riot-coddling DAs

We didn't know this until this shutdown maneuver against Gingrich. Gingrich, who just wanted to please them, certainly didn't either, based on his startled response.

Now we know. And now we've been reminded for sure that Soros is running the district attorney show, the very reason why the riots are continuing -- because nobody is being prosecuted.

Bruce Hayden said...

“ For Hillary to spill classified matter in her emails required multiple security violations. Her spills went beyond just simply leaving classified matter sitting around, say on a park bench. Someone had to print it, remove it from the SCIF and then type it into her email. Anyone else doing what she did would be spending 20+ years af Ft. Leavenworth, in solitary confinement.”

Oh, and then the Chinese probably saw it before she did. They apparently had installed software on her server that automatically forwarded her email to them. Literally probably the biggest American security breach of the last several decades. Maybe longer. And the FBI whitewashed it. (Though, admittedly, they could argue that they had done it pursuant to Obama’s orders, from his statement that she hadn’t done anything wrong). Then, when the FBI found her missing emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, Peter Strzok tried to run out the election clock, claiming that his group was too busy trying to frame Trump for colluding with the Russians to look at her missing 30k emails on the shared Weiner/Abdelin laptop. We still don’t know what happened to that laptop. There was a rumor, at one point, that it had been stolen out of a locked FBI vehicle (w/o apparently breaking a window).

Kirk Parker said...

I'm with Todd @ 7:55am in thinking that we have way too much love. Especially at the federal level, where the Constitution lays out pretty clear boundaries as to what the Federal government has authority over and what it doesn't.

For just one example: The Second amendment says that the right of the people to keep important arms shall not be infringed, but federal firearms law consists almost entirely of infringements on that right.

mikee said...

Shorter NY Times: "Barr Pounces."

Mike Petrik said...

"Technically true" is progressive-speak for "true" but let's pretend it's not.
"Effectively lied" is progressive-speak for "told the truth" but let's pretend he didn't.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Bruce Hayden said...
Oh, and then the Chinese probably saw it before she did. They apparently had installed software on her server that automatically forwarded her email to them. Literally probably the biggest American security breach of the last several decades. Maybe longer. And the FBI whitewashed it. (Though, admittedly, they could argue that they had done it pursuant to Obama’s orders, from his statement that she hadn’t done anything wrong).

President Obama sent business emails to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server while she was in Russia.

All work emails between the President and the SecState are inherently classified. So if the FBI (correctly) found that Hillary had violated the law, Obama would have been on the hook. too.

Thus his orders to the FBI not to find anything wrong.

Then, when the FBI found her missing emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, Peter Strzok tried to run out the election clock, claiming that his group was too busy trying to frame Trump for colluding with the Russians to look at her missing 30k emails on the shared Weiner/Abdelin laptop.

I love it when lefties whine about "Comey interfering with the election by announcing about the emails a week before the election."
If Strzok hadn't stonewalled, it wouldn't have been a week before the election.

And the only reason Comey broke the stonewall was because FBI agents in NY were threatening to go public about the existence of the laptop. And if they'd done that, Comey wouldn't' have been able to lie the following week, claiming they'd search the whole laptop and not found anything

Bruce Hayden said...

“ And the only reason Comey broke the stonewall was because FBI agents in NY were threatening to go public about the existence of the laptop. And if they'd done that, Comey wouldn't' have been able to lie the following week, claiming they'd search the whole laptop and not found anything”

Of course, Strzok and his staff did no such thing. They “randomly” sampled the emails on the laptop, and while finding some classified emails that had not been previously provided, the decided it was no big thing - despite the very obvious conclusion that Crooked Hillary had lied to them back in June when she told them that she had given them all of her work related emails. Nope. Her yoga lessons and wedding planning emails weren’t classified. Of course, it was only an issue because they had previously allowed her to provide them with printed emails, instead of in electronic form, which would have had the metadata to make deduplication trivially easy and only take minutes, instead of the weeks that Strzok told his management that it would taken them to do it by hand. Of course, they could have done it the hard way, except that he prioritized framing Trump and his campaign for Russian collusion, instead of pursuing Clinton for her probably thousands of very obvious felonies.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

"Of course, Strzok and his staff did no such thing"

Yep.

But the only reason why Comey could get away with that is because he told Congress about the laptop before teh agents leaked it.

Which is what I point out to people who whine that "Comey threw the election to Trump"