US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1423

The only thing uglier than an angry Washington is a fearful Washington. And fear is what’s driving this week’s blitzkrieg of Attorney General William Barr.

Mr. Barr tolerantly sat through hours of Democratic insults at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. His reward for his patience was to be labeled, in the space of a news cycle, a lawbreaking, dishonest, obstructing hack. Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly accused Mr. Barr of lying to Congress, which, she added, is “considered a crime.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he will move to hold Mr. Barr in contempt unless the attorney general acquiesces to the unprecedented demand that he submit to cross-examination by committee staff attorneys. James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lamented that Donald Trump had “eaten” Mr. Barr’s “soul.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren demands the attorney general resign. California Rep. Eric Swalwell wants him impeached.

These attacks aren’t about special counsel Robert Mueller, his report or even the surreal debate over Mr. Barr’s first letter describing the report. The attorney general delivered the transparency Democrats demanded: He quickly released a lightly redacted report, which portrayed the president in a negative light. What do Democrats have to object to?

Some of this is frustration. Democrats foolishly invested two years of political capital in the idea that Mr. Mueller would prove President Trump had colluded with Russia, and Mr. Mueller left them empty-handed. Some of it is personal. Democrats resent that Mr. Barr won’t cower or apologize for doing his job. Some is bitterness that Mr. Barr is performing like a real attorney general, making the call against obstruction-of-justice charges rather than sitting back and letting Democrats have their fun with Mr. Mueller’s obstruction innuendo.

But most of it is likely fear. Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching—that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.

He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation.

Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution.

The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan.

That’s why Mr. Barr isn’t alone in getting slimed. Natasha Bertrand at Politico last month penned a hit piece on the respected Mr. Horowitz. It’s clear the inspector general is asking the right questions. The Politico article acknowledges he’s homing in on Mr. Steele’s “credibility” and the dossier’s “veracity”—then goes on to provide a defense of Mr. Steele and his dossier, while quoting unnamed sources who deride the “quality” of the Horowitz probe, and (hilariously) claim the long-tenured inspector general is not “well-versed” in core Justice Department functions.

“We have to stop using the criminal-justice process as a political weapon,” Mr. Barr said Wednesday. The line didn’t get much notice, but that worthy goal increasingly looks to be a reason Mr. Barr accepted this unpleasant job. Stopping this abuse requires understanding how it started. The liberal establishment, including journalists friendly with it, doesn’t want that to happen, and so has made it a mission to destroy Mr. Barr. The attorney general seems to know what he’s up against, and remains undeterred. That’s the sort of steely will necessary to right the ship at the Justice Department and the FBI.

On May 04 2019 01:46 Danglars wrote:
The fight to subpoena the president is in court, not Congress. Mueller simply knew he didn't have the evidence to win the fight.

The Supreme Court previously upheld subpoenas of a sitting president when it happened under Nixon. It was a unanimous decision..

Kenneth Starr successfully subpoena'd President Clinton to appear before a grand jury.

There's no big Article 2 "waah I can't get the Republicans to let me do it" argument here. It's been done twice in the past, and will probably be done several times in the future. It's the weakness of Mueller's case (or his resolve if you ask some Democrats) that prompted this decision. Mueller certainly tried to negotiate with Trump with the threat of a subpoena, which Trump's lawyers properly recognized as a bluff and laughed at him.

On May 04 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:

Nixon and Clinton were both investigated when the opposing party held both chambers of Congress. Both would have been impeached if they obstructed the investigation by failing to comply with a subpoena. But lets be clear, impeachment is the only response to that. Even Congress can’t “force” the White House to comply without assistance from agencies under the control of the executive branch(FBI and Justice).

The court is not magic. Its orders to no make people do things. The consequences of not complying makes people do things. And those consequences are caused by the executive branch. As Andrew Jackson pointed out all those years ago, the Court cannot enforce its own order.

On May 04 2019 02:39 Danglars wrote:

You can recite the actual impeachment process all you want, but please don't confuse an Article 2 battle for subpoenas for a Congressional process. He had every right and ability to fight for a subpoena which hasn't involved Congressional interaction in the past and has been won repeatedly in the past. It's pure hogwash bringing up Congressional control in the context of subpoenas when Congressional control wasn't even involved with the successful pursuit of subpoenas previously. You fight and win those in court, not Congress. Give me some form of Congressional involvement that I don't know about, or I'm concluding you think Special Counsels somehow lose their nerve when they think the president won't end up being impeached.

On May 03 2019 23:51 Danglars wrote:
Kimberly Strassel had a good wrap-up in the Wall Street Journal on Barr's accusers and what it means. It's a tale of frustration of goals from the Mueller investigation, and how exposed many powerful people are to the Barr & Horowitz investigations. If it was just inquiries into the start of the investigation, that wouldn't be so bad. Most of the likely top figures responsible have been fired or resigned under a cloud. It's also the criminal leaks, FISA warrant, dossier (as possible Russian disinformation). I also hadn't caught on that at least one journalist has started in on Mr. Horowitz.


WSJ

One more word about specifically Mueller complaining about the press coverage. Why would a prosecutor, who has finished his report and whose staff is working with the DOJ to release it with minor redactions, be concerned about the things the press is getting wrong in a few short weeks? It's entirely reasonable for Barr to simply give a quick breakdown of the principal conclusions, instead of releasing parts in piecemeal fashion. If Mueller really wanted it to be quickly released after conclusion, he could've done more to indicate to Barr the (6e) redactions prior to submission. He simply couldn't stand a brief description of his failure to reach a conclusion on obstruction to deflateAndrew McCarthy:

.

As I read them, Barr’s public statements on the report reflect at least seven different layers of substantive misrepresentation, layers which build on one another into a dramatic rewriting of the president’s conduct—and of Mueller’s findings about the president’s conduct. It is worth unpacking and disentangling these misrepresentations, because each is mischievous on its own, but together they operate as a disinformation campaign being run by the senior leadership of the Justice Department.

Both at the press conference and in yesterday’s hearing, the attorney general insisted that Mueller had told him that it was not merely the Justice Department’s legal opinion stating that the president could not be indicted that prevented him from concluding that Trump had obstructed justice. “He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime” but for the opinion, Barr said at the press conference. The implication is that the issue was not just one of legal authority, but that the evidence wasn’t there either.

I don’t know what Mueller told Barr privately, but the report does not support this claim. Mueller lists four “considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation.” The first of them states that the Justice Department “has issued an opinion finding that ‘the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions’ in violation of ‘the constitutional separation of powers.’” Because Mueller is an officer of the Justice Department, “this Office accepted [the department’s] legal conclusion for purposes of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.”

The use of the word jurisdiction here is not casual. It means that Mueller believes he lacks the authority to indict the president. Because of that, he goes on to explain, he did not evaluate the evidence to render a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The report offers no support for the notion that Mueller stayed his hand on obstruction out of concern for the strength of the evidence.

The effects of these layers of mischaracterization are to rewrite the Mueller report and to recast the presidential conduct described in it. The direction of the recasting just happens to dovetail with the president’s talking points, and just happens to transmute him from a scofflaw with power into a victim of the “deep state.”

On May 04 2019 02:55 Plansix wrote:

I didn't. I just have a better understand of the limitations of special counsels when it comes to forcing the executive to comply with court orders.

On May 04 2019 03:16 Danglars wrote:

You gave a non sequitur about Congress, and when I pointed this fact out, made no defense. I think if you had an understanding of the limitations, you could've shared those limitations with all of us.

Like, you know, point out how Congress aided in compliance with subpoenas in the SUCCESSFUL subpoenas of Nixon and Clinton.

Also, are you really so droll to bring up forcing the executive to comply with court orders when they didn't even try to obtain a court order? I literally started off explaining why I think they did not seek one, and provided the material facts that past courts have succeeded and without Congressional involvement. I really can't imagine why you would blame Congress without reason, and then blame court orders when none were sought.

On May 04 2019 02:05 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:

You should really stop spreading this nonsense. For one, Mueller is not complaining about the press coverage. It's a complete fabrication of a talking point. It's not at all what Muellers letter says. Mueller complained about Barr's work being crap and people getting it wrong because his work was crap and he wasn't releasing material already provided.

Mueller provided summaries that were cleared of redacted material. Then in the letter he asked Barr again! to release those summaries. Of course he was worried about people getting it wrong since Barr's summary was wrong, Barr failed to do his job as AG. That said Barr never intended to do his job properly, he just wanted damage limitation so he ignored the summaries already provided and never even mentioned them.

And then let me point you to a very in depth article about the problem with Barr.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/bill-barrs-performance-was-catastrophic/588574/

I said, ‘Bob, what’s with the letter?’ Why don’t you just pick up the phone and call me if there’s an issue?’"

On May 04 2019 03:56 Plansix wrote:

I didn’t blame congress. I pointed out that the special counsels in those cases had more support from congress, who would have taken action if the White House did not comply with the subpoena in some way. I expressed serious doubt the Special counsel has any confidence in the 2017-2018 congress to do anything if the White House ignored an order to comply with a subpoena.

On May 04 2019 04:18 Danglars wrote:

Mueller was worried about potential ignoring of a court order, which hasn't happened the last two times it's been done, and wasn't even going to pursue one based on it, since he was so worried about lack of support. Theoretical possibilities of unprecedented actions necessitating Congressional involvement is your real angle here. Nixon went so far as to fire the special prosecutor and attorney general, but even he lost in the courts when defying subpoena (Trump did not fire Mueller). This is some really wearying logic you're using that it would somehow necessitate Congress.

On May 04 2019 02:35 Danglars wrote:

Barr obviously expressed shock that Mueller would write such a letter (later speculated that it's snippiness might have been a work product of some of his staff)

It's clear from the letter itself that Mueller's problem was "public confusion" before the entire report would be released. He wanted more released earlier. He didn't like the press coverage. Sorry.

You should really stop spreading this nonsense. Quote from the letter, and quote from the article in the future to back up your points. I don't really care much for simple contradiction that involves poor summaries of points and base assertions.

The same lies are repeated here that have been addressed by myself in former posts. The intentional blurring between two different questions now used to allege lying is here. The poor reading of Mueller failing to reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice was answered more recently by xDaunt here. Any basis to reject these arguments against is welcome, and any lack of arguments but simple disbelief and rejection and restatement of claims already responded to is just lack of effort.

On May 04 2019 04:35 Plansix wrote:

It is almost like this situation is different than the last to times there was a special counsel. And it is not unprecedented for the White House to ignore orders from the Court.

On May 04 2019 03:57 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:



Meh the letter is very short and not hard to interpret, I felt no need to quote it. Yes he is worried about public confusion. Of course he is worried about public confusion. The confusion stems, not from media coverage, which is not mentioned anywhere, but from the problem that Barr's letter not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. This contrary to the the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report that accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The subject is not media coverage. The subject is confusion caused by the failure to capture his work accurately.

This confusion leads to misunderstandings that have arisen and congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. Public confusion, misunderstandings and congressional questions are not good things. Barr's letter caused these things.

Well, for these second points. I think the Mueller letter clearly rejects the conclusions in the Barr letter because it paints Trumps campaign having nothing to do with Russia during the election when they had a lot of ' doing', just no outright clearly labeled criminal conspiracy.

And what is also part of the context nature and substances missed by Barr is the whole OLC-can't indict a president debacle. So Barr misrepresenting that by saying that OLC guidelines was not part of the obstruction decision when it was 100% of the reason for not bringing charging decisions is just wrong.

And xDaunts point is just an opinion, it's not an argument. There is no basis for rewriting Mueller following the rules provided to him into Mueller plotting to create a cloud for political damage other than personal conviction. The rules are real. The plot not so much.

Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, but-for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction