Archive for the ‘Bill Barr’ Category

It’s impossible to trust Neal Katyal’s spin-piece. It’s what you’d expect from an Obama official.

Katyal’s piece starts by saying “There are two big questions about the now-completed investigation into President Trump, and the answers will determine what happens next. First, why didn’t former special counsel Robert Mueller render a judgment on whether Trump had obstructed justice? And second, since Attorney General William Barr did render such a judgment, why isn’t that the end of the matter?”

Then the spinning starts:

The public appearances last week of Mueller and Barr answer both questions. We saw a hyper-careful special counsel who bent over backward to be fair to Trump. And we saw an attorney general who was acting as the president’s personal lawyer, not the lawyer for the American people.

Mueller explained in his news conference that he would not answer the obstruction question, just as his report didn’t answer the question except to say he could not clear Trump because the facts would not permit him to. Justice Department guidance held that he could not indict a sitting president, he said, so he did not reach a conclusion as to whether the president committed crimes. He said it would be unfair to attack someone as a criminal without indicting them because there would be no legal process for them to prove the accusations wrong. That didn’t mean Mueller was acting as some “angry Democrat” (a hard thing for a Republican to do, in any event), it meant he was being careful to protect Trump’s rights.

That last sentence is beyond laughable. Mueller trampled President Trump’s rights by insinuating that President Trump had to prove he was innocent when, in fact, he’s presumed innocent from the start. Supposedly, all Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Mueller’s team of partisan hack (Democrat) lawyers tried finding a crime to try Trump on but they couldn’t find a crime that he committed. These partisan Democrats tried finding Trump guilty of conspiracy but failed. Then they tried finding Trump guilty of obstruction of justice but that didn’t happen. (That’s what happens when the defendant keeps cooperating with prosecutors.)

Katyal lied through omission in this interview:

Katyal omitted the fact that Mueller later issued a joint statement saying that the OLC memo didn’t play a factor in his decision. Further, Katyal omitted the relevant DOJ rule about prosecutors not holding press conferences to say that a defendant was almost indicted. That’s what Mueller did. Mueller all but directed the House to start impeachment proceedings.

That’s hardly the way to protect a person’s civil rights.

Gregg Jarrett’s opinion piece reached a stunning conclusion when Jarrett said “The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior instead of stated evidence that rose to the level of criminality. This is what prosecutors are never permitted to do. Justice Department rules forbid its lawyers from annunciating negative narratives about any person, absent an indictment.”

When Jim Comey announced that he wouldn’t indict Hillary Clinton, he first said that HRC had done some illegal things. Then he finished by saying that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against HRC. Back then, there were howls from the legal community, saying that the DOJ speaks in indictments. They don’t list things that a person did that were shady but that, in the end, the person wasn’t a criminal. Here’s Comey’s press conference ‘exonerating’ HRC:

Today’s performance by Bob Mueller was Act II of Jim Comey’s disgraceful exoneration of HRC. Mueller included in his report 10 instances of President Trump obstructing justice. In each of those instances, Mueller didn’t make a decision. Notice that I didn’t say that he didn’t indict. I said that Mueller refused to even make a decision.

Instead, in each of these instances, Mueller made the case for and against indicting President Trump of obstruction of justice. Then he essentially said that it was up to Congress to make the final decision. By comparison, when Kenneth Starr issued his report, he noted that then-President Clinton had committed 11 crimes, 6 of which were obstruction of justice charges.

Starr didn’t indict Clinton. He merely told the House of Representatives that Clinton had committed those crimes. Jarrett continues:

How can that person properly defend himself without trial? This is why prosecutors like Mueller are prohibited from trying their cases in the court of public opinion. If they have probable cause to levy charges, they should do so. If not, they must refrain from openly disparaging someone that our justice system presumes is innocent. In this regard, Mueller shrewdly and improperly turned the law on its head. Consider the most inflammatory statement that he leveled at the president in his report.

Again, Mueller’s thinking is out-of-step with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights presumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty. According to Mueller’s thinking, Trump was guilty until he was exonerated. That’s bassackwards and then some.

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. It is the bedrock on which justice is built. Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring charges they must have, at minimum, probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The special counsel took this inviolate principle and cleverly inverted it. He argued that he could not prove the president did not commit a crime.

Today is a sad day for the rule of law. Today, a special counsel decided he had the right to ignore the Bill of Rights. Today, a special counsel thought he was Jim Comey’s stand-in.

A year ago, CNN’s Don Lemon asked what is President Trump hiding? A month ago, MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace asked the same question. Yesterday on FNC’s The Five, Juan Williams asked the same question. Since this seems to be the Democrats’ favorite question, let’s try and determine what they’re talking about.

Yesterday, the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress. (This is as meaningful as finding out whether unicorns are real.) During the course of that kangaroo court, we learned that Part II, aka the obstruction of justice part, of the Mueller Report was 182 pages long from Rep. Tom McClintock, (R-Calif.) Later, we learned that a whopping total of 6 lines were redacted from those 182 pages.

That isn’t even enough to qualify as a rounding error.

Here’s a question for showboating Democrats. How is it possible to hide evidence of obstruction of justice in just 6 lines? Here’s another question. Is it possible to hide evidence of obstruction of justice 6 lines? Let’s remember that these 6 lines aren’t consecutive in the report. They’re spaced throughout those 182 pages.

What this provides is a picture of how intellectually unimpressive House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, (D-NY), is. Based on his performance thus far, I’m betting that boxes of cereal have more gravitas than Chairman Nadler. Then again, some of the sideline commentators aren’t the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, either:

Let’s be clear about something. Jerry Nadler is the opposite of a principled person. Nobody mistakes him for a man of integrity.

It’s apparent that the Democrats’ respect for this nation’s founding documents, starting with the Declaration of Independence, is minimal at best. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, it states emphatically “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

This afternoon, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee took the first step in what’s expected to be their attempted impeachment of President Trump. In this instance, impeachment would be done because Democrats are sore losers, not because President Trump committed any high crimes or misdemeanors.

This Democrat House of Representatives is setting the principles that this great nation was founded upon on its head. Earlier today, the House Judiciary Committee Democrats voted to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for obeying U.S. statutes.

That’s the definition of changing government “for light and transient reasons.” It’s also the portrait of pettiness. Rep. Doug Collins, (R-GA, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, opined thusly:

It’s time to throw these bad faith Democrats out of office. They’ve been all about investigating President Trump. They haven’t shown any interest in solving this nation’s problems. (Think the illegal immigration crisis.)

For the first time in US history, a committee ordered the Attorney General of the United States to break the law. In voting to hold Attorney General Barr in contempt of Congress, House Democrats cited AG Barr’s unwillingness to hand over to them a totally unredacted copy of the Mueller report.

One of the reasons why AG Barr didn’t turn that type of report over to the Democrats is because grand jury testimony is confidential and can’t be turned over without a court order. Even then, there are only 5 exceptions for releasing grand jury testimony. Congressional oversight isn’t one of those exceptions.

Think about that. Democrats, led by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, have ordered the Attorney General to break the law. Talk about theater of the absurd! That’s simply stunning. Jim Jordan nails it with this statement during today’s hearing:

Today on Outnumbered OT, Rep. Tom McClintock, (R-Calif.) and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, stated something stunning. He said that only 6 lines were redacted from the 182-page report on obstruction of justice. Think about that! Just 6 lines out of almost 200 pages were redacted. This isn’t about oversight. It’s about Democrats doing whatever they can to destroy AG Barr’s reputation.

Rep. Doug Collins, the Ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, nailed it in this tweet:

This tweet from Rep. Collins is pretty revealing, too:

Today’s ‘hearing’ was mostly about Democrats showboating for the 6:00 news. This wasn’t about seeking justice.

Democrat pundits have repeatedly said that they’re capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. I have 2 thoughts on that. It’s perhaps possible that they’re capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously. The question is whether they’re interested in walking and chewing gum simultaneously. Next, I say perhaps because we haven’t seen proof that they can walk and chew gum simultaneously.

Finally, today’s clown show is proof that the Democrats’ priorities are totally screwed up. While Democrats were conducting this clown show, they weren’t addressing illegal immigration, which, the last I looked, is a full-blown crisis. I only know what I can prove. I can’t prove that Democrats give a damn about homeland security. I certainly can’t prove that they’ve investigated and legislated simultaneously.

It’s time to throw these idiots out in large numbers. Hate-America-first Democrats like Jerry Nadler, Ted Lieu and David Cicilline need to stripped of their authorities because they’ve created this clown show.

Like the Democrats she leads, Speaker Pelosi keeps getting more radical by the minute. She recently told the NYTimes that she’s “worried President Trump might not step down if defeated in 2020”, saying “We have to inoculate against that, we have to be prepared for that”, urging Democrats to “win the debate that matters most to many voters inside the party: electability. ‘Own the center-left, own the mainstream.'”

First, Democrats of 2019 aren’t center-left. Which of you reading this thinks that Steven Cohen, David Cicilline or Jerry Nadler represents the mainstream of American politics? Next, there’s this:

Pelosi also said that in order to beat Trump, liberals have to play at his level, and the best way to do that is to win big, so he can’t challenge the results. “If we win by four seats, by a thousand votes each, he’s not going to respect the election,” she said. “He would poison the public mind. He would challenge each of the races. He would say you can’t seat these people.”

Thanks to the Democrats’ investigation-only agenda, Democrats won’t keep their majority in the House. According to this, Democrats can only afford to lose 17 seats if they want to keep their majority. The likelihood of that happening isn’t high. Here in Minnesota, the likelihood of flipping the Second and Third districts back to the Republicans looks quite possible. Don’t be surprised if Republicans regain House seats in California, Virginia and Pennsylvania, too. The Democrats’ majority is anything except rock-solid.

Last Wednesday, Pelosi pushed out a statement taking aim at the Trump administration in the aftermath of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, blasting the president as “immoral, unethical, corrupt and unpatriotic.”

That’s rich coming from the political party that lied to the American people that President Trump committed treason and had obstructed justice, then had to scamper after the special counsel’s grand jury determined the opposite. Now Michael Horowitz, the DOJ Inspector General, is investigating whether Democrats abused “the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” when they investigated “President Trump and associates of his 2016 campaign.”

Finally, there’s this:

It isn’t easy to get Bill Barr to smile, much less laugh. Ted Cruz accomplished those things during his questioning of Attorney Gen. Barr:

In laying things out so beautifully, Sen. Cruz demolished Speaker Pelosi’s arguments. The good news for Speaker Pelosi is that she doesn’t have to worry about getting exposed because the MSM, aka the media wing of the Democratic Party, won’t cover Sen. Cruz’s questioning of Bill Barr.

Democrats are foolish to argue against Bill Barr or former US Attorney Andy McCarthy. In this op-ed, Democrat Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse regurgitated the Democrats’ chanting points about Attorney General Bill Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Whitehouse wrote “First, his testimony was an astonishing exercise in dissembling. Barr gave a head-spinning explanation of why he did not disclose in House testimony the letter in which Robert Mueller forcefully pushed back on Barr’s initial summary of the Mueller report. He quarreled over whether his summary was a ‘summary.’ He said Special Counsel Mueller’s concerns, expressed in the letter for everyone to see, were not concerns with Barr, but with the media.”

Democrats are hanging their hats on Charlie Crist’s questioning of Barr. McCarthy provided the transcript of the important part of the exchange in his article:

CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter…that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?
BARR: No, I don’t. I think — I think…I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but, in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once. So I was not interested in a summary of the report…I felt that I should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use Special Counsel Mueller’s own language in doing that.

Here’s the video of that exchange:

It’s clear that Crist wanted Barr to attempt to speak for others. Barr refused to do that.

During the Senate hearing, Sen. Whitehouse tried conflating Mueller with “the special counsel’s team.” Then there’s this BS:

He said Justice Department policy against indicting a president wasn’t the reason Mueller didn’t conclude the President broke the law, when the report says the opposite.

Oh really?

Barr said Mueller’s report did not conclude if Trump obstructed justice because of “‘difficult issues’ of law and fact” about whether Trump’s actions and intent could amount to obstruction.

This is Mueller’s biggest failure. He was paid to make difficult decisions as well as routine decisions. Further, if Mueller objected to Barr’s letter, he should’ve read Barr’s letter, then told Barr what he objected to. Mueller rejected the opportunity to read, edit or object to Barr’s letter. Waiting 3 weeks to register his complaint stinks like sour grapes.

If Democrats keep hitching their wagon to the media’s clickbait articles, they soon won’t have any credibility left. It isn’t like Democrats have much left but they’re spending what little they have left on questionable reporting because they’re desperate. Andy McCarthy laid out the Democrats’ latest nothingburger bombshell in this article.

McCarthy, a former assistant US attorney, wrote “‘Mueller complained to Barr about memo on key findings.’ That’s the banner headline at the top of the Washington Post’s website Wednesday. But when you click your way to the actual story, it turns out that the headline is not true. Special Counsel Mueller’s complaint, which targeted Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter explaining the report, is not about the ‘key findings.’ It’s about the narrative.”

Actually, it’s about the media’s attempt to stir controversy in the hope that it’ll lead to President Trump’s impeachment. If pots of gold were found at the bottom of rabbit holes, Democrats would have enough money to fund their campaigns for a generation or more.

On the other hand, if William Barr got a pot of gold each time he stood his ground against an airhead Democrat, he’d have at least 1 pot of gold. Check this out:

KABOOM!!! That’s as close to a pancake block as you’ll find in the legal profession. Usually, pancake blocks are found only on college football stadiums on Saturday afternoons. In another instance of standing his ground, watch how AG Barr stood his ground against Sen. Hirono, (D-HI), the Democrats’ corrupt pit bull from Hawaii:

Sen. Hirono is a disgusting human being. Chairman Graham was right in saying that she “slandered this man from top to bottom. So if you want more of this, you’re not going to get it. If you want to ask him more questions, you can.” Sen. Hirono is one of the most disgusting Democrats in the Senate. She made at least 4 inaccurate partisan statements. She accused Barr of a) protecting President Trump, b) lying to Senate Judiciary Democrats and c) being “no different from Rudy Giuliani or Kellyanne Conway or any of the other people who sacrifice their once decent reputation for the grifter and liar who sits in the Oval Office.”

Sen. Hirono, you’re a steaming pile of animal waste. You’re out of control, dishonest and, honestly, even worse than Adam Schiff.

Yesterday, after AG Bill Barr testified, calmly, that spying did occur, Democrats started howling as if he’d said something controversial. I’m betting that the vast, vast, vast majority of LFR readers found that statement to be totally uncontroversial. Andy McCarthy certainly didn’t find it controversial:

In his testimony Wednesday before a Senate Appropriations Committee subcommittee, Attorney General William Barr made statements that were so clearly correct, they should be no more controversial than asserting that the sky is blue. The fact that they are causing consternation is what should alarm people.

What planet are these Democrats from? Better yet, what solar system were they brought in from? There’s no question that the FBI surveilled people within the Trump campaign. That isn’t questionable. At least, it wasn’t until someone set Nancy Pelosi’s hair on fire:

Ms. Pelosi said that she trusts Mueller but doesn’t trust Barr. That’s interesting since Barr and Mueller are working on the redactions together. At this point, my first reaction is to question Ms. Pelosi’s intellectual honesty. This week, Ms. Pelosi has insisted that she’s the arbiter of what’s un-American, unpatriotic, etc. How is a person who’s spent the past 40 years shuttling between San Francisco and Washington, DC (except for the occasional fundraiser at Harvey Weinstein’s place in New York or Los Angeles) qualified to determine who displays these qualities and who doesn’t?

Democrats that think that they’ll hold the House in 2020 don’t appreciate just how toxic Ms. Pelosi, AOC and Ilhan Omar are in Rust Belt Swing districts.