Jump to content

Barr was worse than we ever imagined

Satchel

By Satchel
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted

To elaborate a little on my earlier point.  Certain stuff, like trying for journo's sources, seeking warrants and subpoenas on lawyers, and things that have a lot of potential for abuse or controversy require approval from "main Justice," that is DC.  

Other stuff is happening at lower levels, US Attorneys, FBI field offices, stuff like that, and doesn't come to the attention of main Justice until some kind of shitstorm breaks out.  That stuff is certainly overreach and is pretty common, but not completely fairly attributable to the broad DOJ except in a "buck stops here" kind of way.

Or, as apparently was the case with the NYT thing, Trump's main Justice gave approval because they suck, and then things trundled along without notice by main Justice until things hit the papers, at which point the less sucky Biden main Justice, or Biden or Garland himself pulled the plug.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Barr and Sessions spied on Schiff, Swalwell and other congressional Democrats:

"Prosecutors, under the beleaguered attorney general, Jeff Sessions, were hunting for the sources behind news media reports about contacts between Trump associates and Russia. Ultimately, the data and other evidence did not tie the committee to the leaks, and investigators debated whether they had hit a dead end and some even discussed closing the inquiry," the newspaper reported. "But William P. Barr revived languishing leak investigations after he became attorney general a year later. He moved a trusted prosecutor from New Jersey with little relevant experience to the main Justice Department to work on the Schiff-related case and about a half-dozen others, according to three people with knowledge of his work who did not want to be identified discussing federal investigations."

The effort is unprecedented.

https://www.salon.com/2021/06/10/trump-doj-spied-on-democrats-in-congress--and-even-their-families-nyt_partner/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5911

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

this piece of shit needs to be tarred and feathered, then hung by his balls. somewhere in there, skin him alive 

Do unto others, which is exactly what Republicans would do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45499

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m sure Barr and Trump will totally be held accountable for their crimes 

 

2 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Yuuuup.  Not one goddamned thing will come from this.  Nada. Zilch. 

Of course I agree, but honestly, what is the point of the rule of law anymore?  We clearly live in an oligarchy or a kleptocracy or some combo of the two.  We are admitting that politicians are above the law.  How long can this last?

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

 

Of course I agree, but honestly, what is the point of the rule of law anymore?  We clearly live in an oligarchy or a kleptocracy or some combo of the two.  We are admitting that politicians are above the law.  How long can this last?

I was listening to Ruth Ben-Ghiat some time back and she was mentioning that the amount of weaponry in the US made prediction more difficult. I know you would say that private arms don't stand a chance against the military, but she was thinking more along the lines of constant violence--police forces, militia groups, gangs, just a real grim picture.

I speculate those in charge will coalesce together to save each other after they purge anyone they think will be a danger to them. It's why that article by Applebaum about Poland was so compelling-I could see states heading that way. Each state has citizens to oppress, loot to plunder, and money to be made off their labor. The most ruthless and well connected will have their enforcers (Russian/American mafia types, RW fashy gangs, and so on). The cartel groups are not going to give that up either, so will they be subsumed as a cog in the machine or will they be at war with the RW groups?

Totally scary but the rise of authoritarian rule is a rise in violent male conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89449

Posted
Posted
On 6/11/2021 at 9:30 AM, Mrs Whiggins said:

I was listening to Ruth Ben-Ghiat some time back and she was mentioning that the amount of weaponry in the US made prediction more difficult. I know you would say that private arms don't stand a chance against the military, but she was thinking more along the lines of constant violence--police forces, militia groups, gangs, just a real grim picture.

I speculate those in charge will coalesce together to save each other after they purge anyone they think will be a danger to them. It's why that article by Applebaum about Poland was so compelling-I could see states heading that way. Each state has citizens to oppress, loot to plunder, and money to be made off their labor. The most ruthless and well connected will have their enforcers (Russian/American mafia types, RW fashy gangs, and so on). The cartel groups are not going to give that up either, so will they be subsumed as a cog in the machine or will they be at war with the RW groups?

Totally scary but the rise of authoritarian rule is a rise in violent male conflict.

It's not just the amount of weaponry in the US, it's the population, the massive geographic footprint, and the interconnected infrastructure (water, power, etc.).

The powers-that-be know all of this.  During our winter shitstorm, Abbott rushed out to blame wind and solar energy, because he knew how vulnerable the state was, and that 10 years ago the legislature had kicked the can down the road.  He lost his shit because he realized that people might discover how poorly run our state is, and they might get pissed at Republicans.  In your doomsday scenario, everybody loses power, not just certain areas.  Everybody loses water, everybody loses sewer, everybody loses food distribution (can't distribute food if you can't get fuel to the farm equipment and the trucks).

The people pulling the strings, whoever you may consider that to be, all know that if things truly unravel, and the winter shitstorm was merely a blip compared to that, that if things truly unravel, there is no going back.  Our economy completely craters, and the wealthy people and companies lose pretty much everything they have sitting here in the US.  Billion-dollar factories mean very little without power and water, and more importantly, without customers.  $10 million homes don't mean jackshit if they are without power, water, food, etc, and nobody to buy them or buy surrounding properties at those prices to keep the values up.  The list goes on - investment funds, stocks and bonds, etc. all mean very little if the economy is gutted and you can't do anything with them without electricity anyways.

Our military could not pacify this country.  It's not built for it it.  With looser rules of engagement, we couldn't pacify Iraq, a country with less than a tenth of our population, and that's smaller than the state of Texas.  In the doomsday scenario, the amount of troops that would actually be in the streets with rifles in hand would actually be pretty small.  The military would first and foremost be concerned with keeping their own bases secure, and keeping their troops and the dependents fed and sheltered.  

Private Billy Joe Smith isn't going to be too keen on going off base and playing occupying force to civilians if his family is starving and doesn't have running water or electricity.

Keeping bases secured and supplied with power, water, and food is going to take up the vast majority of soldiers and Marines in this country, and guess where civilians are going to be flocking to like crazy in a doomsday scenario?  Military bases, where they see them keeping the lights on and the water running.  The supply chain to keep a base like Fort Hood, with 40,000+ soldiers, and tens of thousands of dependents and civilian workers, would be enormous.  Fort Hood won't be rolling the 1st Calvary Division down to Austin or up to Dallas to enforce military rule, because Fort Hood will be more concerned with trying to keep fuel in the tanks of its vehicles, and getting food in.  At most, they might be going off base to do supply runs to link up with Navy ships dropping off stuff in Houston, but even that's going to take up a massive amount of troops and fuel.  The Air Force would be stretched thin flying in supplies for its own bases, let alone taking on the task of keeping the Army fed and supplied.

Nothing against you, it's just when I hear people talking about doomsday scenarios and military occupation, I don't think they realize how resource-intensive it is to keep the military going on a daily basis.  Texas has 15 or 20 military bases, California has over 30, etc. and I would actually anticipate that if things go south, the military will be abandoning smaller bases, and consolidating on its larger bases, because they simply don't have the manpower to keep every single base secured, and to keep every single base supplied.  They will stick to bases that are larger enough to have some kind of airfield attached, and that they can secure.  Honestly Fort Hood would be a nightmare to secure against a doomsday event/civilian uprising, because it's over 300 square miles alone, and that's a helluva long perimeter to keep secured from civilians looking for food and water.  Hell, at least half their troops would probably have to be guarding the base itself to keep civilians out.

Yes, there are politicians who like to fuck around and find out with our population, and January 6th was scary, but at the end of the day, the powers-that-be won't let rogue politicians take the government down, and if things go south, those politicians would lose their power anyways, and they all know it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28713

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 6/11/2021 at 7:27 AM, Neonmoon said:

I’m sure Barr and Trump will totally be held accountable for their crimes 

Between Barr lying about the Mueller Report and acknowledging that Trump lost the election, it’s kind of amazing he’s still alive. Would anyone care if he turned up floating in a river somewhere?

Edited by WhatTheBuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted (edited)

I understand your argument regarding that type of scenario, but I don’t believe that was the crux of her argument—although I should go back and listen to her interview again. I believe she was talking about a certain lawlessness and violence in general-wherein a leader similar to Trump gives the BP somewhat freer reign to commit abuses at the border, or when say campaign buses are harassed, sheriffs look the other way. Things that have already occurred only scaled up in intensity and frequency. Violence upon each other and the corporate entities may cluck, but they still make money. 
I understood Ghiat to mean, since many in America, besides RW types own weapons, at some point the outcome of oppression is a pushback by the oppressed and those events may be harder to control on a local level(?) so these small autonomous groups (like PB types) may be harder to control if they are acting under the wink wink look the other way people in charge. 
The GOP has consolidated the party and have not exactly been neutralized even though Trump is sidelined. DeSantis seems happy to promote nationalist fascist/authoritarian rule and many seem just as happy to support that. I guess it gives me a sense of foreboding because their back is to the wall but I hope I am wrong. 
 

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
Replying to @atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27466

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yes, there are politicians who like to fuck around and find out with our population, and January 6th was scary, but at the end of the day, the powers-that-be won't let rogue politicians take the government down, and if things go south, those politicians would lose their power anyways, and they all know it.

That's the same thing many folks thought after the beer hall putsch. We know what rising fascism looks like, and it's this. Politicians main skills is ignoring long term consequences while reaping short term benefits. Bending over and spreading em for trump is just another example case

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...
  • 5 months later...
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The moral arc of the universe seems to be bending (however slowly) toward justice:

The Department of Justice must release a 2019 memorandum supporting then-Attorney General Bill Barr's decision to clear former President Donald Trump of obstruction of justice, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled on Friday. 

The big picture: Special Counsel Robert Mueller's 2019 investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election found that while he could not conclude that Trump committed obstruction of justice, Mueller's final report "does not exonerate" the former president.

  • After Mueller sent his then-confidential report to Barr, the former attorney general sent a letter to Congress explaining that the report did not sufficiently show Trump had obstructed justice.

State of play: A nonpartisan government watchdog organization sued the Justice Department in 2019 for documents related to Barr's decision to clear Trump, including a memorandum from the department's Office of Legal Counsel to Barr.

  • A district court judge ruled in May 2021 that the DOJ must release the memorandum, after finding the department's claim that it was used in the decision-making process to be "disingenuous." 
  • Some documents can be exempted from public records requests if they were used internally to make decisions, an exemption known as the deliberative-process privilege.
  • However, the judge in 2021 found that the memorandum, which was finalized after Barr sent the letter to Congress, could not have been part of the decision-making process.

Driving the news: The three-judge panel unanimously upheld the lower court ruling on Friday, rejecting the DOJ's argument that the memo was part of the decision-making process of how to convey the report to Congress and the public.

  • "The court determined that the Department had failed to carry its burden to show the deliberative-process privilege applied," wrote Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, who was joined by Judges Judith Rogers and David Tatel. 
  • "In particular, the court held that the Department had not identified a relevant agency decision as to which the memorandum formed part of the deliberations. The Department's submissions, the court explained, indicated that the memorandum conveyed advice about whether to charge the President with a crime. But the court's in camera review of the memorandum revealed that the Department in fact never considered bringing a charge
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8064

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Explain to me why this matters now, here in 2022?

Exactly.  They got away with Russian Collusion, Ukrainian Extortion and so far an attempted Coup.  Are they going to bring charges against Barr?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24563

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Exactly.  They got away with Russian Collusion, Ukrainian Extortion and so far an attempted Coup.  Are they going to bring charges against Barr?

 

And you can apparently add garden variety Nixonian spying on your rivals.  Though no breaking and entering (yet).

Edited by troph
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Explain to me why this matters now, here in 2022?

It should always matter when the AG publicly and willfully lies to the American people about his having seriously considered filing criminal charges against criminal POTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45499

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Satchel said:

It should always matter when the AG publicly and willfully lies to the American people about his having seriously considered filing criminal charges against criminal POTUS.

Should matter.  Doesn't.  Sorry to say, we need to start operating in a Post-Truth World, the same way we need to start operating in a Post-Climate-Change World.  I'm not kidding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Wingers hung their hats about Russian collusion on the lie Barr told about the Mueller report. The reason he fought the release of the memo used to justify his lie, was because it was a spin document crafted to help him mislead the American people about Trump’s documented obstruction. 
I don’t think we’ve heard the last regarding this revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29794

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Explain to me why this matters now, here in 2022?

It's not newsworthy? The court should have stopped the process? News outlets should not publish a story unless they are certain some material action will occur as a result?

The truth is worthwhile on its own merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27466

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

Why didn’t Mueller stand up and call bullshit. I thought he was some stand up guy and yet again it turns out he is just an enabler of traitors.

Mueller is a bureaucrat's bureaucrat. Going over the head of the AG is a big no no in the rulebook, so therefore he won't do it. He did do the smallest possible thing in sending a letter and putting his objection on paper and on the record, but frankly its surprising he even did that publicly. 

One of the major weaknesses our system is that the laws are written expecting people to be operating in good faith. Trumpists exploited this to take public processes with the veneer of authenticity and twist them to their benefit in the overall discussion. Barr's move was undoubtedly going to get overruled later, but it would be too late to matter as we can see. The message has been woven into the GQP dogma and is now beyond reproach. No need to waste further brain hurty thinky think time on it

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17734

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Explain to me why this matters now, here in 2022?

Years from now, as we sit around the smoldering ruins eating our hat leaves, we can fondly reminisce over the time that Barr memo technically showed Mueller was right.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Foosters said:

Years from now, as we sit around the smoldering ruins eating our hat leaves, we can fondly reminisce over the time that Barr memo technically showed Mueller was right.

And that there was a basis for the Russia collusion claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28713

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

There wasn't just a basis, we have direct evidence!  The fucking meeting with Don Jr!  It's maddening.

There’s not a chance in hell that Don Sr. didn’t know about and approve that meeting ahead of time. None. I can’t prove it but I know it’s true. He was already promising new revelations about Hillary that would come from it during the days leading up to the meeting. Nothing happens in the Trump org without Trump knowing about it. Nothing big, anyway, and that was about as big as it gets. If Trump didn’t know about it ahead of time then we would’ve heard about his major meltdown when he learned that Don Jr., Manafort, and Kushner met with representatives of the fucking Russian government without his knowledge. He would’ve gone ballistic  instead he concocted a lie on Air Force One in an attempt to cover for Don Jr.

Trump successfully obstructed justice by lying (in writing) about his lack of knowledge about the meeting. I’d have to go back and check my notes but I want to say that Mueller even commented in his report that if Trump knew about the meeting then that would have constituted cooperation, what we would colloquially refer to as collusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted

That's a pretty rational memo.  It is certainly clouded in some respects by the partisanship of the deal, but it's not ludicrous by any stretch.

And, a reminder that Mueller refused to conclude on the issues because a) the president would not be indicted and b) it is fundamentally unfair to make allegations/conclusions about the commission of a crime without indicting someone and giving them the opportunity to vindicate themselves.  Take Trump out of the equation, and that is completely reasonable.  Unimpeachably so, actually.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...