Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, July 08, 2019

Barr said he has been in regular contact with Trump over the issue. "I agree with him that the Supreme Court decision was wrong," said Barr.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Here, let me Fix that mean ol' liberal SC for you, Trumpy! - Barr None

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2019-07-08 09:11 PM | Reply

"Polish your shoes while I'm down there, Mr President" - AG Barr

#2 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-07-08 09:23 PM | Reply

Every Dictator incapable of rational thought needs an assistant to make insanity palatable to someone.

#3 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-07-08 09:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I might just have to write in that I'm a citizen of Noneya and I'm here on Business

#4 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-07-08 09:33 PM | Reply

I think AG Barr is doing some gaslighting in South Carolina. (coincidence???)

Barr didn't say the DOJ HAD found a work-around the Supreme Court's opinion . Only that he had an "expectation" which doesn't mean didly-squat coming from Barr.

So far, all of Barr's attempts to torture the Constitution to suit Trump's mangled brain-farts have flatlined.

#5 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-07-08 09:45 PM | Reply

I might just have to write in that I'm a citizen of Noneya and I'm here on Business

#4 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR AT 2019-07-08 09:33 PM | FLAG:

I'm going to say I'm a citizen of upinya.

#6 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-07-08 09:47 PM | Reply

Let Barr and Trump figure this thing out in a prison cell together.

#7 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-07-08 10:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Does anybody still doubt that Barr is Trump's lapdog?

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-09 12:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Does anybody still doubt that Barr is Trump's lapdog?

#8 | POSTED BY JPW

He might be.

Is he also Trump's wingman?

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-09 12:39 AM | Reply

"I might just have to write in that I'm a citizen of Noneya and I'm here on Business

Shouldn't that be Narnia?

#10 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-07-09 12:53 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

He might be.

Is he also Trump's wingman?

#9 | Posted by JeffJ

Yawn.

Don't worry. I don't expect you to say it or extend the conclusion to Barr's statements on the Mueller report.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-09 01:12 AM | Reply

Yawn.

Don't worry. I don't expect you to say it or extend the conclusion to Barr's statements on the Mueller report.

#11 | POSTED BY JPW

Barr has put Mueller on record on multiple occasions and when specifically challenged Mueller has demurred.

They are reputed to be 30+ year long friends. Professional courtesy? Very possible? Personal deference? Also very possible.

Mueller is scheduled to testify - let the chips fall where they may when he does.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-09 01:24 AM | Reply

JEFF

"Barr has put Mueller on record on multiple occasions and when specifically challenged Mueller has demurred"

What "multiple occasions?"

We've only heard Mueller speak twice on the subject and neither time was a demurral.

The first time was a definite slap in the face over Barr's so-called "summary."

The second time was to say he didn't want to testify but if he had to, he would repeat what was in his report.

#13 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-07-09 02:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

We've only heard Mueller speak twice on the subject and neither time was a demurral.

The first time was a definite slap in the face over Barr's so-called "summary."

The first time was that letter. After it was received Barr, with others present, put Mueller on speaker phone and drilled him down regarding his contentions. Mueller backed off.

The second time was to say he didn't want to testify but if he had to, he would repeat what was in his report.

#13 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

Which doesn't contradict what I said.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-09 09:38 AM | Reply

italics off.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-09 09:39 AM | Reply

I don't expect you to say it or extend the conclusion to Barr's statements on the Mueller report.

#11 | POSTED BY JPW

Mueller refused to draw a conclusion regarding obstruction, which is asinine, when you really think about it.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-09 09:42 AM | Reply


... "I agree with him that the Supreme Court decision was wrong," said Barr ...

Why doesn't this statement surprise me?

#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-07-09 11:11 AM | Reply


@#16 ... which is asinine, when you really think about it. ...

I read the report, and I really did think about it.

I agree with Mr Mueller's reasons for not drawing the conclusion on obstruction. Mr Mueller explains his reasoning regarding concerns about fairness quite clearly.

If he had drawn the conclusion on obstruction, then Pres Trump would not have the legal means to defend himself because he would not be indicted.

Lemme see if I can find the exact wording...

From page 2 of Vol. II:

... Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S . Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5...


#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-07-09 11:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought

That completely contradicts what a prosecutor is supposed to do. That completely contradicts what he was tasked to do as Special Counsel.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-09 11:40 AM | Reply


@#19 ... That completely contradicts what a prosecutor is supposed to do. ...

Mr Mueller was following DoJ procedures. If you don't like it, then take it up with the DoJ, but you might want to wait until AG Barr is gone so you can get a real answer.


... That completely contradicts what he was tasked to do as Special Counsel. ...

His appointment document has the following text:

...If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.....

There does not appear to me to be a complete contradiction. Sounds like the appointment document left it up to Mr Mueller's discretion, i.e., the "appropriate" aspect. Mr Mueller explained why he thought it was not appropriate.


#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-07-09 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From page 1 of Vol. II:

And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2

And footnotes #2 and #4 reads:

2 See U.S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship
between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).

4 OLC Op. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not
preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by
resignation or impeachment").

Which undermines the claim by many Republicans that Mueller never suggested that Congress needs to take this up where he and his team left off.

OCU

#21 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-07-09 05:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18 | Posted by LampLighter
#20 | Posted by LampLighter

I admire your persistence but it's a lost cause.

They see what they want to see and facts won't make a dent in that.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2019-07-09 05:41 PM | Reply

Every Attorney working on this case has withdrawn from the case.

#23 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-07-09 08:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm not sure that they've "withdrawn", but Barr is certainly trying to REPLACE them.

OCU

#24 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-07-09 09:42 PM | Reply

That Barr has now said that as AG he will be involved in the Epstein case tells us all everything we need to know about Barr and Trump....a child molester sits in the WH today. Think about that. And Pelosi won't open impeachment hearings? Sorry Nancy, time to do your job.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2019-07-10 08:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Mr Mueller was following DoJ procedures. If you don't like it, then take it up with the DoJ, but you might want to wait until AG Barr is gone so you can get a real answer."

Mueller's first allegiance should not be to the DOJ, it should be to the Constitution and the people of the United States. He is being negligent. I have lost respect for that coward.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2019-07-10 08:31 AM | Reply

Is he also Trump's wingman?

#9 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-07-09 12:39 AM | FLAG:

That used to be Epstein, Donald's neighbor. In fact, Epstein is proud to have introduced Donald and Melania.

#27 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-07-10 12:33 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort