William Barr, hypocrite at law

[someoneyouknow]

''What I don't understand about the modern psyche is that nobody cares about the truth,'' Barr said in the September 1998 interview with Investor's Business Daily that was dated just days after the public release of the Starr report, which detailed President Bill Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and outlined a case for impeachment. "The whole system should be geared to getting the truth. But it has been geared to stonewalling and spinning what people think.''
. . .
''We were also disturbed that the incumbent attorney general wasn't coming to (Starr's) defense. There has been only silence,'' Barr said, concluding Starr should be allowed to finish his work free from White House attacks.

''Starr should be given the chance to get the facts out. We live in a world of spin control and ad hominem attacks,'' he said. ''And we're seeing a lot of hatchet jobs.''

Thus spoke William Barr when Ken Starr was investigating the devious, diabolical, and indefensible crime by a sitting president of lying about getting a blowjob.

Fast forward to the past year where we were treated to daily volleys of vitriol directed at the Russia investigation and Barr standing on the sideline with his mouth welded shut. Not only did Barr not offer the same defense to Robert Mueller's investigation as he did to Starr's, when it came time to release a statement on the final report, he apparently couldn't remember what the truth was and in fact went out of his way to spin his report in defense of the criminally fake president.

Barr stated there was no evidence of collusion between the con artist, his minions, or those on his staff, when in fact the Mueller report stated:

"The investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and ... the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."​

Barr made no mention of that finding by prosecutors in his initial summary of the report, in a subsequent letter to Congress, during several days of testimony before Congress, or at his Thursday morning news conference.

Barr also said there was no obstruction of justice by the con artist. However, similar to above, the report stated:

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
. . .
"Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment," the report said. "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."​

It's amazing what 20 years can do to the notion of truth and spin.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/politics/william-barr-1998-letter-ken-starr/index.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-report-shows-how-barr-selectively-quoted-it-2019-4

https://www.businessinsider.com/redacted-mueller-report-released-trump-russia-investigation-2019-4

 

[someoneyouknow]

https://66.media.tumblr.com/b829d4d1687cd2b3ea6040fee222942a/tumblr_pqjrhtZCqc1qzsrli_500.jpg

 

[icanhelp1]

''What I don't understand about the modern psyche is that nobody cares about the truth,'' Barr said in the September 1998 interview with Investor's Business Daily that was dated just days after the public release of the Starr report, which detailed President Bill Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and outlined a case for impeachment. "The whole system should be geared to getting the truth. But it has been geared to stonewalling and spinning what people think.''
. . .
''We were also disturbed that the incumbent attorney general wasn't coming to (Starr's) defense. There has been only silence,'' Barr said, concluding Starr should be allowed to finish his work free from White House attacks.

''Starr should be given the chance to get the facts out. We live in a world of spin control and ad hominem attacks,'' he said. ''And we're seeing a lot of hatchet jobs.''

Thus spoke William Barr when Ken Starr was investigating the devious, diabolical, and indefensible crime by a sitting president of lying about getting a blowjob.

Fast forward to the past year where we were treated to daily volleys of vitriol directed at the Russia investigation and Barr standing on the sideline with his mouth welded shut. Not only did Barr not offer the same defense to Robert Mueller's investigation as he did to Starr's, when it came time to release a statement on the final report, he apparently couldn't remember what the truth was and in fact went out of his way to spin his report in defense of the criminally fake president.

Barr stated there was no evidence of collusion between the con artist, his minions, or those on his staff, when in fact the Mueller report stated:

"The investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and ... the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."​

Barr made no mention of that finding by prosecutors in his initial summary of the report, in a subsequent letter to Congress, during several days of testimony before Congress, or at his Thursday morning news conference.

Barr also said there was no obstruction of justice by the con artist. However, similar to above, the report stated:

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
. . .
"Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment," the report said. "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."​

It's amazing what 20 years can do to the notion of truth and spin.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/politics/william-barr-1998-letter-ken-starr/index.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-report-shows-how-barr-selectively-quoted-it-2019-4

https://www.businessinsider.com/redacted-mueller-report-released-trump-russia-investigation-2019-4

The Starr report was an independent counsel that reported to the house of representatives whereas the Mueller report, special counsel came under the responsibility of the DOJ.

 

[someoneyouknow]

The Starr report was an independent counsel that reported to the house of representatives whereas the Mueller report, special counsel came under the responsibility of the DOJ.

Is that the excuse we're using today?

 

[icanhelp1]

Is that the excuse we're using today?

I gave you a factual statement, two investigations with totally different protocols. The mueller report, by law, was an investigation started by the DOJ, directed by the DOJ and could of ended where it started, at the DOJ. The DOJ is an arm of the executive branch not the house of representatives. The house has oversight responsibilities over the executive branch of government but the president has executive privilege over the report if he wanted. He didn't, he put it out there for the sake of transparency. Could have forced the house to petition the court for release. In my humble opinion.

 

[phrodeau]

I gave you a factual statement, two investigations with totally different protocols. The mueller report, by law, was an investigation started by the DOJ, directed by the DOJ and could of ended where it started, at the DOJ. The DOJ is an arm of the executive branch not the house of representatives. The house has oversight responsibilities over the administrative branch of government but the president has executive privilege over the report if he wanted. He didn't, he put it out there for the sake of transparency. Could have forced the house to petition the court for release. In my humble opinion.

I guess you don’t recall the time when Barr sat on the Mueller report, with no assurance given that he would release it. That was three or four weeks ago, I think.

 

[icanhelp1]

I guess you don’t recall the time when Barr sat on the Mueller report, with no assurance given that he would release it. That was three or four weeks ago, I think.

That never happened.

 

[Publius1990]

That never happened.

Correct. Barr assured Congress he would release everything he could legally release. And he did. The fact that Volume 1 found no collusion (an undefined concept not recognized in the U.S. Code) and in Volume 2 failed to find evidence of obstruction and punted to Barr is not Barr’s problem.

 

[KeithD]

Correct. Barr assured Congress he would release everything he could legally release. And he did. The fact that Volume 1 found no collusion (an undefined concept not recognized in the U.S. Code) and in Volume 2 failed to find evidence of obstruction and punted to Barr is not Barr’s problem.

What compels you Trumpettes to blatantly and outrageously lie about simply everything? The Mueller report doesn't include the word "collusion" in it at all. The report's conclusion on Russian interference in Trump's favor was that it did exist and that Trump's campaign welcomed it if it didn't coordinate directly with the Russians--through its own ineptness (which I think is false--Trump very publicly coordinated with the Russians in hacking and publicizing Clinton's e-mails five hours after he asked them to, Donald jr. went as far as identifying a good time for Russian dirt on Hillary to be used publicly, and Manafort produced information on where the Russians could best do their dirty work). On obstruction, Mueller provided ten instances of Trump's criminal obstruction but, after telling Congress how to use the report's information, has left Congress to act, having accepted DOJ judgment that he couldn't act directly against the president. The Southern District of New York has already officially fingered Trump and you can bet your bippy he's the target of indictments being held until he's no longer in office.

 

[Rightguide]

The pathetic ignorance runs deep in this thread. There are a few here who are way beyond intellectual redemption.

 

[icanhelp1]

What compels you Trumpettes to blatantly and outrageously lie about simply everything? The Mueller report doesn't include the word "collusion" in it at all. The report's conclusion on Russian interference in Trump's favor was that it did exist and that Trump's campaign welcomed it if it didn't coordinate directly with the Russians--through its own ineptness (which I think is false--Trump very publicly coordinated with the Russians in hacking and publicizing Clinton's e-mails five hours after he asked them to, Donald jr. went as far as identifying a good time for Russian dirt on Hillary to be used publicly, and Manafort produced information on where the Russians could best do their dirty work). On obstruction, Mueller provided ten instances of Trump's criminal obstruction but, after telling Congress how to use the report's information, has left Congress to act, having accepted DOJ judgment that he couldn't act directly against the president. The Southern District of New York has already officially fingered Trump and you can bet your bippy he's the target of indictments being held until he's no longer in office.

The report is based on the Mueller's team findings and not on your opinion. Although it was a fact finding mission it was considered a criminal investigation that indicted 26 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for interfering with our election process.

The other indictment ( Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Papadopoulos, Gates, Pinedo and foreign actors ) were handed over to the DOJ ( SDNY ) ( ED/V ) FOR PROSECUTION HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY INVESTIGATION.

The DNC was urged by the FBI to harden their servers and to allow FBI specialist to inspect the server to which they refused.

What the Russian intent was has nothing to do legally with the Trump campaign. The RNC and DNC where both targets of Russian hacking attempts. To try to criminalize Trump's comment in a public forum prodding the Russians to find Hilary's 30,000 emails is a stretch. It was said in jest and to arrive at any other conclusion raises suspicions of your ability for rational thought.

Trump Jr. exuberrance over Russian dirt on Hillary is insignificant when compared to the Obama admin. Failure of the Obama FBI not to warn the Trump campaign of impending Russian intrusion is very suspect. Hillary's use of an unsecured server when secretary of state and Obama stating he was unaware or his claims no harm was done 'is suspect'( 18 USC 1924 ). Based on Lisa Page's testimony, Lisa Page's email correspondence with Strzok seem to indicate that the Obama admin was complicit. Also discovered in their correspondence was the fact that no conspiracy was evident and the formation of a special counsel was baseless. Misleading the FISA court ( section 702 FISA ) with the how, what, where, who and when along with the collusion with foreign governments is suspect. Probable cause for a FISA warrant will be investigated and possibly litigated. Brennan, Clapper and Comey leaks to the media to justify a FISA warrant all suspect ( ECHO CHAMBER ).

Since you hang your hat on obstruction of justice, Mueller's failure to indict or not indict was a dereliction of his duties. In my humble opinion this failure will weigh heavy in court. In a criminal investigation the legal protocol is; if no indictment can be reached the allegations of criminal behavior are dropped. This failure to reach a conclusion is providing a feeding frenzy for the house democrats and their hopes for impeachment. Being a DOJ investigation, Trump could have exercised executive privilege over the whole thing, could also have fired Mueller. He left the whole thing out there including private conversations within his immediate circle. What president would ever share private conversations with the outside world. Things are said but never acted on. The 11 articles of obstruction may fuel impeachment proceedings which will destroy 2020 for the democrats. Criminal prosecution in my humble opinion is pie in the sky. I think any defense council could convince the courts that the obstruction of justice charges would be inadmissible due to lack of standing and lacked appropriate foundation for cause, the evidence of the original conspiracy was not found and the formation of a special council did not have a legal basis for existence. Manafort and others were prosecuted for other findings having nothing to do with conspiracy.

KeathD your wish for further investigations will soon become a reality. The deliberate glossing over the FBI's investigation on the use of an unsecured server
( 18 USC 1924 ) and the inappropriate use of FISA ( 702 FISA ) to unseat a duly elected president should concern us all, even Trump haters. It is a known fact that hillary's server was hacked and that classified and up to secret material has landed in the wrong hands. Hillary held office in the senate, 8 years in the white house as first lady and the 4 years as secretary of state and held clearances in all three and was fully briefed in each office on security protocol. For Commey to feed us the line that she and her aides were "extremely careless" and no prosecutor could criminally charge her is laughable.

 

[phrodeau]

That never happened.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-report-release-what-happens-now-2019-03-22/

 

[Rightguide]

I guess you don’t recall the time when Barr sat on the Mueller report, with no assurance given that he would release it. That was three or four weeks ago, I think.

Even if that did happen the applicable law does not require the AG to even release a report at all. He has total discretion. He testified under oath he would release as much as the law allowed.

 

[icanhelp1]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-report-release-what-happens-now-2019-03-22/

What's your point?

 

[JackLuis]

Ex-acting Attorney General Sally Yates drops bomb on Bill Barr over his handling of Trump report

“I have been a prosecutor for nearly 30 years, and I can tell you that I’ve personally prosecuted obstruction cases on far, far less evidence than this,” Yates told the host. “And yes, I believe if he were not the president of the United States, he would likely be indicted on obstruction.”

According to the former acting AG, Mueller provided evidence that Trump obstructed justice, telling Mitchell that the specical counsel “Did a very fair job in going through all 10 instances and laying out both the facts that established that he had committed the crime of obstruction, but also the defenses: both legal and factual.”

“But there are several incidents that he described to which special counsel Mueller really couldn’t point to any significant factual or legal defenses,” Yates conceded.

“The bigger issues is not just whether or not this establishes a crime,” she suggested. “But is this the kind of conduct that we should expect from the president of the United States?”