Saturday, August 3, 2019

Bill Barr Deserves A Medal

I can't embed this video of Joe diGenova and Alan Dershowitz speaking with Laura Ingraham, so I'll link it: Joe diGenova: Comey Right In The Middle Of "Grand Conspiracy" That John Durham Is Investigating. IMO, it's a very important video to watch--the whole thing--and absorb. 

JOE DIGENOVA: Accountability is what matters now after the disgrace that we've had where it is very obvious the DOJ and FBI under Obama -- Sally Yates, James Comey, Andy McCabe, all of these people tried to basically frame Donald Trump, to defrock him, to remove him from office, to prevent him from taking office. 
What we need now is accountability through disclosure, accountability, transparency, public reports, the Horowitz report, if there are serious crimes like let's say a group of people got together and said even though we know Carter Page is innocent, we are going to lie to the FISA court so we can listen in and see if we can get stuff on the Trump people. If that happened, I'm for prosecuting that... 
This is a big mistake for the Democrats to move toward impeachment. If they do that, they're going to lose the House but that's a political judgment. What I care about is the law. What we need to do is recalibrate the prosecution function.
What Bill Barr is doing is brilliant. This is a great man. This is a Robert Jackson back in the Justice Department. He says you know what, you have all the power in the world, you don't have to act like a thug, act like a professional.

Dershowitz and Ingraham also make important points. Among them is that much of the fault for the legal morass we find ourselves in--and I mean the morass that the legal profession finds itself in--is the fault of the judiciary. It's the judiciary that has failed to enforce ethical standards. I would also argue that it is the fault of the judiciary for adopting legal philosophies that contravene our common law tradition that has led to this.


  1. "Bill Barr Deserves A Medal"

    Do you mean, Mark, like the medal Obama got in 2009 'for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples'? Before he had accomplished anything?

    Apologies for the snark, but let's hold off on the award ceremonies until we see what Barr is able to deliver.

    Saying this does not in any way diminish my admiration for what Barr has done so far or my support for what we hope he will be able to accomplish.

    Let's be prudent.

    1. Cassander, the snark is misplaced, as is the assertin that Barr has accomplished nothing as of yet.

      What Barr has accomplished in his short tenure at DoJ (on this go round) is to set an example that can be pointed to in coming years. It's the example of how a real AG devoted to the rule of law behaves. It's also the example of a man with the courage of his convictions and that devotion to the rule of law, who is willing to take the responsibilities of office on his shoulders rather than push them off on someone else. To make the politically tough decisions that are right. What he's also doing--and this is in conjunction with the cooperative work of Mitch McConnell and Trump on judicial appointments--is to lay the groundwork at DoJ for future initiatives to regain control of our legal institutions.

      That is no small thing.

      I, of course, reserve the right to change my mind and take my words back. But I don't expect I will.

    2. Mark, no disagreement overall regarding Barr's performance to date.

      In fact, I'd like to back track a little and start over after having listened more carefully to the Joe diGenova clip.

      What di Genova specifically said is that Barr deserves a medal for exercising prudential prosecutorial restraint in not charging Comey with a crime for leaking classified information (which Comey has essentially publically admitted). This is a tough call. Many agree with you and diGenova that a prosecution on the apparent facts would be problematic. Dershowitz agreed. Many (including Tucker Carlson and Dan Bongino) don't. I see both sides and I'm willing to let the facts unfold and see where we end up. Does Mr Barr deserve a (lower case 'm') medal for this? Perhaps.

      I'll stick to my original point about upper case M medals however. While Barr's actions to date are perhaps 'no small thing', especially in contrast to the actions of leadership of the DoJ before Barr arrived, let's see how this investigation of the investigators turns out before bestowing accolades.

      (By the way, I want to gently object to references by some (di Genova, for example) to Attorney General Barr as "Bill" in the same way I objected to calling Special Counsel Mueller "Bob". When using the familiar nickname it gives the appearance of presupposing that the guy is our buddy and therefore on 'our' side. Schifty did this all the time with Mueller and look how that turned out.)

      No harm in admiring Barr and rooting for justice and accountability, but let's keep our distance, remain objective, reserve judgment and be prudent.

    3. The idea we shouldn't cheerlead for Barr because we're not cheerleaders explains how we've allowed our country to be transformed by Democrats.
      Chearleading for the Constitution and American ideals, and the people who defend them, is nothing to be ashamed of. We haven't done it, haven't insisted it be done in schools, and look what we've allowed our country to be transformed into.
      We've meekly submitted to Democrat hate of America.
      Trumps rallies are the only visible evidence that American pride isn't dead.

      P.S. I'm taking some Chinese-American friends to the Reagan Library today.

    4. I prefer to rush out onto the limb. :-) And I assure you, if Barr does something I disagree with, I'll still refer to him as 'Bill'.

      My next post will offer more reasons for admiration--and for medals.

    5. dfp21, see below my comment to Joe that Barr is using his office to educate the public. I think that plays into what you just wrote. As I say to Joe, it's sad that we should have to cheerlead for someone fulfilling the basic functions of his office, but that's where we've come to.

  2. I agree with you, Mr. Wauck. Despite my rhetoric when I am upset, Mr. Barr is doing the right thing. He is modelling the principles that he believes in; the same principles that I believe in.

    Yes, I am disappointed that Comey will escape prosecution for this. But if we become a country where all future AGs err on the side of charging, we are no longer a constitutional republic. Because that says that we believe in "guilty until proven innocent."

    Look, everyone with a brain who looks at this case knows the truth. The truth is that Comey, Obama, Weissmann, et al are liars, they will do what is necessary to "win." The media know it. The Dems knows it. That is why they are so angry. It's just like the Scribes and Pharisees were angry. They were confronted with the Messiah, they knew who He was, and they were in opposition to the truth. It's the same thing here.

    I have said numerous times on this forum that I believe that some of these miscreants have a conscience. I bleive Comey is one of them. He knows that he is a weasel and it bothers him. I wouldn't say that about Brennan or Weissmann.

    In the absence of prosecution, all patriotic Americans need to speak the truth boldly: Trump did nothing wrong. It's his opposition who did. We stand for the truth, whether we like the outcome, or not.

  3. Your quote is "I would also argue that it is the fault of the judiciary for adopting legal philosophies that contravene our common law tradition that has led to this."

    I agree with you. But there are still some judges, even ones appointed by Dems, who aren't going for this. Plus, Donald is putting more honest ones on the bench.

    If he gets a second terms and holds the Senate, he will do even more to appoint faithful judges.

  4. "Mr. Barr is doing the right thing. He is modelling the principles that he believes in"

    Doing so openly is huge. It's sad to say that, but it's true that this is where we are as a society. He's using his position to educate the public.

  5. This is off-topic but still fits the theme here. I'm reading about Eddie Gallagher, who was cleared of charges in a court martial. He says the Navy is trying to strip him of his rank, pension, ability to apply for disability in the future, etc.

    What part of "not guilty" do these people not get? Just as in the civilian world, who are these senior and mid-level officers who think that they don't have to comply with military trial decisions?

    To say nothing of thumbing their nose at the Commander-in-Chief who has publicly supported this man.

    The height of arrogance and presumption.

    1. You need to make some distinctions. I'm not up on the case, but "not guilty" of the charges doesn't necessarily mean that there were no infractions of military regs. The same as in the video of diGenova and Dershowitz. Just because DoJ is, at this point, intending to decline prosecution doesn't mean that Comey wasn't rightly fired for the mishandling issues alone (let alone other matters).

    2. I'll add this: too often nowadays--and this is a major part of our problem as a society--the only standard of conduct is considered to be the criminal law.

  6. Those are good points you make. I'm not a veteran and there are some aspects of the UCMJ that I don't know. However, I'd argue that discretion is selectively applied in the services. Gallagher was convicted of being photographed with a corpse. Others convicted have not had the same punishments applied.

    There was also prosecutorial abuse alleged and the President weighed in and gave orders that weren't followed.

    So, Gallagher is not totally "innocent" but that doesn't mean that the Navy is not retaliating.

    I read that The President gave some orders in this case that were not followed.

  7. Not arguing for or against any aspect of the Gallagher situation other than this: military law and civilian law are apples and oranges. An example is what has been discussed often on this site. If Brennan, Comey, were subject to the UCMJ they would clearly be chargeable under Art. 92, Mutiny and Sedition. Since, in the civilian world, "good order and discipline" isn't even a legal concept, much less a real thing, Barr and Co. are reduced to searching for a definable crime in the weeds between Civil Rights law and Business law. Also part of the difference may be in Gallagher's rank, Senior Chief (e-8) I believe. In the Navy culpibility/responsibility under goes a sea change between PO1 and CPO (e-6 and e-7) expectations of leadership are several orders of magnitude higher and charges ect. rise accordingly. As to Trump's orders not being obeyed I don't know specifically to what you refer but the UCMJ is a matter of U.S. military law and some aspects of it even the C-in-C cannot contravene or influence.

    1. Sorry, writing hurriedly on my phone so must now make corrections. Mutiny and Sedition is Art. 94 not 92. The 3rd sentence should say legal theory not legal concept. The last sentence should say U.S. Code not U.S. military law.
      Again I apologize for my haste.
      Tom S.