MULTIPLE UPDATES: Bill Barr Is Dead To Me

I've been a loyal defender, but I can't abide this:

AG Barr to AP: DOJ Has No Evidence of Fraud That Would Change Election Outcome

I've seen plenty enough evidence of fraud sufficient to change the election outcome. I don't care that he qualifies his statement with a "so far."

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the AP.

...

Barr didn't name Powell specifically but said: "There's been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that,” Barr said.

He said people were confusing the use of the federal criminal justice system with allegations that should be made in civil lawsuits. He said such a remedy for those complaints would be a top-down audit conducted by state or local officials, not the U.S. Justice Department.

“There’s a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all, and people don’t like something they want the Department of Justice to come in and ‘investigate,’” Barr said.

He said first of all there must be a basis to believe there is a crime to investigate.

“Most claims of fraud are very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. They are not systemic allegations and. And those have been run down; they are being run down,” Barr said. “Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes. They have been followed up on."

ADDENDUM: Just to be clear, my judgment won't change no matter what happens with Durham and the Russia Hoax. I don't apologize for being pro-Barr and defending him--he has in many ways been an exemplary AG. But this statement runs against against clear evidence and is unjustifiable.

UPDATE 1: BREAKING: The Durham Probe is Now a Special Counsel Investigation.

Whatever. As I said, this won't change my judgment.

UPDATE 2: For the first time in weeks--maybe months--the lead story on my wife's News Radio station was NOT Covid.

Again, I want to be clear. I understand--as I say in the comments--that in many cases of election hanky panky DoJ may not have jurisdiction. I'm thinking here especially of the many very questionable decisions made by state and local courts and government officials. Nevertheless, these decisions were highly questionable--both legally and because they tended to strongly encourage fraudulent voting-- and they were unquestionably partisan. To make blanket statements about no evidence of fraud that would change the outcome--I paraphrase but, I think, fairly--was reckless and unfair in the circumstances. Statements like that are bound to be misunderstood by non-lawyers, even with Barr's "so far" caveat. Statements like that are bound to be used and misused by a collusive media. It was very badly done.

Would The Biden/Ukraine Laptop Info Have Been Exculpatory At Impeachment?

Over the last few days I've seen a large amount of criticism directed at AG Barr for not revealing some of the Biden/Ukraine scandal that we've seen was on the Hunter Biden laptop--information that we have to presume Barr knew about at the time of Trump's fake impeachment. The constant theme of the criticism is that the evidence on the laptop would have been "exculpatory" for Trump. But would that information really have been exculpatory?

The short answer--and there is a longer answer--is probably: No. At least not in a strictly legal sense. You can see the reasoning for this response in a twitter exchange from this morning:

@JCBarca11

@JCBarca11

Replying to

@shipwreckedcrew

Ok, while Joe Biden was not in office at the time (May 2017), it certainly calls into question the ethics of the Biden family & also validates

@realDonaldTrump

's concern re: Hunter in Ukraine. Ship, would this have been considered "exculpatory evidence" in the impeachment trial?

6:29 AM · Oct 22, 2020·

shipwreckedcrew

@shipwreckedcrew

No. The issue wasn't whether Trump was justified in his request to the Ukraine Pres, the issue was whether Trump improperly linked US gov't action - already approved by Cong - to something he wanted Ukraine to do. It was always a BS charge, but it was all the Dems had.

7:04 AM · Oct 22, 2020·

On the other hand ...

Uh Oh! Is This Why Andrew Weissmann Is Freaking?

I can't recommend highly enough that you read Shipwreckedcrew's latest:

New FBI Document Released by Senate Judiciary Comm Shows FBI — AND Mueller — Deliberately Misled Senate About Steele Memos

Two points, however.

1) Unfortunately, Shipwreckedcrew screws up big time in his crucial timeline--thus missing an important point: Andrew Weissmann. And this also means he misses something about AG Bill Barr.

2) For a bit of perspective and corrective, please read CTH's two posts today re the Senate and especially re Lindsey Graham, who released this document today. You have to ask yourself:

If this document had been released a bit earlier, what would have become of Team Mueller and the Fake Impeachment?

Is it just possible that a lot of what's playing out in DC is not only about the Dems going after Trump but also about the GOPe trying to control Trump? If so--and I think it is--the Impeachment Theater was probably in large part about that GOPe effort. And this also shows how important an ally Bill Barr is for Trump. As I've stressed: Bill Barr is all about protecting the Executive. Period. He will work with Lindsey Graham and others, but he will not compromise on principle, and Executive powers are his principle. We all know that. Everyone in DC knows that.

So, what's up with this new document? Here's how CTH describes it:

UPDATED: Mueller To Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee

It could be interesting. Of course there'll be plenty of grandstanding--but grandstanding at the expense of "Bob" Mueller works for me. And Graham, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley are capable of scoring points. Graham:

Apparently Mr. Mueller is willing – and also capable – of defending the Mueller investigation through an oped in the Washington Post. 

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have previously requested Mr. Mueller appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation.  

That request will be granted.

Mueller is peddling the tired "Russia hacking" narrative, and a confrontation over that is long overdue. I've long assumed that Graham coordinates most Russia Hoax matters with AG Barr. Let's see how this plays out while we wait for indictments. Hey--maybe that's what's going on!

UPDATE: It may have seemed initially to Dems that having Mueller write an Op-Ed re the Roger Stone commutation was a good idea, but now they're frantically signalling that they don't want Mueller to testify. They probably fear a much more focused interview of Mueller that concentrates on the claims of Russian hacking.

Great! Looks Like Trump Is Starting To Act On Good Advice

Reality is complicated and it's usually not a good idea to simply react without considering. However, we've had several days of attempted anarchy and people are anxious for ... leadership. I posted the handy reference to insurrection so everyone would know what the legal framework is. However, short of invoking the Insurrection Act, the president can do things. Things that Trump is good at. Like, providing principled leadership, articulating what the response of local government should be--because, in our federal system, that's how it has to work. Short of a total breakdown, and we're far from that.

So I was thinking of a new post along the lines of how Trump should deal with this. My thoughts were that:

1. He should offer all the help to the locals that is at his disposal, but

2. At the same time he should demand that they fulfill their own obligations--local government has the resources to deal with this, but too many have abdicated the streets to the anarchists;

3. Before they ask him for help they need to show they're doing their part or are willing to turn over total authority.

In other words, none of the BS we've seen with the Covid crisis--Blue state governors trashing the president and trying to shift blame for their own mistakes and their own irresponsible actions, while offering nothing constructive.

If you want federal help, here are the terms. Here are the conditions to fulfill, and if you fulfill them but still can't regain control, then you have to tell the president that you can no longer handle the situation and ask for his help as set out in the law.

Just before I started typing I was greatly heartened to see that Trump had a conference call with the governors this morning and he got exactly that process in motion. TGP provides some tweeted accounts of the president's words. Good for Trump. He paused, got advice, thought it through, and now he's acting--in this context, words are action, too. It's encouraging to see CBS News appearing to play this pretty straight:

CBS reporter Ed O’Keefe reported on the leaked recording:

“JUST IN: President Trump unloads on the nation’s governors on a call, calls on them to step up enforcement: “You have to dominate, if you don’t dominate you’re wasting your time. They’re going to run over you, you’re going to look like a bunch of jerks. You have to dominate.”

“MORE: Trump tells governors later: “You’re making a mistake because you’re making yourselves look like fools. And some have done a great job. But a lot of you, it’s not – it’s not a great day for our country.”

“TRUMP ADDS: “You know when other countries watch this, they’re watching this, the next day wow, they’re really a push over. And we can’t be a push over. And we have all the resources – it’s not like we don’t have the resources. So, I don’t know what you’re doing.”

Of course the Fake News media will try to distort his words. Americans of good will will understand.  

And in the meantime you can bet that Bill Barr is pushing everyone under his authority to develop action plans for dealing forcefully with Antifa.

Things Barr Can Do

Earlier I was asked what kinds of things AG Barr can do to help Trump at this juncture. Things like this--call Comey out as a liar. Does this sound like a guy who's gonna just let things slide? I don't think so. I expect more of this kind of frank talk from Barr, and it will only help Trump. I will also be followed up with action.

Barr accusing Comey of lying. This is not over by a long way. pic.twitter.com/5gm7OLhSAQ

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) December 19, 2019

UPDATED: Bernstein: Barr's Case Theory Focuses On Deep State Conspiracy

Pretty much a no brainer, right? We've been on to that here for quite a while. However, it's nice to get confirmation, and to get it from a liberal source who is likely to know what he's talking about. This is certainly part of what the rush to impeach is about--Dems are afraid. Not just generally, although that makes sense--after all, there's no lack of evidence. No, they've taken the measure of Barr, and the man has them scared witless. The Washington Examiner has the story: Carl Bernstein: Sources say William Barr preparing to deliver 'evidence' of a 'deep state conspiracy'.

Veteran investigative journalist Carl Bernstein said his sources are telling him that Attorney General William Barr is preparing to push a "deep state" conspiracy ... 

... 

Bernstein said Barr is trying to "bring about proof that there is a deep state conspiracy that led to" special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and suggested that this is a story other journalists are chasing. "Barr is trying to deliver — and I have this, as do other reporters from other sources — to deliver evidence that perhaps this has all been a deep state conspiracy just like Donald Trump alleges," he said.

Bernstein appeared to be referencing the Justice Department's review of the origins of the Russia investigation being led by U.S. Attorney John Durham, examining whether there was any misconduct by Justice Department and FBI officials. 

Barr said in May that Mueller did not assess the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation, which is what he is doing now. "We should be worried about whether government officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale," he told Fox News. 

Democrats have expressed alarm with the DOJ inquiry, particularly after Trump granted Barr broad authority to declassify information related to the federal investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. For instance, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler called the move part of a "plot to dirty up the intelligence community, to pretend that there's something wrong with the beginning of the Mueller investigation and to persecute and bring into line the intelligence agencies."

...

I have to wonder whether a major reason that Dems are so scared of Barr is that they suspect he may be the one guy who won't be stopped from following the investigation wherever it goes. Including into the legislative branch.

UPDATE: As if on cue--Pelosi speaking to Mika and Joe-boy: Pelosi Attacks AG Bill Barr – Accuses Him of ‘Going Rogue’ and Committing ‘Cover Up’ For Trump:

MSNBC

@MSNBC

Speaker Pelosi says on AG Barr: "He's gone rogue ... I think where they are going is the cover up of the cover up, and that's very really sad for them. To have a Justice Department go so rogue ... now it just makes matters worse."

4:50 AM - 27 Sep 2019

And Nadler:

(((Rep. Nadler)))

@RepJerryNadler

The President dragged the Attorney General into this mess.  At a minimum, AG Barr must recuse himself until we get to the bottom of this matter. 

7:39 AM - 25 Sep 2019

Barr scares them witless.

I should probably add here that I won't speculate regarding the reports that AG Barr has spent several days in Italy on official business. It could be this, it could be that, I could have hopes that it has to do with the Russia Hoax, but I haven't seen anything beyond speculation so far.

Assessing The Assessment

A few days ago commenter Mike Sylwester noted in a comment to Brennan's Task Force--The Heart Of The Russia Hoax that the Brennan task force that was assembled to stop Trump appears to have excluded analysts from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Department of State (DoS) from its work. This, despite the fact that DoD and DoS representatives with Democrat political connections played key roles in propagating the Russia Hoax. The task force's work, of course, included coming up with the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that has been perhaps the fundamental driver of the whole Russia Hoax narrative. As a result, the ICA has been getting renewed scrutiny.

This morning I was taking a look at an article by Ray McGovern, DoJ Bloodhounds on the Scent of John Brennan, which also focuses on reporting that Brennan's task force is being targeted by Barr and Durham. It happens that McGovern's article closes with a pointed reference to the Intelligence Community Assessment and its exclusion of any views that might have been, well, independent. Earlier, in About that IC Assessment: Paul Sperry Has Good News, we quoted Sperry's reporting that GOP Congressional investigators have been honing in on the production of that Assessment and, in particular, the growing likelihood that--like virtually all else Russia Hoax--it was essentially a byproduct of the Steele "dossier":

Staff investigators for GOP Rep. Devin Nunes’ intelligence committee, for one, are now going over “every word” of the ICA — including classified footnotes — to see if any of the analysis was pre-cooked based on the [Steele] dossier. On Tuesday, Nunes sent letters to Obama intel officials responsible for the report. He demanded former top spook John Brennan and intel czar James Clapper provide answers about how they used the dossier in intel reports and when they learned the Clinton camp paid for it. 

Under oath, Brennan has denied knowing the Clinton campaign commissioned the dossier. He also told the House intelligence panel the CIA didn’t rely on the dossier “in any way” for its reports on Russian interference. Committee staff are taking a second look at his May 2017 testimony. 

Clapper, for his part, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the ICA was based on “some of the substantive content of the dossier.” Without elaborating, he maintained that “we were able to corroborate” certain allegations.

In that light, here are the closing paragraphs of McGovern's article, in which McGovern highlights the exclusion of DIA and DoS from the task force and, therefore, from any voice in developing the ICA: