Bill Barr opines
Bill Barr gave a long interview to Jan Crawford, and you can find a transcript here and the recording here.
I haven’t read the entire thing nor have I listened to it, but Ace has taken the time and trouble to do so, and he’s excerpted some of the most interesting parts.
Even before this, I’ve liked just about everything I’d seen and heard from Barr so far. He’s exhibited a rare combination of traits: clarity and simplicity of expression, a straight-shooter who goes to the heart of the matter without being in the least offensive or careless. He’s precise without getting bogged down in arcane legalese. You can see all of this demonstrated in the interview, as well, and if you want the shorter version (it’s not short, though) go to Ace’s post.
My favorite quote is this one, although there are so many favorites it’s difficult to choose just one:
AN CRAWFORD: But when you came into this job, you were kind of, it’s like the US Attorney in Connecticut, I mean, you had a good reputation on the right and on the left. You were a man with a good reputation. You are not someone who is, you know, accused of protecting the president, enabling the president, lying to Congress. Did you expect that coming in? And what is your response to it? How do you? What’s your response to that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well in a way I did expect it.
JAN CRAWFORD: You did?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, because I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don’t care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that’s antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn’t make any difference.
Much more at the links.
My skepticism remains high but this guy gives me hope that something may be done about this mess.
AG Barr appears to desire to allow his chosen targets to continue their peaceful sleep all the while he rolls his artillery silently into place in the dead of night, ready to blast them to bits at a time of ripeness. Just as he anticipated criticism prior to taking the job, so he knows what awaits when he unrolls the litany of crimes and bad acts the Obama admin. has perpetrated on the nation. Preparation, crossing every t, dotting every i, isn’t optional to success. Step by simply competent professional step — everything the Obama works utterly lacked — that’s Barr’s way forward.
Barr’s a mensch.
somehow I suspect Herr Müllers nervous Elmer Fuddian reading was of a speech Eichmann I mean Veissmannn wrote für him
We could use more interviewers like Jan Crawford. She was a favorite guest of mine years ago when I tuned in to C-Span. She usually appeared on the program around the time the Supreme Court was in session, and was always articulate, informed, and above all impartial.
I’m quite impressed with Barr. His frank explanation that he’s at the end of his career so he can take these chances sounds sincere and makes sense. It gives me hope he’s not a wolf masquerading as a sheep dog. We’ve had too many of those.
I immediately liked Barr. His calm demeanor coupled with his straightforward opinions appeal to me. No wiggle, wiggle, gobble gobble there. I think it was an inspired choice on Trump’s part, a good fit, and just the man we need.
Me too Griffin. I will withhold judgement until I see the results. Barr may do something but there are several individuals such as McCabe that could and should be indicted along with Storzk (sorry for the spelling but I think you know whom I mean) and Page.
The things that make Barr so effective is his demeanor combined with his long career. He’s so calm and professional all the while getting in his points and that his very hard to demonize, though lord know they are trying. He also isn’t easily caricatured like Sessions who was in retrospect a horrible choice (which I supported) to be AG in an administration that was going to be under constant attack.
Compare Barr’s composure and demeanor to that of Mueller the other day. Barr knows the truth is on his side.
And he’s funny. His comment last week when serendipitously encountering Ms Pelosi, “Did you bring the handcuffs?” Priceless!
What difference does it make?
I am so, so impressed by Barr. Many times in our history, a man or woman has stepped up and made a huge difference in the life of our Republic. I see Trump and Barr as those type of men. Don’t forget that Trump sacked Sessions and appointed Barr.
More and more impressed by Barr. Not getting my hopes too high. He will follow the law and be fair. He’ll have to have irrefutable evidence and a belief he can convict before he will indict. Many of the perps will plead that they could not ignore the possibility that Russia had influence with Trump. And the MSM/progs will back them to the hilt. Barr is fearless, but I don’t think he’s vindictive. Anyway, it warms my heart that the truth about the “silent coup” will finally be laid out for all to see.
Barr is the person who actually has integrity, and staunchly believes in the rule of law. For once, a power player I feel I can trust to do the right thing. I hope he has an exemplary security detail.
I’m sure Mr Barr’s a straight shooter.
But that’s a mighty big freaking swamp…and those crocs know where to hide & how to bite. He better be packing a cannon…or it’s all kabuki.
I’m sure Mr Barr’s a straight shooter.
No clue who to trust anymore. For the time being, I’m hoping Barr is willing and able to weed out enough bad actors that our federal police forces and federal courts might be something other than lawfare outfits of The Regime.
I think we would benefit from an administrative re-organization and recasting the modes of recruitment and promotion in federal law enforcement and intelligence collection. I think we’d also benefit from scarifying the federal criminal code and modifying its sentencing schedule. (See Jared Fogle & c. for an example of witlessness on both counts). Of course, Congress will do nothing. The Democratic members in particular expect that the bad actors will attack only Republicans, so it’s all good.
And our real problem is the culture of the bar and of the professional class generally.
The fact that Huber didn’t do a damn thing makes me think that Huber’s appointment by Sessions was intended as a phony signal that Sessions was “doing something”—it was a stalling tactic.
Why did Huber agree to be involved in this little bit of Kabuki?
I think it was either DiGenova or Giuliani who, last night, pointed out that a criminal probe takes precedence over an IG investigation, not the other way around; a phony precedence that Huber was reportedly using as an excuse not to do any investigating at all–according to complaints his losing of what appears to have been important evidence sent to him–lost three times no less–and his not interviewing any key witnesses at all.
If I were Barr, at the least I’d call Huber in and tell him that his career at the DOJ was over, but I would also start to consider the possibility that Huber was also one of the rear guards for the coup attempt.
As for Sessions, it seems pretty clear to me that, from the day of his appointment as AG–if not even earlier–some emissary of the Left sidled up to Sessions and said, “look what we have on you”–“compromat” indeed–and from that moment on Session’s chess piece was removed from the board.
Why did Huber agree to be involved in this little bit of Kabuki?
Because the kabuki was his, not Sessions’. Sessions had been a U.S. Attorney in the past, but I’m wagering he had about 50 people working under him in that capacity, all in the same building and with only one person intermediating between him and any other lawyer in the office. Thousands of employees, scores of locations all over the country, and crafty bureaucratic operators a great many of ’em. Suggest all outside of Sessions’ skill set and Huber BS’d him up the wazoo.
As for Sessions, it seems pretty clear to me that, from the day of his appointment as AG–if not even earlier–some emissary of the Left sidled up to Sessions and said, “look what we have on you”–“compromat” indeed–and from that moment on Session’s chess piece was removed from the board.
A more plausible explanation is that he was not suitable for the position. (1) He’d never held a position with that much responsibility before, and (2) in this particular circumstance, his direct reports and their direct reports were completely untrustworthy. The administration had trouble filling position because of Congress insistence that an insanely large population of appointees be subject to confirmation hearings.
Richard Epstein argues that the rope that hung Mr. Sessions lay in the fact that, having worked on the Trump campaign, he did have to recuse himself from the investigation (conflict of interest). In other words, having worked on the campaign, he never should have accepted the office of A.G. in the first place. Richard, I think, considers this the huge black mark against Mr. Sessions.
I am hardly an authority on anybody’s career record, but by all accounts Mr. Sessions had always been a straight shooter — and, not coincidentally to the ethics question, a law-and-order type. Recall his actual record on respecting rights of Negro persons, who he thought ought to be treated just like anybody else before the law.
O/T, but Jeff Sessions was said to be a staunch free-trader wrt international trade: For instance, no tariffs. But as he watched, for a period of, I take it, at least a few years before the campaign, he came to believe that across-the-board free trade wasn’t the best policy all ways round. It occurs to me that for that very reason, plus his track record and general beliefs in terms of legal principals, Mr. Trump wanted him on the campaign and in the A.G.’s office.
Possibly the conflict of interest never occurred to either the President or Mr. Sessions? Only the Great Frog knows for sure, although in my own hindsight, I’ve have thought that somebody among Mr. Trump’s legal advisors, official or not — and including Mr. Sessions himself — might have brought this up before the nomination. Possibly at the time of Mr. Trump’s selection, nobody saw this whole Russian-collusion thing as going anywhere? Still, to appoint him would be chancy — if not Russiagate, then there are always opportunities to try to nail a President legally.
Cleaning up the DOJ was always going to be a years long task after the effort spent by the Obama administration to make it more political through selective hiring over eight years. Even if Trump is reelected it may not be done by the time he leaves.
His Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey elephant romp, having left a few too many messes behind, may well mean that we probably haven’t heard the last from Mueller (no matter what he thinks):
https://twitter.com/almostjingo/status/1134574689592832000
https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1134586581325627392
Looks like even “The Nation” is imploding (H/T Instapundit):
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-did-russiagate-begin/
But might one notice that the thrust of the analysis, barely mentioning Obama, is a clear, seemingly clever attempt to shield him from any malfeasance?….
<blockquote.JAN CRAWFORD: You- I guess when you said that there were things done that were not the typical run of business, ad hoc, small group, it's not how these counterintelligence operations normally work. I think that maybe Comey and others might say well this was such an extraordinary thing we had to keep it so closely held. So we had to do it differently what's your response to that? Is that legit?
WILLIAM BARR: Well it might be legit under certain circumstances but a lot of that has to do with how good the evidence was at that point. And you know Mueller has spent two and half years and the fact is there is no evidence of a conspiracy. So it was bogus, this whole idea that the Trump was in cahoots with the Russians is bogus.
No collusion to begin with, and then no obstruction — as a matter of law and of facts.
Finding clear evidence that a crime was NOT committed is a nice bonus in a Perry Mason novel, but it is not the standard of American jurisprudence, which is the accumulation of clear evidence that a crime WAS committed.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/31/18645173/mueller-report-barr-trump-obstruction
Just so you know what movie the Democrats are watching.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/william-barr-interview-cbs-mueller-coup-trump.html
Other opionators opine:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/robert-mueller-investigation-report-no-collusion/
Did Mueller Sit on His No-Collusion Conclusion?
By DEROY MURDOCK
May 31, 2019 6:30 AM
John Dowd opines:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/06/mueller-dings-dowd.php
This is about Dowd’s phone call to Flynn’s attorneys, the transcript of which has a phrase that somehow didn’t make it into Mr. Mueller’s Opus.
Mueller’s statement in his presser that people who never have a trial never get to refute damaging evidence was certainly correct – and he intended that to be the effect of his report.
Andrew McCarthy opines: his post discusses the options that Mueller may have considered before deciding to not decide; they are quite instructive.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/robert-mueller-investigation-was-always-impeachment-probe/
Barry – in re your JohnWHuber twitter link – mostly the usual left-and-right chit-chat, but these are some points I haven’t seen made elsewhere about Mueller leaving out 2 lines of a very short transcript, that just happened to lessen the negative view of Mr. Trump:
Patrick@purplehead5
“Nothing stopped Mueller from indicting Dowd for Obstruction, if he felt this snippet was criminal. Dowd was clearly talking to a lawyer and knew he was being recorded.”
Shari K@ShariK4113
“Does anyone still wonder why they don’t start impeachment hearings? It’s because things like this will come out. And if they don’t impeach then it just sits and guides the ignorant public opinion.”
I also found this copy of the transcription with the parts Mueller included bolded, and the parts he left out highlighted.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D78CIjxWwAA5I0D.jpg
For good measure, a couple of things that should have made it into PowerLine’s Pictures of the Week:
Mueller vs Barr: presumption of innocence
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8AvxHcU0AEj4p-.jpg
Mueller channels Ed Sullivan
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D71pBc6VUAA9dUF.jpg
I’m hopeful for Barr — but waiting for indictments.
Disappointed in Huber, and Sessions. But Sessions’ recusal makes sense. Huber’s do-nothingism is part of the swamp problem.
Horowitz had a report that documented “mistakes” but didn’t recommend criminal sanctions.
Nunes sent to DOJ 7 referrals — I’m waiting for those to be turned into indictments.
I think it would be better to get started rather than wait for all the t’s to be crossed, and i’s dotted — the bad guys need to know it’s serious.
I notice in one interview the interviewer in essence said to AG Barr, “aren’t you afraid of all the criticism aimed at you,” and Barr replied that at his age and stage in life/his career he was not concerned, and that “everybody dies” (in the end).
Thus, it looks like Barr has–with very clear eyes–taken up the challenge of doing his best to identify and to purge the malignancy that the Obama Administration has sewn and encouraged in our law enforcement, intelligence, and other government agencies.
After all of the disappointing appointments that Trump has made–appointments, I would assume, that were recommended to him and urged by people surrounding him–who are supposed to have his and this country’s best interests at heart, but who, from the evidence of these appointments, seem to apparently have the Deep State’s interests closer to their hearts–Trump is very lucky that he has appointed someone as AG who has Barr’s fearless attitude.
It looks like Barr is going to try to get the job done, come Hell or high water.
“…shrewd…”
It seems indeed to have been very cleverly done.
But things cleverly done can also backfire.
The ramifications may well be that Barr (and Rosenstein, if he has the nerve—it seems that quite a large part of the ball is in his court—and Horowitz, if he’ll step up) will have to start peeling back, and peeling back and peeling back the Mueller cover-up/attack/coup, dishonest layer after illegal layer after incriminating layer; starting from a place (ground zero?) where he probably would have preferred not to have had to begin.
In other words, Is this “ground zero” Steele? Is it Hillary’s DNC? Is it Uranium One? Is it Fusion GPS? Perkins Coie? Is it Flynn? Papadopolous? Halper? Mifsud (regarding whom interesting “developments” have been emerging from Italy)? Strzok/Page? McCabe? The Ohrs?
Obama? (Pace Maxine Water)
While the flak, lies, slander, demonization and hysteria from the Democrats and the MSM will be scorching, non-stop and relentless.
Obfuscate and attack. Obfuscate by attacking.
And destroy at any price.
Barry, you appear to be asking in part whether AG Barr will go into an investigation of SC Mueller and his team, among the other questions (all good ones, I think) you pose.
As to Barr going after the SC & team, I can’t see any indication of that but a number of counter indications to it, both in Barr’s testimony to congress and in his interview with CBS. I won’t recite those pointing away from the SC, but leave it at the mere assertion, since Mueller’s are the secondary or tertiary misdeeds in this long national abuse of government powers.
Turning then to the dual questions “where to begin?” and “where did the abuses begin?”, two things.
The first, Barr has already indicated that he has been asking questions about the origin of the spying and says that the answers he has gotten aren’t consistent nor adequate, so I’d say he has already begun there.
The second, my speculation merely. “Where did the abuse start?”
In brief with Obama, naturally. But in particular, I think in the main Obama put the national security apparatus to work against his political enemies right along with his decision to turn US policy into a pro-Iranian interest parade with the JCPOA and its associated measures. There. Right there.
Where is Manju to spin AG Barr’s words for us, and his evil twin to tell us none of this matters? Crickets.
The wheels of justice grind slowly but grind fine, it is past time for them to roll. There is room for many beneath the stones.
It seems to me that Mueller, for whatever reason, refused to deliver his report, take his ball and go home. Far from fading into the background, he decided that—since there was no way that Trump could be innocent (or allowed to be innocent)—he had to pour fuel on the impeachment conflagration.
(This would appear to be akin to Hillary Clinton’s decision to refuse to accept the reality of Trump’s victory and instead declare—since there was no way she could have lost— that Trump’s victory was the result of criminal and traitorous machinations. In short, her decision to “let loose the dogs of war”.)
Mueller has thus—officially—made himself an adversary of the administration (not that this is anything new for anyone who has been following events—but it is now official, incontrovertible, indisputable); and in doing so, he has decided to take legally questionable steps.
He in one fell swoop revealed his investigation to be the a hyper-politicized, hyper-partisan hatchet job that many people already knew it was, but which more cautious, legally-based, and ideologically-constrained commentators (i.e,. desperately having to believe that Mueller was doing his best to uphold the law and the principles of the law) such as McCarthy and Dershowitz had to continue to believe was non-partisan.
In short, made himself—and his no-longer “apolitical” Stalinist circus—a target.
Barr may have originally wished to leave Mueller alone; but he may believe now that he has no choice but to pinpoint, prove and publicize the latter’s utter lack of integrity—and lawlessness—following Mueller’s debased betrayal of the mandate he was given, the DOJ, American jurisprudence and his own admission to Barr himself.
Not that it is likely that he will change many minds….
But the question is, can he leave Mueller’s arson attack go unchallenged.
“…Crickets…”
Actually, if you’re truly interested in wading through the muck and stink of mind-boggling perversity dressed up to look like “analysis”, take a look at Aesop’s link a bit further up (search for “movie”).
Actually I’ve been following this daily via Dan Bongino’s podcast, for about 18 months now IIRC. He provides sources for almost all of his points made on the show, A. McCarthy, M. Hemmingway, J. Solomon, Byron York, are just a few examples, all of them are credited.
Hurrah! Edit is back. Thanks Neo!
Aesop and you all also do good work, much better than I can.
Whether Barr can let Mueller’s misdeeds go isn’t a question I’m asking Barry, since I think his refusal to name those misdeeds when he has had every opportunity and hasn’t hinted at them, even, tells me he’s already decided.
More serious still, I think, if (as I have surmised) the entire sorry episode of corruption at the highest levels of our government begins with the former President, then Barr and his associates will have their hands quite full with a heavy case to prove, no? Why would he further burden himself and his DoJ with a problem like Obama on his plate, and Trump breathing down his neck? No, it’s going to be hard enough to bring down the former director of the FBI, the DNI and CIA, along with White House staffers, D of State people, DoJ people, possible collaborators in congress (Christ, where does the list end?), and on and on.
Nah, Mueller is small potatoes in this picture. He’ll have humiliation enough when all is said and done, besides.
The “American Spectator” is on a roll:
https://spectator.org/who-ran-crossfire-hurricane/
https://spectator.org/sinking-to-third-world-status/