Calls for AG Barr’s Impeachment Intensify After ‘Lunatic Authoritarian’ Federalist Society Speech
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Attorney General Bill Barr launched into an emotional tirade against “the left” at an annual meeting of the conservative Federalist Society on Friday evening. Now, lawyers and legal commentators are intensifying calls for Barr’s impeachment.
Barr’s eyebrow-raising speech was widely-panned after a video of the following portion made the rounds on social media:
Unfortunately through the past few years we have seen these conflicts take on an entirely new character. Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called ‘The Resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch and his administration. The fact of the matter is: that in waging a scorched earth, no holds-barred war of resistance against this administration, it is the left that is engaged in the systemic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law.
The Federalist Society is a judicial activism group which pushes for an “originalist” understanding of the U.S. Constitution and a return to pre-New Deal interpretations of law. The organization has been heavily involved in staffing President Donald Trump ‘s judicial picks– essentially serving as a pipeline for conservative federal judges .
“This is a very dangerous and indeed incendiary notion to import into the politics of a Democratic republic,” Barr continued before the elite group of right-wing lawyers in Washington, D.C. “The fact is, that, yes, while the president has certainly thrown out the traditional beltway playbook and punctilio, he was upfront about what he was going to do and the people decided that he was going to serve as president.”
“Another lunatic authoritarian speech as Barr goes from attacking ‘radical secularists ‘ [at Notre Dame Law School] to one month later attacking the ‘resistance’ at [the Federalist Society],” tweeted former White House ethics counsel Richard Painter . “Impeach Barr now!”
“Bill Barr is the type of bare knuckles lawyer the Church would have hired thirty years ago to cover up sex abuse cases,” Painter added . “The bishop would have been someone like Rep. Jim Jordan . Neither of these men belong anywhere near the impeachment inquiry.”
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) echoed that call late Saturday morning.
“Yesterday AG Barr addressed a radical political group and gave one of the most vicious partisan screeds ever uttered by a US cabinet officer,” Pascrell tweeted . “Barr says trump should have king-like powers. Barr is a liar and a fanatic and should be impeached and stripped of his law licenses.”
Jeff Hauser is an attorney and the Director of the Revolving Door Project, a nonprofit focused on exposing political corruption.
In light of Barr’s speech, Hauser shared an article he previously co-authored with Max Moran calling for Barr’s impeachment.
“[I]f Democrats are going to uncover more information through aggressive hearings and ultimately impeach the president, they need to recognize their most powerful adversary: Attorney General William Barr,” the Daily Beast op-ed notes .
Hauser and Moran’s case also implicated foreign policy:
Barr has not just failed in his duty to carry out and enforce the law as attorney general. He has also used the power of his office to go after Trump’s enemies. We now know that he has served as a leading “diplomat” for a sort of shadow “the president is the state” foreign policy, conducted with at least the United Kingdom, Italy, and Australia. Barr is a leader in a broad administration effort to demand that U.S. allies aide Trump in legitimizing, maintaining and strengthening his personal hold on power.
“Barr, in other words, is a key target of any investigation into Trump’s seemingly criminal abuse of power,” the article continues. “This gives Democrats ample justification to zero in on the attorney general.”
The two-time attorney general also laid into critics of the controversial “ unitary executive theory ” of the presidency which supporters argue gives the president unfettered and total control over the executive branch.
“One of the more amusing aspects is these breathless attacks on the unitary executive theory,” Barr said, before mocking opponents.
Federal defense attorney and computer law expert Tor Ekeland rubbished the concept in response to Barr’s Federalist Society paean to ever-increasing presidential power.
“ Instead of the ‘theory of the unitary executive’ let’s just start calling it what it is – the theory of the fascist executive,” he tweeted .
Several other legal commentators slammed Barr’s remarks.
“I encourage everyone to read Bill Barr’s viciously partisan speech to [the Federalist Society],” tweeted Fordham Law Professor Jed Shugerman . “Its hackery and intellectual dishonesty is an utter embarrassment to the DOJ, [Federalist Society], and to all of us (yes, me, too) who try to be intellectually honest about textualism [and] original public meaning.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Josh Block noted that Barr received a standing ovation from the audience and called both speech and the praise it received “sickening.”
“This is so outrageously inappropriate for an AG to be saying,” noted former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah . “You are the head of the DOJ for all Americans not just the ones in the Federalist Society. Please start acting like it.”
Sherrilyn Ifill is the President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She also had some words for Barr’s telling Friday speech–noting her long opposition to the attorney general.
“I have warned for some time that AG Barr is the most alarming figure in the Administration,” Ifill tweeted . “A true believer who has been waiting for his moment and pitched hard for this job. He has an agenda and political view that is lockstep with Trump.”
The incendiary speech also prompted the widespread use of #ImpeachBarr and #DisbarBarr hashtags on Twitter–criticism that was only amplified after people realized Barr’s broadside against left-leaning lawsuits and subpoenas was promoted by the Department of Justice’s official Twitter account.
Tags
Who is online
106 visitors
It’s not just that the Attorney General of the United States said these things; it’s that his audience at the @ FedSoc convention gave him a standing ovation for doing so. https://www. justice.gov/opa/speech/att orney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-19th-annual-barbara-k-olson-memorial-lecture …
The executive power passages were deeply hypocritical; this is downright offensive.
He could have stopped right there. After that sentence there is no other reason to give this jackass any further consideration.
The left celebrates the Resistance and then throws a tantrum when someone points out the reality of what the Resistance consists of.
I note that you truncated Barr's comment. Was that last part a bridge too far even for you?
Why go that far? Why not engage the content and discuss it specifically?
Do you disagree that the Left he's referring to is "waging a no-holds barred war of resistance against this administration?" That sounds like something you might endorse.
I have to agree with him that there has been some "shredding of norms" by the Left. It's not normal, for example to call for a president's impeachment immediately after - and even before - he has taken office. There are other examples, of course, but that's the big one.
On the other hand, I will acknowledge that I doubt "undermining the rule of law" is fair. That is rhetoric we see a lot in political debate. Many times when one branch of government resists the desires of another, we hear that kind of talk. It's often not fair because our system is actually designed to enable tension between the branches of government. All branches are trying to promote the rule of law, albeit with conflicting goals. Hence the common claim of undermining.
In many ways, it is Congress's job to undermine the president. Obviously the details of that depend on the circumstances.
I do.
That 'norm' was shredded in 2008.
Though it shreds the norm of what we expect from the Attorney General, who is charged with making life and death decisions on the rule of law.
How did you come to that conclusion? It sure as hell isn't in their job description.
Trump's regime is all the evidence we need as to why there should be no imperial presidency. If an unstable, psychologically and ethically defective pos like Trump can gain "power" the checks and balances have to be available in full force.
Barr is showing himself unfit for his position as well. He should be explaining the law, not launching ideological attacks on those he disagrees with. The attorney general position should be no more the refuge of an ideological zealot like Barr than the presidency should be for a buffoon like Trump.
Barr needs to stick to the all you can eat buffets an Golden Corral.
I thought fat shaming someone was a big no no in lib land. I guess it's OK when it happens to a conservative.
After reading the article, I am struck by the fact that all of the criticism - literally all of it - is in the form name calling, labeling, character attacks, and so on. There is no reasoned rebuttal to the actual content of his speech. No facts or conclusions are analyzed. There is a block quote of part of his speech, but no commentary on what specifically might be flawed in it.
Look at these pointless, emotional criticisms:
How so? We aren't told.
What for? For having an opinion? We aren't told.
Is it really fair to accuse him of being the kind of person who would "cover up" a sex abuse case? Does that somehow connect to the content of this speech? I don't see it.
In what way is it vicious? Even if it is, so what? Is he not allowed to have strong opinions? Is there something wrong about what he said? Let's hear it if there is.
When did he say that?
Why specifically? We aren't told. Nothing to do with the speech is mentioned.
Name calling or labeling, but no analysis
How specifically is it hackery? In what way is intellectually dishonest? We aren't told
So an AG can't ever express an opinion about the state of politics because some Americans might disagree with him? How does this impact his responsibilities as head of DOJ? I'm forced to guess. The exact reason it's so wrong for the AG to be saying what he said is not made clear.
Again, we aren't told why. Of course, I'm sure someone will come along to tell me that if it has to be explained to me, they can't help me.
What amuses me most about Barr and Trump's supporters is that they don't seem to understand that all the power they want the presidency to have, a democrat will have in under 10 years.
So you have admitted that Trump still has 5 years and Pence will at least have one 4 year run?'
Well, that's one coming around. I wonder how the seeder of this article will attack you for it?
I'm curious what the seeder of this article thinks of Shifty Schiff, in a speech on Saturday, called the President a "charlatan", and says HE is a member of the resistance for 3 years now.
John, do you think Shifty Schiff, at the least, be censured, for making hyper partisan remarks, showing obvious favoritism for the rabid left and democrats than for the country as a whole?
You probably don't.
every word true enough. I've been saying the same thing since jan 2017
and now, there is a 500 page IG report coming that will turn the lefts world upside down.
does it take a 500 page IG report to say everything was done legally? nope.
hint: all 4 FISA applications used against the trump campaign were fraudulent.
better buckle up, stock up on popcorn,
things will get very entertaining after that IG report is released
You crack me up. The right wingers in NT, to hear them talk, all have secret insider knowledge of all of this stuff (none of which ever seems to turn out to be true) - yet they are ignorant of every single fact concerning the things that Trump and his toadies have done wrong.
it's being reported... LOL
as long as your having fun.
cheers
That explains the ignorance to actual facts concerning Trump. Fox generally doesn't report on that stuff because it angers their state sponsor. It's amazing how ignorant a person is, when they only read Fox and Breitbart ... kept in the dark like mushrooms.
I read everything from both the left / right. luckily for me my BS detector is very accurate.
let me give ya a hint:
bs investigations are easy to spot. the real investigations do not make hardly a sound until they are done.
the investigation into the obamas admins BS with the fisa courts started like yrs ago.
it's not our problem if the left ignored that.
more fun? that IG report is just the opening scene.
but hey... ya still have a couple weeks to stick your head in the sand.
If that is true, will you call for John Roberts to resign? You know that Chief Justice Roberts chooses and supervises the Judges on the FISA court right? You're saying that 3 different FISA Judges were hoodwinked.
Since this BS allegation has been pushed for years now, I've been wondering where the hell is the investigation into the FISA Judges? They're obviously either idiots or incompetent or partisan or all of the above right?
Oh and BTFW, HOW could the FISA applications be used against the Trump campaign when Page wasn't working for the Trump campaign while the warrants were in effect?
yepp.
nope, it's not the judges fault they were deceived.
"obamas admin" is in deep shit.
Actually, it is.
My bad, it was 4 different Judges.
One would think that 4 hand picked FISA Judges being 'deceived' would trigger an investigation into those Judge's gullibility. All but one of those Judges are still FISA Judges.
I guess that either Chief Justice Roberts doesn't think that his hand picked Judges were deceived or he's just as incompetent as you think they are.
The GoP lead Senate also did their own "investigation" several months ago and found nothing. Nothing came of the State Department email investigation and nothing will come of this. Trump Suckers are pissing in the wind again.
Actually, it is.
The applications, especially the initial application, are presented in COURT and the Judge can and DOES ask, the representative of the AG's office presenting the application, questions and requests clarifying documents if and when necessary.
EACH of the 4 Judges read the applications, which you admit are documents that are sworn to as being vetted and factual. Those who sign those applications are 'officers of the court' and put their asses on the line for the veracity of the information in the application.
Did not know Barr was a christian dominionist. Or openly supported autocracies.
Then on second thought I suspected as much.
Barr needs to be reminded that he is not a personal attorney for the POTUS.
I know, right. Didn't he call himself the Presidents wingman?
Oh wait, never mind. Wrong guy.
Not that I am aware of.