Attorney General William Barr Still Favors Trump Over DOJ Findings on Russia Investigation

  
Via:  john-russell  •  6 months ago  •  29 comments

Attorney General William Barr Still Favors Trump Over DOJ Findings on Russia Investigation

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T






Attorney General William Barr Still Favors Trump Over DOJ Findings on Russia Investigation








trump_barr.w700.h700.jpg

Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images



Since it’s been a few months — and at least one   presidency-defining international scandal   — since President Trump’s last presidency-defining international scandal, let’s review the behavior of Attorney General William Barr regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Foremost, Barr’s   creative interpretation   of the Mueller report shielded Trump from   clear examples   of obstruction of justice, leading to the president’s   false   claim of   “complete and total exoneration.”   Aside from that bail-out, he also   called   the Mueller investigation into potential obstruction a “political operation to overthrow the president;” claimed that the FBI was “spying” on Trump; had   multiple conversations   with White House lawyers prior to the report’s release benefitting the president’s cause; and   compared   the Russia investigation to the racist birther movement, although it was forwarded primarily by Trump.

In light of the Attorney General’s past actions safeguarding the president from accountability for his campaign’s conduct, it’s no surprise that Barr continues to prioritize Trump over findings from a Department of Justice investigation. According to the Washington   Post , Barr privately   disagrees   with the DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s determination that the FBI had enough information to open an inquiry into the Trump campaign in July 2016. The IG report on the origin of the investigation, which will be released next week, is expected to find that the FBI was justified in its investigation, which was opened after Trump aide George Papadopoulos   spilled   that Moscow had hacked Clinton emails prior to the announcement that DNC servers were compromised by Russian assets.

As the   Post   notes, it’s common for an AG to disagree with an element of an Inspector General’s report, but “typically those disagreements occur because senior leaders at the department believe the inspector general has been too critical. In this case, Barr has conveyed to others his belief that Horowitz has not been critical enough, or is at least reaching a conclusion prematurely.” And as the paper puts it, perhaps a little too mildly, the image of the Attorney General “suggesting the FBI may have wrongly opened an investigation into a presidential campaign, even after the inspector general announces they were justified in doing so, will probably generate more partisan battles over how the Justice Department and the FBI operate.”

Other “partisan battles” are likely to arise over another DOJ determination moving into the election year. According to a   Politico   report, Barr will have to determine how to navigate a “potential criminal probe” into the Trump administration’s actions in Ukraine. Barr, who has already undermined the credibility of the historically independent department, may soon have to determine if the Department of Justice will actually seek justice in this critical instance.   Past examples   of the Attorney General’s diligence may prove prescient.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    6 months ago

Barr is disgracing America's justice system. Again.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 months ago

The AG disagrees with a finding of the IG. It involves FISA applications. I think we need to wait until all the facts are out instead of responding to the framing of people and events by the leftist media that LIED to us for 3 years!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    6 months ago
The AG disagrees with a finding of the IG.

And the AG disagrees with the IG, WITHOUT EVEN INVESTIGATING.  Amazing how that works.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.1    6 months ago

The AG sits atop two investigations into this matter. I think he knows quite a bit. Or maybe you just don't like who's being investigated?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    6 months ago

What are they being investigated for?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.3    6 months ago

FISA abuse and spying on American citizens as well as a political campaign among other things. 

Now you've done your job. I await the orchestrated response from the left.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.4    6 months ago

That's hilarious, bogus, and hilarious.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.5    6 months ago

Even more hilarious is the idea that someone wouldn't know the reasons for the Durham investigation.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 months ago

Barr is disgracing America's justice system. Again.

He is doing the exact job Trump hired him for.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 months ago

Funny how former AG Eric Holder's almost slavish devotion to President Barak Obama in the wake of Fast and Furious gets a free pass by the left and seems to almost never gets mentioned, but the left can certainly try to crucify AG Barr. Almost comical and bizarre to say the least...

 
 
 
lady in black
2  lady in black    6 months ago

Barr is a disgusting POS hack

 
 
 
Ronin2
3  Ronin2    6 months ago

We need Holder and Lynch back./S

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3    6 months ago

Why should Americans give a crap if William Barr, Trump's lackey, disagrees with the Inspector General's findings?  Barr has zero credibility. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    6 months ago

OK,

Let me be more blunt. Is the DOJ a Presidential appointee; and can be removed by the President at any time.  Simple yes or no answer.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    6 months ago

The DOJ is not a person, thus is not susceptible to "removal" by the president. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    6 months ago

Ok, Attorney General, thank you for the correction. Is the AG a presidential appointee, and can be removed by the president at any time?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    6 months ago

Once again, nice attempt at at deflection but still no cigar....

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.5  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    6 months ago
Why should Americans give a crap if William Barr, Trump's lackey, disagrees with the Inspector General's findings? 

You must because you are the one that seeded it. Do you disagree with your own seed, now?

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.6  bugsy  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.3    6 months ago
Is the AG a presidential appointee, and can be removed by the president at any time?

From the "mind" of a liberal.....President 1 through 44..yes  President number 45...Hell no

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    6 months ago

Let's wait and see what the report(s) say.  The DOJ appending a statement to an IG report is not unusual. second, the facts may well contradict the conclusions of the IG.  In the past, the IG's conclusions have been excessively deferential to the agency, despite reporting facts that seem to contradict the IG's opinions.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    6 months ago
second, the facts may well contradict the conclusions of the IG.

William Barr deliberately misrepresented the findings of the Mueller report to make them look better for Trump. He has no credibility. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    6 months ago

No, he didn't. 

As we learned, the biggest misrepresentation about the Mueller report came from the people who claimed Trump would have been indicted but for  the DOJ guidelines preventing it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to    6 months ago

No you explain what you mean. I'm tired of explaining the well known and the obvious to you. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.2    6 months ago

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/05/28/justin-amash-lets-face-bill-barr-misrepresented-muellers-findings/

One: Barr made it sound like Mueller was iffy about the evidence against Trump on obstruction when in reality it was constitutional and prudential concerns that kept him from indicting, not the strength of the evidence. Two: Barr made it sound like the collusion case was a big fat baseless zero when in truth there were various “concerning” contacts between the campaign and the Russians, albeit not anything that reached the level of probable cause. Three: Barr played dumb before Congress when he was asked if anyone on Mueller’s team had concerns about his summary, as Mueller himself had sent Barr a letter a few days after the summary was published saying exactly that. Four:

-zEWdbBz_normal.jpg
Justin Amash
@justinamash
 ·   May 28, 2019

Barr says the White House “fully cooperated” with the investigation and that Mueller “never sought” or “pushed” to get more from the president, but the report says Mueller unsuccessfully sought an interview with the president for over a year.

-zEWdbBz_normal.jpg
Justin Amash
@justinamash

The report says the president’s counsel was told that interviewing him was “vital” to Mueller’s investigation and that it would be in the interest of the public and the presidency. Still Trump refused.

4,285 people are talking about this

-zEWdbBz_normal.jpg
Justin Amash
@justinamash
 ·   May 28, 2019

The president instead gave written answers to questions submitted by the special counsel. Those answers are often incomplete or unresponsive. Mueller found them “inadequate” and again sought to interview the president.

-zEWdbBz_normal.jpg
Justin Amash
@justinamash

Ultimately, the special counsel “recogniz[ed] that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily” and chose not to subpoena him because of concerns that the resulting “potentially lengthy constitutional litigation” would delay completion of the investigation.

4,674 people are talking about this

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    6 months ago

This seems like one of those conspiracy theories that works because it can't ever really be resolved. The AG is never going to do or say anything that satisfies Democrats with regards to these investigations because there's nothing for him to actually do regarding them. It's not as if DOJ is going to prosecute the president. Congress is already doing that because they are the ones constitutionally empowered to do it.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6  Paula Bartholomew    6 months ago

Barr is an idiot, the perfect poster boy for Trump's base.

 
 
 
Krishna
6.1  Krishna  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6    6 months ago

In addition to Trump, I would like to see Barr impeached as well.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Sparty On
JohnRussell
Dean Moriarty
Texan1211
Thomas
XDm9mm
igknorantzrulz


37 visitors