Left Goes Bananas On Barr’s DOJ After Ignoring Far Worse Under Obama
By: By Chip Roy
No one should be above the law, Republican or Democrat. Nor should our elected leaders undermine equal justice under the law.
Okay, now that these obvious statements have been made, what should we make of the 1,100 signatures to a letter calling on Attorney General Barr to resign amid all the debate regarding the Department of Justice (DOJ)? As someone who served, albeit briefly, as a federal prosecutor, this question is of particular interest to me.
First, consider that the DOJ resides in the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Department of Justice Building. Bobby Kennedy was his brother’s closest political ally and advisor. Does the media suggest we should re-name the building or raise a fuss because the younger Kennedy was political?
Don’t believe it? Go back to February 1962, in U.S. News and World Report : “Bobby is forever putting out political brush fires. If something goes wrong somewhere, Bobby will take a look at his list of friends scattered through the Government. He will get someone on the phone, maybe a high official, and ask him to do a political job for him.”
More from the same article: “One day in January, more than a dozen young men trooped into Bobby’s office. Most of them were in their 30s. They came from the Defense Department, the State Department, from various agencies of the Government… Most of these men had worked closely with Bobby when he engineered his brother’s election campaign. They developed great loyalty and affection for the Attorney General, became his trusted lieutenants.”
Is this a problem? It depends. As Jack Kennedy quipped, he wanted his brother to “have a little legal experience before he goes out to practice law.”
What about an attorney general who politicizes the DOJ at the expense of adherence to the rule of law, packs the department with activists, is repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court, and acts in direct conflict with well-accepted policies and procedures, then hides it? What if that attorney general is Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch?
Put aside the fact that Holder was held in contempt in the U.S. House—let’s chalk that up to politics and overlook the 17 Democrats who voted for contempt. Even a cursory review of the record shows that Holder, and his successor Lynch, abused power in the Department of Justice for a full eight years while carrying out hatchet work for President Obama.
After all, in an interview with Juan Williams, Holder proudly declared himself “an activist attorney general,” and acknowledged that he turned the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division into a political weapon, saying he was “proud of it.” How soon my leftist colleagues and media flacks forget they engaged in “community organizing” for left-wing activism at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. For just several major examples:
-
Under Holder, the notorious “Fast and Furious” operation was carried out. In it, guns were run to Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent. Holder refused to cooperate with House investigators to turn over information.
-
Holder encouraged President Obama to use executive power to unconstitutionally and illegally give status and benefits to both children and parents illegally present in the United States after failing to pass legislation. In other words, the chief law enforcement officer encouraged an end-run of the Constitution and the law, one of which courts have already struck down, while the other is being litigated.
-
Holder effectively dismissed the Lois Lerner Internal Revenue Service’s clear targeting of conservative groups and refused to carry out a true investigation into this corruption.
-
Holder corrupted the Civil Rights Division, turning it into a radical political organization—led once by Tom Perez, who is now the head of the Democratic National Committee. DOJ’s own inspector general concluded in a report that the division was guilty of “deep ideological polarization” and a “disappointing lack of professionalism.”
-
That same radical Holder-Perez Civil Rights Division was repeatedly smacked down by the courts for its egregious positions and overreach. For example, the division was rebuked in a Florida case where the DOJ abusively prosecuted peaceful abortion protesters. It argued that the First Amendment did not protect the hiring decisions of a church in the Hosanna-Tabor decision. There were similar decisions involving voter ID and immigration issues, among countless others.
-
Holder used race as a political weapon. He declared voter ID a racially charged “poll tax,” and used immigration and cases like the tragic events in Ferguson and Sanford, Florida, as political events to whip up President Obama’s base while completely ignoring the constant terrible gang violence in Chicago, for example, all while leaving law enforcement (of all races) dangling in the wind.
-
Holder used civil rights as a hammer to prevent states from trying school choice to help move children out of poverty.
- And books will long be written about the politicization of the DOJ, the FBI, and countless government officials in the Obama administration all through the 2016 elections involving Russia collusion and targeting Donald Trump and his campaign.
No matter what political party is in power, the DOJ should not be used to advance policy contrary to the Constitution, or to carry out policy contrary to law, or to undermine the core principles of equal justice under law, among other things. If there are allegations of true wrongdoing, as a member of the Oversight Committee—and, frankly, as a member of Congress—I certainly believe we should look into it.
I will be the first to admit that the president does, in fact, make Barr’s ability to do his job much more difficult by constantly tweeting about decisions in real time. Moreover, Roger Stone is hardly a sympathetic figure, making his own bed in this situation.
But is the attorney general correct to review a seven- to nine-year sentence recommendation for a first-time offender who admittedly engaged in witness tampering but in the context of a politically charged situation? With a jury foreperson with questionable objectivity? Of course he is, and a review up the chain of command about sentencing is not something that in and of itself should draw alarm, as these are legitimate questions. Also, lost in all the controversy is that this is just a recommendation that does not control! The final decision about Stone’s sentencing is still completely up to the judge on the case, not the DOJ.
So let’s keep a little perspective. Far from “whataboutism,” there are very clear differences here. With the current situation and no matter what has been tweeted, the conviction stands, the judge controls, this is just a recommendation, and there are reasonable questions that would lead to Barr or his team moving the recommendation downward.
We should not let the media and a bunch of left-wing activists drumming up former prosecutors to complain and obfuscate the facts, nor allow them to ignore the unbelievably rampant abuse at the DOJ under the most recent Democrat administration.
Chip Roy is the Republican representative for the 21st congressional district in Texas.
Barr is still the steady hand at the helm.
Rules of civility apply
You got that right. He’s doing a great job. 👍👏🦅
A man of strength, who arrived not a moment too soon!
If Trump had lost in 2016, Hillary would have continued the Obama corruption because doing so would have also hidden her family's own corruption.
What corruption by the Obama administration?
Can you imagine? We wouldn't have known a thing about Fusion GPS, Comey, Brennan, Strzok & Page or McCabe. Michael Flynn might still be working somewhere in government. Manafort and Stone despite anything they did would never have been indicted. They would have continued on like many other Washington insiders. So much would never have seen the light of day. Perhaps it's no wonder why Hillary Clinton turned to apologize to Barak Obama the night she lost.
That's a very myopic understanding of my comment 1.2.2 . Here's a hint:
Or James Clapper. He's a singing bird trying to save his perjured neck ...
Yep, not a "smidgen of corruption" in the Obama administration! /sarc
He looks like something out of a Dickens Novel, doesn't he?
He's a singing bird trying to save his perjured neck ...
Yup, I recall that very article you posted.
Yep, not a "smidgen of corruption" in the Obama administration! /sarc
Unfortunately, Obama is an untouchable.
As is reverently and dutifully noted in comment 3.1.2 !
Done there with a dual purpose. Best performed by Chris Matthews every time he would mention Obama as "our first black president." The template forever after.
Dickens was a verbal sculptor who would have had a field day with the real life villains of the Obama Administration. Uriah Heep would be appropriate for several of them.
Started under Bush Jr - investigated and punished those that were actually at fault.
The courts did not agree this was "unconstitutional".
The IRS were investigating all groups that were using the cover of religion to influence politics.
AND
Those two are the parts of the same issue. It's not right and they got stopped in the courts like many of the Trump over reaches.
We have Republicans on record saying the Voter ID bills in states were setup to shave 1 to 4 percentage points off Democratic vote totals because of race.
Fuck school choice! It's a disguise to cherry pick students and end run state guidelines.
Word salad bullshit, but as long as conservatives waste their money buying it, whatever...
That is not a fact.
The operation began on October 31, 2009, when a local gun store reported to the Phoenix ATF that four individuals had purchased multiple AK-47 style rifles. In November 2009, the Phoenix office's Group VII, which would be the lead investigative group in Fast and Furious, began to follow a prolific gun trafficker.
ATF gunwalking scandal - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
Now, in your little world, who was President then?????
A SCOTUS ruling is expected in June of this year.
Pray tell how the words "Tea Party" is related to any religion in any way. The fact is the IRS admitted to targeting. Based on nothing, really.
ATF sting operation Project Gunrunner started in 2005 . In my "little world" I was serving under George Bush at the time.
The ATF kept resurrecting similar schemes, the most infamous becoming know as Operation Fast and Furious under the next Administration.
If you choose to ignore the start date, I really can't help you understand.
Looks like Obama was President when Fast and Furious started.
They are not ruling on Obama's EO. They are ruling on Trump's EO rescinding the Dreamers Act. I expect the Trump Administration will win this one. That would be consistent with past rulings.
Much of the Tea Party was infested (yes I'll use that word) with Evangelicals. Those hard core Trump Humpers that can't help themselves but to push the boundaries of rules, regulations and civility.
So now you are claiming that the IRS targeted them because of their religious beliefs--as if THAT is somehow better and more acceptable?
LMFAO
What did ANY of the groups targeted DO that was so bad?
Good try, but Evangelicals never caused as much, if any, physical and monetary terrorist damage that Occupy, BLM, Antifa, and Hate-Trump groups have.
And as I wrote, and provided documentation for, the ATF's first project started during the Bush Administration
and continued during the Obama Administration.
The field agents really did not care who was the POTUS or who was the AG when they came up with these crazy "ideas" about infiltrating the cartels to take them down.
The final report on Project Gunrunner was completed by the DOJ IG in November 2010,
13 months after the Jeremy Chambers case began in Oct 2009
and still known as Operation Wide Receiver until February 2010 when it was changed to Operation Fast & Furious.
Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent history of what happened and why.
The ATF loves nicknames, Project Gunrunner, Operation Wide Receiver, the Hernandez Case and the Mendrano Case involving the same agents and same Tuscon gun dealer from Operation Wide Receiver, and finally the Chambers Case eventually renamed Fast & Furious because
Jeremy Chambers was a member of some car club which emulated the Fast & Furious movies...
But, but, Obama...
No, I said the IRS was investigating religious tax except groups for meddling in politics.
Is tax fraud ok if it follows your political ideology?
Is everything black & white - either/or - left & right in your world, Jasper? Just because I don't agree with the hyper partisan propaganda written in the article doesn't mean I must support the hyper partisan cause de jour of the left.
you did no such thing.
Here is YOUR statement which I responded to:
That does NOT state what you claimed later.
WTF? Where did I even hint at that??
What tax fraud are YOU referring to? Lots of liberals loved to claim that NO groups were denied tax exempt status, so where the hell is any fraud?
I was specifically referring to Fast and Furious.
Deny it all you want, but it DID start under Obama.
Like it or not.
Which is like saying the Civil War started at Gettysburg...
it just defies the actual history of the ATF.
In 2.0 I said - The IRS were investigating all groups that were using the cover of religion to influence politics.
Arguing every single one of those 501c4 groups in the IRS investigations were lilly pure ignores the fact that partisan groups were using tax exempt status to cover for anonymous political donations. Hell both left and right were doing it. The IRS was simply filtering groups by key words such as - "tea party," "patriot," "9/12" "occupy," "progressive," and "green energy."
I don't know but where is that 501c4 group Ohioans United to Defeat Barack Obama's Un-American Agenda now?
Pretty damn funny when so many leftwing idiots were pushing that the IRS did absolutely nothing wrong because no groups were denied. Shoots your little fantasy of tax fraud ALL to hell and back.
if you have evidence of REAL fraud--produce it or I will just know that you got zip.
Did you read your own link? The only reliable one you posted. It didn't change names. The investigation ended in 2007, period. Now the prosecutions went on until 2009/2010; but the program was long over.
This is Operation Wide Receiver it has definite beginning and ending dates. It was not ongoing when Obama took over the White House. The Operation also has several differences from Fast & Furious. It had tracking of the guns both on the ground and through electronic devices planted within the guns. Arrests were made at the straw purchasers level. Also, the Mexican government was informed and was in on the operation.
From page 27
From page 28
From page 30
Now for Fast & Furious
Definitely not the same program; nor the did it start under Bush.
From page 103
Not even Politico believes the tripe that they are the same operation.
CNN even agrees.
What preposterous nonsense.
The Civil War had a start date.
So did Fast and Furious.
Your claims don't match facts.
You tell ME when exactly Fast and Furious started. THAT program, not similar ones. When, or IF, I should say, you can do that, I might actually think you have a valid point. Until then, you got squat.
Obviously the analogy was lost on you. No surprise.
The same ATF agents were involved using the same gun dealers in at least 6 separately named cases,
between 2005 and 2009, one of which fell in the Obama term of office.
The blame lies somewhere in the ATF / DOJ chain of command over at least 6 years
BUT OBAMA & HOLDER!!!!!!!
Fast & Furious did not "start under Bush." That's simply false.
investigated and punished
Sure, Holder looked into his department's Fast And Furious like OJ hunted for the real killers.
Who just happens to be a lawyer whose personal social media posts are anti-Trump. While being interviewed as a prospective juror, she didn't reveal that information to the judge.
The selection of the Juror was agreed to by Stones' Attornies. Our Justice System allows for Stones Attorney to deny certain sitting of Jurors. They did not do so in this case. You disrespect our Jurisprudence system and trial by Jury by your comment.
She was not truthful when questioned under oath by the lawyers, so don't tell ME that I'm disrespectful of our jurisprudence system, dude.
Stone must have really incompetent lawyers then. They didn't make a peep. And other than you and propaganda sites, where is the proof SHE lied about anything?
If Stone's lawyers knew about this woman and still seated her on the jury, then he has a real case for ineffectual representation.
If she didn't disclose info pertinent to the case, then there is a case for a mistrial.
In a federal case lawyers on either side submit questions. The judge then has the final say on jurors. Do I think Judge Amy Berman Jackson will do the right thing? Not a chance. She is moving towards sentencing and leaving execution of the sentence until the court addresses Stone's request for a new trial.
The prosecutors were biased, the foreperson on the Jury was biased and the Judge seems biased. Look at the world Obama has left us.
Amy Berman Jackson, liberal political activist and Obama appointee.
And if Stone's lawyers knew this and let it go, counting on her becoming a possible cause for mistrial,
they could be disbarred ( no pun intended ).
So, it is like I stated above--there is either a case for ineffectual representation or a mistrial if the juror withheld info or lied.
A fair assessment
A fair assessment from a source we are not allowed to use as the basis for an article?
No thanks.
I agree with you about the source. They did, however, manage to reach the right conclusion - an obvious one!
Since I did not use The Gateway Pundit as the basis for an article or seed in comment 4.1.5 , what's your point?
Feel free to fact check Judge Amy Berman Jackson's history for yourself, and you'll find the same that I posted in comment 4.1.5 within other sources.
You expressed a partisan opinion backed up by what you and others believe is some sort of evidence of bias.
She's as much a liberal political activist as you are.
NOT ONCE has Mr. Barr intervened in a sentencing guideline filing. Only now that it is tRumps political hack that he does.
Show us the pattern of concern for similar defendants CONVICTED of a crime being reviewed. Obviously Barr can not. The sheer perversion of our Rule of Law by the Grifter King is bad enough. But the wholesale sellout of the Rule of Law by the GOP is a mortal sin against our Constitution than tRump's venereal one.
The Democratic opposition takes ordinary behavior and turns it into a scandal. It has been going during the entirety of this administration and even before.
"The Democratic opposition takes ordinary behavior and turns it into a scandal. "
Would that be like taking an electoral loss and fabricating things to come up with fictitious charges?