AG William Barr slams “utterly false Russian collusion narrative” but says Obama and Biden not under criminal investigation
“There’s a difference between an abuse of power and a federal crime. Not every abuse of power — no matter how outrageous — is necessarily a federal crime”
Attorney General William Barr, the second most hated man among the anti-Trump resistance, gave his detractors something to love today: Obama and Biden are not, and based on what Barr knows will not, be subject to criminal investigation in connection with John Durham’s investigation of the Russia collusion hoax:
“There’s a difference between an abuse of power and a federal crime. Not every abuse of power — no matter how outrageous — is necessarily a federal crime,” Barr said at an unrelated news conference to discuss last year’s shooting at a U.S. military base in Pensacola, Fla. “Now, as to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”
The mainstream media played up this angle, as this NY Times write up shows, Barr Dismisses Trump’s Claim That Russia Inquiry Was an Obama Plot:
Attorney General William P. Barr dismissed President Trump’s attempts to rebrand the Russia investigation as a criminal plot engineered by former President Barack Obama, saying on Monday that he expected no charges against either Mr. Obama or former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as a result of an investigation into how their administration handled Russian election interference.
“As long as I’m attorney general, the criminal justice system will not be used for partisan political ends,” Mr. Barr said during a news conference announcing that the gunman in last year’s shooting at Florida military base had links to Al Qaeda.
Mr. Barr said that John H. Durham, the federal prosecutor investigating how law enforcement and intelligence officials confronted Russia’s operations to meddle in the 2016 election, was examining some aspects of the case for potential crimes, but that he was focused on other people, not Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden.
“I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Mr. Barr said. “Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.” …
Mr. Barr’s comments served as an unmistakable rebuttal to escalating efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to reframe the Russia investigation as a plot to sabotage his presidency by Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden and officials in their administration.
CNN broadcast that portion of Barr’s statement, with the headline that Dana Bash: Bill Barr just sent a message to Trump.
Virtually all mainstream media coverage focused on the lack of criminal prosecution.
Trump was asked about it, and expressed surprise:
But there was another part of the statement that didn’t receive headline treatment. It’s heen hard even to find mention of it, but Politico had a portion (emphasis added):
However, Barr did not completely reject the White House and Trump campaign’s current “Obamagate” obsession — he simply cautioned that those expecting prosecutions of high-level political figures are likely to be disappointed. “Not every abuse of power, no matter how outrageous, is necessarily a federal crime,” he said.
The attorney general was also careful to couple his effort to dampen expectations for the Durham probe with an emphatic expression of sympathy for the president’s frequent public grievances regarding the Russia scandal, arguing that Trump’s treatment in the 2016 election and during the first two years of his administration was “abhorrent,” a “grave injustice” and “unprecedented in American history.”
“We saw two different standards of justice emerge: One that applied to President Trump and his associates, and the other that applied to everybody else,” Barr said. “We can’t allow this ever to happen again.”
The Wall Street Journal has this quote (emphasis added):
But Mr. Barr said, as he has in the past, that Mr. Trump was the victim of a yearslong “utterly false Russian collusion narrative” and that standards at the Justice Department were abused to reach a particular result. “We can’t allow this to ever happen again,” he said.
Here’s the video of the statement marked to start when Barr talks about the treatment of Trump:
Barr haters, however, see something devious in his announcing that Obam and Biden are not being investigated. It’s a ploy, he’s doing this on purpose to ….
Barr is playing 8-dimensional chess, that's it! https://t.co/qPaKLpmCZa
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) May 18, 2020
Same as with Ukraine-gate. All they want is a cloud of suspicion, which they can allude to during the campaign. No interest in an actual investigation (since that would require actual facts, oversight, and accountability) https://t.co/Nqw80wpJ9t
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 18, 2020
It’s a shame that Obama and Biden will get away with spying on and disrupting an incoming administration without at least being subject to a criminal investigation. If the roles were reversed and Trump spied on and disrupted an incoming Obama/Biden administration, you know that AG Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch would be throwing the full force of the federal government to lock Trump up.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
How can Barr not include Obama after the revelations re the meeting where he knew about the targeting of Gen Flynn?
It all turns on which side Barr really works for and who his boss(es) is/are. Getting more and more plain to see.
Because that targeting was an abuse of power, but not a crime. There’s no law that says they can’t do that.
It’s called treason. And sedition.
Actually, it’s a clear cut case of framing several innocent men, conspiracy to lie to the FISA court, and many other things.
Treason is aiding and abetting the “enemy.” Unsure we’ve declared war on anyone.
Read the law:
Methinks there is room to add Barr to criminal investigations……
There is (so far) no evidence that either 0bama or Biden did any such thing.
Point to the specific law they broke, based on what is now known about their actions, and then you can demand that Barr have them prosecuted. Without that you have no case.
I’ll buy sedition. Treason, an argument could be made, but that wouldn’t be my argument, although their actions are the functional equivalent thereof.
Sedition – a single count – is punishable by 20 years.
obama deserves life. hillary clinton’s treason is punishable by death.
No argument can be made for treason or sedition. And calling it treason explicitly contradicts the US constitution, which means that by FineReport’s own standard he is himself guilty of treason. Thankfully for him that standard is wrong.
Oh, and “knowingly or willfully advocat[ing…] advis[ing], or teach[ing] the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of” anything at all, including overthrowing the USA, is 100% protected speech, so Congress had no right to ban it, and this purported law is a nullity. There’s no dispute about this; it’s universally accepted by every court and every legal expert. Schenck has been completely overruled and is not the law.
No, it is not. You know it isn’t, but you lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. Shut your lying face, once and for all.
The violated their oaths of office where they promised to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. And don’t fucking tell me those oaths of office don’t mean anything. Because they do. And Obama and Clinton and Holder and Lynch and all the rest of the corrupt gang need to be held accountable for their actions.
Violating an oath of office is not a crime.
Title 18 Section 241:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
Title 18 Section 242:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
Title 42 Section 1983:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)
Title 42 Section 1985:
(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
(R.S. § 1980.)
Title 42 Section 1986
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
(R.S. § 1981.)
Mr. Chandler, thank you so very much for your valuable contributions to this thread.
I knew it was somewhere.
Do you practice in federal courts?
That’s all very well, but so far at least it doesn’t seem that either 0bama or Biden did those things. Even the unredacted Rice email doesn’t show that either 0bama or Biden were personally involved in the conspiracy to frame Flynn. All it shows is that 0bama knew about Flynn’s phone call that formed the pretext for the frame-up.
Who ordered the gestapo to go after the incoming administration, if that was either Obowelmovement or Obiden then they should be charged ,tried and sentence carried out.
Point to the specific law that says they can’t do that.
I think that conspiracy is against the law and a whole lot of people conspired here to upend the Trump presidency. RICO may be another angle that folks could look at as well.
Is “will not be investigated” the same as “will not be prosecuted”? If you investigate enough people connected to Obama and Biden and come up with the goods on them, and they in turn point to Obama and Biden, is there any need to investigate Obama and Biden explicitly?
Is there another aparatus that would hold them accountable, if not the DOJ?
You’d have to find a law that they broke. Merely directing the biggest political scandal in US history is not a crime.
It’s called treason. And sedition.
Mr. M thinks using law enforcement to spy on Americans abusing foreign intelligence procedures in violation of their 4th Amendment rights is legal.
How Stalinist of you.
It’s just ignorance.
If there is a specific law that they broke, and they can be proved to have broken it, they can be prosecuted. Nothing now publicly known shows that they broke any law. Abuse of office is not a crime.
How are these laws:
They broke their oath of office when they promised to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. And don’t you dare tell me that doesn’t count. Because if their fucking oaths of office don’t count for anything then why the hell are we making them take these oaths.
That cuts right to the heart of the matter and should be the first question asked. Why is it required that people take that oath if we aren’t going to hold them to it? There is no point in being a nation of laws if there is no justice. The injustice of what is happening couldn’t be more plain to see. Yet we allow ourselves to get entangled in the minutiae of law while the fascists are openly flaunting the law and rubbing our faces in it. We are heading for civil war.
It doesn’t count. Show me the law that says one may not violate an oath.
That might be a necessary statement since we’re in a an election year and those two are actively campaigning. After November 2020 it may be a different story. Any biden loss could be blamed on political interference.
Of course they’re not. Meanwhile, at this point in Watergate (3-1/2 years in), 18 republicans had already been frog-marched off to prison, and President Ford pardoned Nixon to keep him from being the next one.
The Democrats, bless them and their little black hearts, they know how to go after and jail their corrupt opponents. The Republicans are pearl-clutchers and wusses.
Bill Barr, pearl-clutcher. He dresses butch, but we all now know the truth.
Having been a Deep Stater is his previous AG stint, those who should be prosecuted probably have enough dirt on Barr to keep him obedient
It’s political and not entirely indefensible. Indicting a former head of state would be so shocking and divisive that a reasonable person might decide the issue either way.
Barr couldn’t charge Biden without charging The Lightbringer. And Biden is now so out of it that even Oscar Wilde wouldn’t laugh at him. Charging him would just make everyone feel sorry for him. Even I would.
I’m agnostic about Barr. I hope he’s for real, and that he isn’t just stalling so that the coup attempt can be buried alongside Seth Rich and our Constitution. Some heads need to roll, and not just a low-level clerk or two.
Is Biden mentally fit to stand trail?
I’m old enough to remember Richard Nixon and his pardon.
If Nixon could have been prosecuted, so can Obama.
What Obama did is consistent with his Secret Service name of “Renegade.” From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of renegade (Entry 1 of 3)
1: a deserter from one faith, cause, or allegiance to another
2: an individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior
He has rejected every American political custom. Put him in the slammer.
Rejecting political customs is not a crime.
“Customs” my ass. the obama infestion of the White House was a crime spree.
Mr. M has law-itis, but not even a good case of that.
Spying on Flynn, a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Co-ordinating all this, including illegal leaks to the media…. RICO… RICO…. RICO….
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Barr needs to apply himself in order that “Our Democracy” TM, including 60 million plus Trump voters, have their policies enacted and not sabotaged for more than 3 years, by a conspiracy of self-anointed law breakers.
If Barr doesn’t think the loss of 3.5 years to the voters that elected Trump is worthy of applying criminal law effectively, it illustrates the establishment really think they own the government and we “citizens” have no right to what we vote for.
We “citizens”… how quaint.
Throw them all in jail and seize their assets.
“”Spying on Flynn, a violation of the 4th Amendment.””
My understanding is that they used NSA intercepts, which aren’t subject to the 4th since the targets are (putatively) foreign agents. The real “crime” was in unmasking Flynn’s ID, which is apparently legal (even if unethical) under some circumstances, but I would think that unless a warrant was issued to that effect, it shouldn’t be legal to use them to investigate or prosecute him. OTOH, we’re talking about Democrats.
Again, point to the specific law they broke, and to the evidence that they broke it.
It’s not about his being a former president. Barr said why they won’t be investigated for crimes; because what we know or suspect they did is not a crime. If evidence ever comes up that they broke an actual law then they can be prosecuted for it.
I think that he could find crime that Obama and Biden committed. The problem, for me, is that at that time, Obama was the President. That means that all executive power flowed from him and his office. That includes all discretion. If DAG Yates wrote rules that interpreted FISA in such a way for the Executive Branch that certain actions violated that law, those rules and regulations didn’t apply to Obama. Rather her rules were his rules, until he decided that they weren’t. Similarly, he couldn’t illegally disclose classified information, because he controlled the classification of all information in the government. If he disclosed something, it was implicitly declassified.
Moreover, the President has the pardon power. While that usually means a formal written pardon, there is nothing really explicit in the Constitution requiring that. You could argue that when he conversed with Crooked Hillary it’s an alias, that he essentially gave her a green light to continue using her otherwise illegal private email server. And when he stated that she wasn’t guilty, that that was the end of the discussion. That her actions were sanctioned, that the DOJ did not have the discretion to prosecute her, and any transgressions of laws by her were essentially pardoned.
Yes, this is a very expansive definition of Presidential power. But it does have support in the Constitution, that does not really envision such a powerful government or extensive legal code. And against Republicans, the Dems, the left, etc, would be arguing constraints on the President. But not here, when he is one of theirs. And I think because this argument is as plausible as it is, that it would be very hard, both legally, and pragmatically, to try a former President for actions that would be illegal if anyone else did them.
I don’t like this, of course. But the only alternative I see is giving the Executive Branch independent power outside the ConstitutIon, above and beyond what it is delegated by the President in his Article II § 1 Executive power. And right now, esp after better than three years of their sedition trying to destroy the President from whom all of their power has been delegated, I would prefer that the Executive Branch not have any power of its own outside that delegated to it by the a President. And that is because there would then be no constraints on the Executive Branch, while the President are removable by impeachment, and limited to 10 (usually 8) years in office.
No, this won’t work. Yes, all executive power belongs to the president, and so does all discretion, but if there’s an explicit law that 0bama broke, and enough evidence to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that he did indeed break it, then no amount discretion can change that. It would be nice if such evidence could be found; but Barr’s in a position to know, and if he says it’s unlikely I believe him. Certainly nothing currently known shows that he broke any laws.
And all the precedents on pardons require that a pardon not only must be formally offered, but must also be accepted. Even a formal pardon that the person rejects is invalid. A fortiori a mere failure to prosecute someone is not a pardon.
I, unfortunately, agree in principle with what you write. Ie: Hillary’s server- no one in government (even local) can really use a private email account for conducting government business, let alone set up an entirely independent system. But there probably is no law or regulation prohibiting it and making it “illegal”. No one even conceived that a cabinet offical would have the gall to actually do this so, no law was really broken plus, Obummer just had to say he allowed it= case closed. Dems favorite weapon is trial by media and, together with the alphabet “news” can make you guilty before you say word #1 in your defense. Dems are also masters at throwing all sorts of mud hoping that something sticks enough where your own party will throw you out and they will all but sideline you in the court of public opinion. Had we not held the senate last election, this party would already be over, with the help of Republicans.
Transmission, receipt, retention and storage of classified material has a whole regime of requirements that must be met.
Your security clearance is at Top Secret. You have all the cool compartmentalized endorsements for code-word specific information. You can look at the data right? Wrong, you did not get ‘read in’ by the applicable office responsible.
You are fully authorized by your clearance and need to know for the information. All your boxes are checked. You decide to print out the information and take it home. Nothing wrong? Sorry you don’t have courier authorization to transport the data.
Even more simple example:
All clearance issues satisfied. You access the data and download to some kind of storage, DVD, geek stick doesn’t matter. You then use a cpu that isn’t authorized for that level of information to view the data on your geek stick. Bad boy.
If, in fact, HRC had classified data on any home server which wasn’t specifically authorized to hold the data that would be unlawful. Next question is how was the server physically secured. There is a whole book of rules about compliance with physical storage security.
Next question for HRC is how did the data get onto the server? Air walking via an intermediary storage device or was it transmitted to the server? Finally was the server and it’s connections in compliance with that additional set of rules?
Lots of ways people make mistakes, they do it every day. Innocent in the sense that they didn’t understand that their short cut for expediency is wrong. Doesn’t matter that they say they didn’t know.
You can try and claim you didn’t know, but the SF86 you signed says you read, understand and will comply with the rules. It also tells you who to go to if you need a question answered concerning your proposed activity. Provides warnings about breaking the rules.
Bottom line is no excuses for not following the rules.
Indeed, but you forgot one thing: This is one of the laws for which it really is true that if you’re the president it’s not a crime. The president can’t violate this law, because by definition anything he authorizes is legal. So even if Clinton was breaking the law, 0bama would not have been. (And of course if Clinton had his permission then she wouldn’t be breaking the law either. But we’re not discussing her, we’re discussing him.)
Also, the email he sent her was not classified anyway. So even if he weren’t the president there would have been nothing wrong with his sending it. The only significance of that email is that it shows he knew she had a private email address.
Excuse me? Trump was IMPEACHED without even a scintilla of evidence that he did anything wrong AND with mountains of irrefutable evidence that the Obama/Clinton crime families DID commit crimes. Please reconcile your goofy logic to reality.
So Trump is making a major blunder then by NOT being a dictator? It’s perfectly legal to be a criminal POTUS so long as you are not a Republican? THAT is exactly why societies crumble. This is exactly for the expression “…first you get rid of the lawyers…” Smell the coffee already. You can’t see the forest for the trees. You are about to be eaten by a bear yet are frozen in place by the “No Running!” sign.
For once, how about suggesting a SOLUTION instead of leading us again into surrender.
What has impeachment got to do with it? Impeachment is not a criminal process. A public officer can be impeached for anything Congress thinks he shouldn’t have done, even if it was completely legal. But to charge someone with a crime they must have actually committed one, and mere abuse of power is not a crime. Indeed that’s what the impeachment power is for, and if Trump were to genuinely abuse his power he would be impeached and this time the senate would remove him for it. It didn’t do so last time because it wasn’t convinced that what he did was wrong, or at least wrong enough to justify removal.
Milhouse, the only thing you are accomplishing here is proving that you are argumentative and don’t have a grasp about how law and justice work. To you, it’s just a pedantic exercise of making unsubstantiated declarations and reflecting the onus of proof to the person you are confronting.
The whole point of having the constitution is to provide a framework for debating opposing interests to arrive at JUSTICE. You keep arguing over and over again that IT’S ILLEGAL! SHOW ME THE LAW THAT ([fill in the blank]! What exactly is your point?
You offer nothing in helping us stage an effective legal insurrection to reverse corrupted interpretations of the law. Your way of thinking does not produce justice. Just pointless argument.
As I’ve said several times before, how about HELPING instead of OBSTRUCTING! This may be a site for lawyers but your kind of legal advice is worthless. We are trying to WIN. You keep telling us we CAN’T win. Stop it!
Phil, on the contrary, you are the one who has no concept of how the law or justice work. You are proving that you don’t give a sh*t about the truth or about justice, you just want to get 0bama and you don’t care how.
Remember, YOU are the one who is demanding that criminal charges be brought against two US citizens, and loudly denouncing the Attorney General for his announcement that this is unlikely to happen. Therefore the onus is on YOU to state what specific law you think they have broken, and why you think so.
The whole point of having the constitution is to protect the rule of law, and at the core of the rule of law is that nobody may be charged with a crime that doesn’t exist. To charge someone the state must cite the specific law it claims they broke, and show not only what they did but that it violates that law. Merely pointing to their actions and arguing that they were “obviously” wrong is not enough.
That’s what the Supreme Court has been trying to hammer into prosecutors for a long time, e.g. in the Arthur Anderson case, the Bob McDonnell case, the Conrad Black case, and most recently in the Bridgegate case. And what it said in the Bridgegate case is directly on point here: not everything that is corrupt is criminal, and it is wrong to charge someone with a crime just because they were corrupt.
Barr says there’s no indication 0bama and Biden committed any crime; if you disagree, show that he’s wrong. Don’t just yell that they abused their office, because that’s not enough.
According to former US Atty Di Genova, conspiracy to deprive civil rights under color of law and sedition for starters
So what’s the actual point of having a “Department of Justice” then if the Attorney General consistently refuses to do their job and investigate possible criminal wrongdoing by high government officials. Holder, did nothing. Lynch, did nothing. Sessions, did nothing. Barr, is doing nothing. They all just unilaterally declare, “No crimes were committed!” and that’s it. Might as well just disband the whole fucking thing as the DOJ is totally useless.
He is investigating possible criminal wrongdoing. But the emphasis is on “criminal”. So far there is no indication that 0bama’s and Biden’s wrongdoing was criminal, so it would be wrong to charge them. If that changes, then Barr will delight in charging them after all.
Let the leftist-media roosters crow – this a false dawn for the terminally myopic. Barr IS the dog that hunts.
Durham is on the brink of success. The stage is set. This is the breath before the plunge.
Seriously . . . this a false dawn for the terminally myopic. Barr IS the dog that hunts.
Durham is on the brink of success. The stage is set. This is the breath before the plunge.
Based on what?
Hillary clinton and obama will skate.
The trust in our gveronment going forward ia zero.
“Durham is on the brink of success. The stage is set. This is the breath before the plunge….”
It’ll be a flat tire. Barr is boehner.
Try this again.
Bullshite. Time and time again we’ve heard that, “[Insert Name Here] is on the brink of success!” or [Insert Name Here]‘s game changing report is almost here!” and what do we get. A big fat, fucking nothing burger. The “Report” comes out and . . . nothing happens. Nothing. And I don’t expect anything to major to happen when the Durham Report comes out. The democrats will deny it all, it will be filed away with all the other reports that have been written, and be largely forgotten by the next week when the next big manufactured Trump controversy hits the media. Guaranteed.
And during all of it Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Holder, Comey, and the rest will be laughing their heads off knowing they are untouchable and will never be held accountable for their criminal acts. Fucking disgusting if you ask me. But that’s they way it is. And that’s the way it will always be.
Color me unsurprised. Barr has done nothing to drain the swamp at DOJ. Bruce Ohr is still on the payroll and McCabe was allowed to skate. I wouldn’t be surprised if all those involved just got a slap on the wrist.
I think some of you up there ^^ missed something. When speaking about Obama and Biden, Barr included this: “based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man.”
Depending on how the other investigations develop, that situation could change. He has ruled nothing out.
Barr isn’t Trump. Barr isn’t trying to be unpredictable. He’s a predictable man.
Nothing will happen to them. We’ve been denied justice in spades.
He’s from the old GOP school of failure that boehner graduated from magna cum laude.
Barr is a great disappointment, but not unexpected.
Beware of the next democrat president: it’ll be our end. This “virus” bullshit was the warm-up.
Not to get ad hominem, but you remind me of a child staring out the window on Christmas Eve waiting for that magical sleigh to appear
Comey wasn’t investigating Trump either. Don’t want to make the same mistake. Find predicate first.
Yeah, amatuer, Barr’s not excluding charges vs. Biden from other sleuths beside Durham.
And, what if Durham is going after the Made Men whose orders SparkleFarts was following?
I’m giving you an upvote for Sparklefarts. I’m stealing it too for use later.
Yeah, 4fun, be my guest!
You may well know, it refers to his ability to get the MSM to tie knots, between the hairs on MSM noses, and on his rump.
“Have another donut,” Porky.
Trump would spy on the Biden campaign but an old man eating crackers and tomato soup before his 5th nap of the day is not exactly newsworthy.
Barr is a thorough disappointment.
Since he’s a lawyer and Trump is merely a knowledgeable layman, Trump keeps following his advice to bow to the judiciary who have been usurping executive powers for decades. This defeats a very large portion of the purpose for electing Trump.
Who the hell is Barr to tell Trump to bow to “the weakest branch”? What happened to co-equal, Barr? What happened to it? Ever read any of the Federalist Papers, by chance?!
I’m infuriated. Barr is a weakling. Better than Sessions as A.G., and damning him with faint praise is only a taste of what I’d like to see happen to him and others like him that allow us to be sacrificed on the alter of judicial supremacy.
The truth is, it’s shocking how many things are “LEGAL” for those attached to the federal government. Lois Lerner, anybody? Who sicced the Federal Departments on Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote? FBI?! IRS! ATF!!! OSHA!!! Texas Commission on Environmental Quality!?!
The automatic immunity of those connected with the fed. govt. and the in-club means that the rest of us, 95% of us, in fact engaged in involuntary servitude to the self-immunizing ruling class.
Barr ought to consider how infuriating it is to those he wants to “obey the law,” that he has immunized the “special” people who are so wantonly corrupt that he has to pretend their actions aren’t illegal.
Barr, if there is NO LAW for the “special” people, and NO LAW for illegal aliens, please explain to we plebes exactly what benefit there is in being an American citizen in this century. It appears to me you’re hastening the demise of its attractiveness.
I’m not your damn mule to slice and dice, and walk away, shrugging your shoulders, that when the feds slice and dice, it’s not criminal. To hell with you!
Barr is boehner. No difference ultimately.
He’s from the old GOP school of failure that boehner graduated from magna cum laude.
Barr is the quintessential company man.
Don’t rock that boat. Don’t rock the boat!
The wrong man for these times, except for the alternative of Sessions.
Trump, can’t you find a man who will back you up as the President of the United States and all the perogatives that come with it? I would hire Ann Colter as A.G. In a heartbeat!
Trump, FIRE BARR. HIRE ANN COLTER.
Oh, and let’s not forget all the proposals and existing laws Barr has supported that would enable the lawless “special” people to spy on us, spy on us, and spy on us some more.
Barr thinks we’re just lab rats he can control and manipulate.
I’m fed up with the attitude of these fed. govt. types.
Am I angry? No, I think furious is more accurate. How dare he allow this cabal to get away with this. We pay taxes for this crap?
There is still impeachment, which would take away federal benefits of being a former Pres/VP, such as pension, Secret Service protection, etc.
As long as Pelosi has the House, we can count that out.
How has Trump been so unlucky to have the two worst AG’s in the history of this once great Country.
God please help us help Presdient Trump win re election in Nov and POTUS, once you do, fire Barr and hire your war time consigliere…
Totally agree. We need to help him get re-elected, and he needs to appoint the most aggressive, creative, innovative, in-your-face A.G. he can find.
And he needs to have litmus tests for them!
You will do what I tell you, correct?
Your department will ignore usurping judges, correct?
You will flaunt nationwide injunctions, correct?
You will urge Congress to impeach usurping judges, correct?
Etc. Etc. Etc.
We really need the second coming of Andrew Jackson as A.G.
Lynch and Holder were the worst criminals……..
In the context of this story someone should ask Barr about this whistleblower’s allegation:
Complaint filed 3 years ago against Obama’s Treasury spying on Trump.
Exactly. Obama’s crimes are so plentiful, you can find one under every rock!!
Turn a few over, Barr!
Oh, I’m sure that Barr is investigating ….and investigating…
Nothing this whistleblower alleged would be 0bama’s crime.
And what about Obama emailing Hillary on her bathroom server?
Poor Snowden and Assange, having a hell of a time, but Obama bought a house on the beach…..
Susan Rice wrote that “Memo to Self” for a reason, and the reason was to cover up the illegal activities and conspiracy of everyone in that room.
My God, Barr, spare us the soporifics. Just arrest the damn criminals and try the S.O.B.s.
And for crying out loud, get a change of venue out of D.C. I refuse to believe federal courts don’t allow changes of venue when the jury pool is contaminated with bias.
Barr just retired, much like sessions.
I point out elsewhere that they could argue that Obama’s use of an alias to converse by email with Crooked Hillary through her otherwise illegal email server, sanctioned its use by her. Certainly, his statement that she was innocent could have been seen by DOJ and FBI as removing their discretion to investigate her, and to charge her.
Bruce, it’s entirely possible I both agree and disagree with you.
And isn’t it funny, no matter what Trump says, the FBI and DOJ does as they wish in investigating, indicting, and prosecuting. Trump is afraid to touch it because the left wing would issue hue and cry.
But Obama, Obama can do, did, whatever the hell he wanted with law enforcement with impunity.
Perhaps you should talk to Trump and explain to him his plenary powers.
There is no law against a president sending an email to his secretary of state, no matter where her server was located.
Barr is ensuring the US maintains a multi-tier justice system that punishes patriots severely for thought crime and up, while aiding and abetting crimes against the patriots in service to tyrannic cosmopolitanism.
Guys, simmer down now.
AG Barr stated that based upon the current knowledge he has related to Durham investigation that he doesn’t anticipate charges for Obama or Biden.
He did not say he wouldn’t charge them in the future. He didn’t say that they couldn’t be changed.
So if Durham is investigating x and x rolls over on Obama or Biden with heretofore unknown information that shows a criminal offence by Obama or Biden the AG has not ruled out their prosecution.
Using the inherent powers of an office in a way that we don’t like because it is unseemly isn’t a crime. No matter how bad an action appears to be, unless that action meets the definition of a crime then it is not criminal.
I believe that if a crime is discovered that could be proven beyond the reasonable doubt threshold, the AG will bring the charges.
Of course that’s a D.C. jury so the hurdle of beyond a reasonable doubt is a bit higher….as in Here is the series of still photos and video that validates the simultaneous audio recording of Obama and Biden planning, executing and celebrating their crime plus eyewitness testimony to the same.
“He did not say he wouldn’t charge them in the future. He didn’t say that they couldn’t be changed…”
That’s like saying the AG is investigating the NY mafia with all resources, but Gotti won’t be charged.
Barr threw down the gauntlet of GOP surrender.
Are you actually that naive or do you , like Barr, think the rest of us such?
No I am very cynical. Did you bother to read the last sentence of my post or did you ignore it?
Bottom line is the indictment of a former President and VP would have such a large political component that it would be viewed as a political act; bsent overwhelming evidence.
To expect any AG to pursue an indictment in these circumstances without such clear and irrefutable evidence is unrealistic.
IMO the AG would do so if he had such evidence. You are free to disagree. Personally, I doubt that level of evidence will be discovered so this point about the AG taking action is likely moot.
What I fear is that the globalists are still working the kabuki to contain Trump by building a firewall around the FORMER presidents. to protect the franchise. Four more years of Trump will not be enough to root out more than a sliver of corruption so they will all skate scot free but with the Bush gang in charge.
Am I the only one noticing that the old RINOs are still organized and forming a BS barrier of protection in the Senate? How many more times do we have to listen to that limp-wristed sitz-pinkler Lindsay Graham declaring his committee will be investigating this or that in two weeks? Will the never-arriving Durham report end up being the concluding bookend to the Mueller Report?
Yes, I am THAT cynical. We’ve seen this over and over and over again. It always ends with surrender. I just don’t believe anybody anymore. We are being taken for a ride.
Of course I am disappointed,, but, things legal are mysterious to me on a good day.
Beyond a reasonable doubt, that is a high bar, unless of course you are a Democrat. As Professor Jacobson said, it is a shame.
I think that there are two reasons why AG Barr is being cautious here. First, as I have suggested above, prosecution would be very hard, due to the Executive Power issue. At the time, it could, and would, be argued that Obama, as President, possessed all of the Executive power of the United States, through the power grant in Article II § 1.
The other is that we have a norm that Presidents, and their Administrations, don’t prosecute their predecessors for crimes occurring during that former a President’s term of office. This keeps us, to some extent, out of banana republic territory. I have little doubt that some Democrat Administration in the future will violate this unspoken norm. And it will no longer be the norm. But I think that it is perfectly rational for Barr and Trump To decide not be the ones to violate, and thus discard, this norm.
As I noted above, Obama doesn’t believe in American customs or norms or laws…..
Let’s give him his norms, good and hard.
I’m sure if we spy on him, we can prosecute him for all manner of thigns…. Jaywalking… taking foreign campaign contributions…. bundling $$… Like Dinesh D’Souza did for his college friend….
Trust me, there are plenty of laws he’s broken…. You just have to choose the poison most odious to you….
Point granted about all of us being potentially prosecuted for some inadvertent violations. Lord knows how many actual criminal acts exist within the body of federal law, administrative rules and agency regulations.
Getting a political opponent on some BS violation is not the answer. That will bring about a true end to our traditional peaceful transfer of power for obvious reasons.
IMO, we shouldn’t want an indictment until there are real crimes that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
What in the hell do you think that SDNY and the NY state AG are doing right now? They are planning the prosecution of Trump the minute he leaves office
Obama, as President, certainly did possess all of the Executive power of the United States. But that power does not include the authority to commit a crime. If convincing evidence can be found that he did so, he can be prosecuted for it. But so far all we have is that he abused his office, and that’s not a crime.
Prosecuting a former president/VP is a big deal, not to be taken lightly. I find nothing Barr said to be inconsistent with following the law. It needs to be an ironclad case and presidents have lawyers to advise them how to break the law without being the one that breaks the law. It’s how it’s done by criminals like obama.
So, evidence of an ironclad nature will be required and prosecution will depend on someone close getting snared and turning tables. This takes time and hardcore prosecutors. Time will tell if we have a case. And if not, it doesn’t mean Barr/Durham are whitewashing. Reality is what it is.
“you know that AG Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch would be throwing the full force of the federal government to lock Trump up.”
Yes, and that’s because of Barr’s principle that “As long as I’m attorney general, the criminal justice system will not be used for partisan political ends.” This is a principle that Democrats do not share.
Which is why Republicans are and will always be the “Stupid Party” to the Democrats’ “Evil Party.”