After Trump’s Attacks on Justice Dept., Barr Says He Will Not ‘Be Bullied’

[j brown's body]

Hmm. What to make of this?

I say it's B.S. Let's review the record:

January 30, 2020, Tim Shay, long-time advisor to Barr, was named interim USA for Wash. D.C. which oversees the:

--Mike Flynn case. Recently changed its recommendation from jail time to probation. Very, very unusual.
--Stone case. Changed recommendation to less time. Very, very unusual.
--James Comey leak case. Based on very thin predicate.
--Andrew McCabe case. Grand jury declined to indict, but DOJ hasn't moved to clear him. Very, very unusual.
--Eric Prince case referred by Intel Committee for lying to Congress. No movement.

And now Barr claims to be innocent as a rose and upset at Trump's "meddling?" Color me skeptical. If anything, Barr feels that Trump is being too blatant about it, and desires the corruption of the Justice Department to continue a little less visibly.

Good God Barr, let it go. Justice has been served. Please, use your power to fight crime, not go after the leaders political enemies. There is no end to this.

 

[jpn]

There is always going to be a sentencing recommendation.
Debates surrounding what the recommendation ought to be are always going to occur.
The judge is not mandated to accept the recommendation.

Yes. What was extremely unusual was the USA office making one recommendation and then changing their decision the day afterwards. I hope the judge asks the prosecutors exactly where the order to overturn the recommendation of the four prosecutors who had spent years on the case came from and why.

 

[jpn]

Theoretical claims of obstruction. On their own terms they were baseless.

Sure. If you believe direct sworn testimony and documentary evidence "baseless," you bet. :roll:

 

[jpn]

Its quite clear Russia played the Trump campaign.

Yes it is. And Putin is still playing Trump like his personal sock puppet.

The main issue wasn't whether Russia sought to interfere in the election. The issue was whether Mr. Trump conspired with Russia in its efforts.
The Obama Admin was quick to jump on the latter while more than happy to utilize information from anonymous Russian sources. in support of such a belief.

Uh, actually the FBI made the decision to investigate information that Russia was meddling in the election. I imagine you support that decision.

1/6/17: The Obama administration on Friday officially blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for directing a massive cyber assault against the U.S. election in an attempt to "undermine" the democratic process and "harm" Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy. The NSA, FBI, and CIA reported that "Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."​

As for Trump's role, the Mueller investigation was provoked not by Democrats but by a Republican president firing a Republican FBI director under dodgy circumstances, and a bipartisan Congress then appointing a Republican investigator to look into it.

 

[jpn]

Here's more on how Putin plays Trump:


Trump couldn't stand the idea that he might have won in 2016 only because of Russian interference. So Putin put the idea in his head that the opposite happened: Trump won in spite of Ukrainian interference against him.
Putin played him like a violin.

For some White House officials struggling to understand Trump’s obsession with Ukraine, the Hamburg meetings were a turning point.
Three former senior administration officials said Trump repeatedly insisted after the G-20 summit that he believed Putin’s assurances that Russia had not interfered in the 2016 campaign. The officials said Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all tried to caution Trump not to rely on Putin’s word, and to focus on evidence to the contrary that U.S. intelligence agencies had collected.

Over the next several months, Trump privately told aides on several occasions that he believed Ukraine had interfered and tried to help Clinton win the White House, former officials said.
“The strong belief in the White House was that Putin told him,” one former official said.
Trump repeatedly told one senior official that the Russian president said Ukraine sought to undermine him, the official said.

In the wake of Hamburg, top leaders were dispatched to try to convince him that Russia interfered in the campaign. On different occasions, Kelly asked Bossert, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and his principal deputy, Sue Gordon, to brief the president on the intelligence community’s Russia assessment, said former officials with knowledge of the briefings.
They did not convince him.

This fall, U.S. intelligence officials informed lawmakers about what they have concluded has been an organized campaign by Russian propagandists to spread the Ukraine theory on social media, said people with knowledge of the reporting.
The reports by intelligence analysts cite evidence that the propagandists were taking credit for helping to spread disinformation that equated Ukraine’s actions to Russia’s, and celebrating the traction it was getting, particularly with conservative news organizations.

The intelligence reports were shared with members of Congress and their staff, including lawmakers who have in recent weeks become some of the most vocal advocates for investigating Ukraine’s alleged interference, said people with knowledge of the matter. The New York Times*first reported*the briefings to lawmakers.

 

[Athanasius68]

Sure. If you believe direct sworn testimony and documentary evidence "baseless," you bet. :roll:

The evidence is insufficient.

 

[Athanasius68]

Uh, actually the FBI made the decision to investigate information that Russia was meddling in the election. I imagine you support that decision.

They began that in 2015.

1/6/17: The Obama administration on Friday officially blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for directing a massive cyber assault against the U.S. election in an attempt to "undermine" the democratic process and "harm" Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy. The NSA, FBI, and CIA reported that "Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."​

And they also thought Mr. Trump was conspiring with it.
They were wrong about that.
How does the anti-Trump Steele dossier fit into the theory?

As for Trump's role, the Mueller investigation was provoked not by Democrats but by a Republican president firing a Republican FBI director under dodgy circumstances,

Circumstances being the theory that Mr. Trump had conspired with Russia and in firing Mr. Comey was trying to cover up an investigation.

 

[Athanasius68]

Trump couldn't stand the idea that he might have won in 2016 only because of Russian interference.

Or in a sense of outrage that he was falsely accused of a heinous crime.

Putin played him like a violin.

He played a lot of people like a violin-- the Obama Admin comes to mind.

F

or some White House officials struggling to understand Trump’s obsession with Ukraine, the Hamburg meetings were a turning point.
Three former senior administration officials said Trump repeatedly insisted after the G-20 summit that he believed Putin’s assurances that Russia had not interfered in the 2016 campaign. The officials said Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all tried to caution Trump not to rely on Putin’s word, and to focus on evidence to the contrary that U.S. intelligence agencies had collected.

Yep-- Trump should not rely upon the word of Mr. Putin.
Neither should the Obama Admin had relied upon anonymous Russian sources.
But there you go.

Over the next several months, Trump privately told aides on several occasions that he believed Ukraine had interfered and tried to help Clinton win the White House, former officials said.

There was that claim, based upon statements made by Ukranian officials. The question was whether it was a policy of the Ukraine governments or just Ukrainian officials shooting off their mouths.

“The strong belief in the White House was that Putin told him,” one former official said.
Trump repeatedly told one senior official that the Russian president said Ukraine sought to undermine him, the official said.

Could be.

In the wake of Hamburg, top leaders were dispatched to try to convince him that Russia interfered in the campaign. On different occasions, Kelly asked Bossert, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and his principal deputy, Sue Gordon, to brief the president on the intelligence community’s Russia assessment, said former officials with knowledge of the briefings.
They did not convince him.

He had a very bad experience with American intelligence. His distrust was well earned.
But he is wrong to assume the good nature of Mr. Putin.

This fall, U.S. intelligence officials informed lawmakers about what they have concluded has been an organized campaign by Russian propagandists to spread the Ukraine theory on social media, said people with knowledge of the reporting.

The reports by intelligence analysts cite evidence that the propagandists were taking credit for helping to spread disinformation that equated Ukraine’s actions to Russia’s, and celebrating the traction it was getting, particularly with conservative news organizations.

The "equal" part was never the case. But yes, based upon statements made by Ukranian officials there was a question as to whether Ukraine had also interfered.

 

[jpn]

The evidence is insufficient.

From the Mueller report:

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mr. Mueller’s investigators wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

 

[Michael Cole]

What are you talking about?
Trump didn't conspire with Russia.
Exculpatory evidence was ignored.
FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained.
Its no longer subject to debate.
The issue is whether the travesty happened due to incompetence or corruption or other factors.

Tell that to those convicted of crimes because of this travesty. They obviously need your exquisite legal advice.

 

[Michael Cole]

The evidence is insufficient.

No, it's not.