The New York City bar goes after William Barr

[OldFatGuy]

Whoa! Isn't this interesting?

I wasn't aware Barr was a New Yorker, and he's a member of the NY bar. Yeah, this could get interesting. Does the U.S. AG need a bar card to hold the post? I'm not sure.

Barr is a member in good standing of the Federal Bar Association, and that of Florida, California, Texas, Connecticut and Massachusetts, as well as NY.

 

[ludin]

So you mentioned one charge.

What about the other six he was convicted of, including witness tampering.

What about threatening the judge.

This guy helped a foreign government fix a US election he deserves life!!!

that was the witness tampering.
Barr is in the right on this.

He didn't fix any US election there was 0 evidence of voter fraud remember?

 

[Chomsky]

Good. Barr is the most corrupt AG since Meese.

Great reference!

And not ironically:

President Trump will present the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor Tuesday, to a former top aide to President Ronald Reagan who has been a stalwart of the conservative movement for the past half-century.

Edwin Meese III, always known as Ed, is a native Californian and a living reminder of the time when the Republican Party counted on the Golden State as the cornerstone of its Electoral College majorities.

Source: (NPR) Trump To Honor Former Reagan Attorney General, Who Left Government Under Ethics Cloud

See what's going-on here?

 

[Chomsky]

Barr is a member in good standing of the Federal Bar Association, and that of Florida, California, Texas, Connecticut and Massachusetts, as well as NY.

I wasn't aware there was such a thing. Thank you!

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Nobody cares what the bias New York State Bar has to say. If they think they are going to stick a guy for 9 years for lying they have another thing coming. They only want to bury Stone because he is a Trump supporter. They let cop killers go with less time and murderers.

The Justice Department are over ALL law enforcement in the US. They can just get over it.

1. Nobody is going to “stick” Stone for any time he doesn’t deserve.

2. The saying is “you have another think coming”.

3. Stone wasn’t convicted of murder, he was convicted of obstruction, lying to Congress, and witness tampering. If he gets 9 years he should consider himself very lucky.

 

[Chomsky]

Crazy... The state of New York is after the president and anyone who has supported him or the administration.


New York’s incoming Attorney General Letitia James has ambitious plans to go after President Donald Trump for any crimes he may have committed in the Empire State before taking the White House. To that end, James plans a series of investigations into the 45th president, his family and “anyone” connected to Trump.

How is it crazy? To go after crimes?

 

[GDViking]

no you ignore facts. trump had nothing to do with barr's decision.
the prosecutors were out of line in their recommendation and no witness was threatened.

even the person they said was threatened testified in court that he wasn't. he was actually friends with stone and they
talked like that to each other all the time.

the prosecution ignored facts and testimony much like most leftist do.
then again most of the mueller prosecutors were leftist lawyers.

I love the term "leftist lawyer's" because it proves that disregarding the corrupt, most intelligent people lean left...

 

[Chomsky]

I find it interesting that leftist have absolutely no clue about what they are talking about yet think they do.

The reason that barr did what he did is because the recommendations given where not in line with what the lawyers on the case proposed
to the DOJ before hand. In fact they were grossly out of line with other punishments in the same regard.

the AG and the DOJ are under no legal requirements to take the prosecutors opinion.
Barr did the correct thing in this regard and have called these prosecutors into question about why they lied.

I can't speak to the appropriateness of the guidelines, but Barr did this after Trump Tweeted. You forgot to include that.

 

[OldFatGuy]

I wasn't aware there was such a thing. Thank you!

His practice made the multiple bar association memberships a requirement for representing his clients with no NYS reciprocity for more than an as needed occasional purpose. Also a plan for attorneys who skirt the edges of ethics, disbarred in one state, still able to practice in another.

You are welcome. Fairly common for many attorneys who have cause for representation of clients in multiple states.

 

[Chomsky]

There is no NYC Bar Association. This was a general meeting of the Manhattan Bar Association. Each of the 5 counties, boroughs, of the City of New York, has their own bar associations. The 5 NYC Bar Associations are far from unified, and within each there are separate associations for criminal, immigration, matrimonial and civil practice attorneys. Less than 40% of the city's practicing attorneys belong to the 5 city bar associations. The State requires admission and good standing (dues paid to date) in the State Bar Association in return for licensing. This became a requirement in 1936 when the State Bar Association had less than 10% of the State's attorneys as members and was in danger of dissolution.

Any claims as to what the State Bar Association will investigate made by the Manhattan Bar Association members is absurd at best. The political turf wars between the upstate members of the State Bar, as opposed to the members from downstate, preclude any suppositions by members of the Manhattan Bar. It should be noted that the most vociferous members of the Manhattan Bar calling for an investigation into the Barr/Stone sentencing are each jockeying for political position for nomination to about to be vacated seats in the City Council and State Assembly.

A little grandstanding makes for interesting but relatively worthless publicity. It has become common practice for NYC attorneys to run for office, with no intent to win, for the purpose of generating name recognition and garnering new clients. "(S)He ran for office, (s)he must be somebody with juice." Anything goes for making rain.

Thank again for providing the jurisdiction details, here.

 

[US&THEM]

Nope.

That is not my claim.

Seriously...what part of "lied to their superiors" do you not understand?

What part of the 26 page sentencing memo signed off by the US Attorney do you not understand? For your statement to be factual the 26 pages are all fiction.

 

[Chomsky]

His practice made the multiple bar association memberships a requirement for representing his clients with no NYS reciprocity for more than an as needed occasional purpose. Also a plan for attorneys who skirt the edges of ethics, disbarred in one state, still able to practice in another.

You are welcome. Fairly common for many attorneys who have cause for representation of clients in multiple states.

Of the bolded I'm aware. I was not aware of Barr's NY ties, nor was I aware of a federal bar (but it does make sense). Thanks, again.

 

[JasperL]

Actually, a President publicly expressing his opinion is perfectly fine. Heck, it's just as fine as you expressing YOUR opinion...and it has the same power over people as yours.

Of course it is, because if Trump does it there is an approximately 100% chance you'll be on the first page of a thread defending him, because we see it every day.

But in the reality based world, what the President does in a particular case is roughly 180 degrees different, as different as things can be, versus an ordinary citizen like myself. For the president to publicly influence a case in favor of his friends is corrupt. Look up 'corrupt justice system' and the leader of a government putting his considerable weight behind an outcome, when those in charge of that outcome WORK FOR HIM is exactly how a corrupt justice system operates. It's the rule of men, not of laws. There's no need to say anything more about that because I know you won't agree, because if Trump does something, it is, therefore, acceptable in your view, because it was done by Dear Leader. Q.E.D.

Trump gave no orders to Barr. Trump gave no orders to the judge. Trump gave no orders to a jury member. Trump gave no orders to Mueller.

In all of those cases, Trump only expressed his opinion. Just like you can.

These are the facts...not the stuff you have made up.

First of all, you don't know what orders Trump did or didn't give to Barr. You're asserting facts you cannot begin to prove.

Second, I didn't allege Trump 'gave orders' to the judge or the juror. And if you don't see a problem with the POTUS attacking a private citizen juror, then there's no reason to argue further. It's obvious it's a SERIOUS problem to all the rest of us who haven't drunk the Kool Aid.

Finally, of course what the BOSS says matters to a person making a decision more than some random person on the street, and when the boss is, according to Barr THE Justice Department, what the DoJ does is appropriately a reflection of the President's will, since POTUS is the DOJ. So you can't defend the Barr theory of the executive then claim when we see the implication of it in public in a very real way, POTUS expressing an opinion, then DOJ immediately jumping and doing as suggested by the head of DoJ, i.e. Trump, that it doesn't matter.

That's what's so incredible about Barr's comments. He says tweets by the president prevent him from doing his job. Well, according to Barr in other contexts, doing what the President wants in a particular case IS BARR'S JOB as Barr is just an extension, an errand boy, of POTUS, since POTUS is the entire executive branch, head of it, every agency, and the executive branch appropriately does President's bidding as it MUST.

So Barr is just trying to pretend the implication of his theory doesn't mean what we all know it does mean. We see what the impact is in this case.

 

[independentusa]

Cool. Let's do this. Then those four attorneys can explain to the public and to the DOJ IG why they lied to their superiors about what sentence they intended to recommend to the court.

After all that is done, we can see if the New York City Bar will have the honesty to take those attorneys to task for THEIR dishonesty.

On the other hand, perhaps the New York City Bar should just mind their own business.

From what I have read they did not recommend 7-9 years to the judge. They pointed out to the judge what the recommended sentencing guidlines were for what Stone was convicted of, which included threatoning a witness. So your entire premise is wrong as usual. And Barr's law license is their business unless you can not understand how law licenses are handed out. If Barr broke the New York's ethical code he can be punished including losing his license, DUH!!!!

 

[ludin]

Uh, the question is not if a potus has a right to giving an opinion, the question is whether those "opinions" carry the same weight, have an equal force.

To argue they do is absurd, but there you and Mycroft are.

and there is you not understanding our constitution again.
if you actually understand the facts of the case barr was doing this before the president said anything.

the prosecutors lied to the DOJ in from their original recommendations.
it is the same reason that these mueller clowns now have to do with paige reversing his guilty plea.

they tried to pull the same stunt.

the mueller clowns are about on par with schiff then again they are pretty much all democrats
so it is expected.

 

[ludin]

From what I have read they did not recommend 7-9 years to the judge. They pointed out to the judge what the recommended sentencing guidlines were for what Stone was convicted of, which included threatoning a witness. So your entire premise is wrong as usual. And Barr's law license is their business unless you can not understand how law licenses are handed out. If Barr broke the New York's ethical code he can be punished including losing his license, DUH!!!!

yet the witness in question says the opposite and testified that he wasn't threatened.

so why are prosecutors ignoring facts and testimony?

 

[danielpalos]

I want to know why Federal Attorneys lied to their superiors. Don't you?

lied about what?

 

[ludin]

I can't speak to the appropriateness of the guidelines, but Barr did this after Trump Tweeted. You forgot to include that.

no that is when the news broke the story.
barr had already been looking at it before hand.

it was a good ploy by the media to do it that way but it is as typical a failure.

 

[JasperL]

He is allowed to. Obama did it on a regular basis railing against judge's rulings etc ... you should see the first amendment.

If you want to quote Obama attacking the judge, his own prosecutors, and the foreperson of a jury, then the floor is yours to prove your BUTWHATABOUTOBAMA!!!!! I know you'll come up with nothing.

Otherwise, we aren't talking about "allowed to" but whether it's appropriate, so I'm not sure why you're arguing a point no one is making.

Actually barr had already decided that the recommendation was out of line.
it was completely different than what the same prosecutors submitted before hand.

Oh, really? Citation for that? All I've seen are a bunch of anonymous quotes from unnamed officials in DoJ that don't even allege the decision was made by Barr.

in a similar case a guy received 2 months for lying.
Comey and McCabe both admitted they lied to federal investigators they have yet
to be charged.

so 9 years for supposedly lying is a bit extreme.

That is what we expect leftist to always do. they are pretty much the pro's at it.
also you haven't submitted facts you have presented presumption and speculation.

those are not facts.

When you present evidence for your claims, I'll give a damn about what you consider facts. But for the record, have you worked for a boss? If the boss publicly says what he wants as the outcome, wouldn't that impact your decision, given you work for the boss and are tasked in fact to do his bidding? Barr tells us Trump is head of DoJ so his JOB is to do what POTUS wants. He does it, and you guys pretend that what Trump wants is not relevant to the outcome. It's pretty extraordinary, really - a kind of 'extreme gaslighting.' Should be a game show.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

and there is you not understanding our constitution again.

My comment had NOTHING to do with duh constitution, it has everything to do with the effect a potus's comment has as compared to any random citizen.

But keep trying to turn my point into some other whutabout, your arguments are stupid.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

the prosecutors lied to the DOJ in from their original recommendations.

Do you have a reliable source (w/link of course) to support your assertion?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Then I trust you'll keep your mouth shut when the next democratic president decides to use the justice department as a weapon against his enemies and a tool to help his friends.

If a Democratic AG insists a 70 year old man with no violent history should get 9 years in prison I will not care.

 

[US&THEM]

yet the witness in question says the opposite and testified that he wasn't threatened.

so why are prosecutors ignoring facts and testimony?

Stone was found guilty because of the evidence, would like the prosecutors to ignore all the charges Stone was found guilty of because you did not take the time to read the sentencing memo?

 

[JasperL]

I want to know why Federal Attorneys lied to their superiors. Don't you?

I want to see evidence they lied "to their superiors." Who made that allegation or assertion? Do you have a name? If not what's your basis for concluding this?

In the reality based world, the sentencing memo was signed by the acting USA, who IS the line prosecutors' superior, who they answer to. His name is Timothy Shea, and he was appointed by none other than AG Barr as acting USA for D.C.

The original sentencing memo is at this link: Federal Prosecutors Recommend Sentencing Roger Stone to Seven to Nine Years - Lawfare

 

[Mycroft]

What part of the 26 page sentencing memo signed off by the US Attorney do you not understand? For your statement to be factual the 26 pages are all fiction.

Nonsense.

The attorneys told their superiors they were going to do one thing...and then they did another thing. That means they lied to their superiors.

Doesn't that bother you? Or do you approve of government employees lying to their superiors?