Bill Barr’s speech
I plan to write more about Bill Barr’s recent speech, the one so many people have been talking about.
But I have a busy today today, so this is just a post to establish a thread for you to talk about it if you’d like. The link to the full text is above.
Comments in other threads here got me reading it. It is pretty dense with history and scholarship, and the overriding feeling I have had is that we are fortunate indeed to have an Attorney General with this complete an understanding of government. It probably shouldn’t be that way! But think of many former AGs, starting with Eric Holder…. We are in good hands, is my impression. And those who think no prosecutions will ever occur are probably mistaken, is my other impression.
Bill Barr for President, 2024! (nah, too old. ??)
I, too, believe Barr is raising his profile, and making significant speeches, because he’s planning on some indictments.
But I fear I’m (again) becoming too hopeful of action against the Swamp.
Hope for the best, indictments against the crooked cops; expect the worst, more media cover for the crooked Dems.
Wow. Read about a third and will finish later. A man this good will have to be crushed by the left. Keep an eye out for (more?) nastiness aimed at AG Barr.
more media cover for the crooked Dems
The media are covering for their own dismal years of lies as well, foremost, even.
Barr is right on target.
But Horowitz is now dangerously dilatory. If his notion is “better thorough than hasty”, he’s pretending not to see Schiff and the vultures circling overhead.
If he doesn’t pull the trigger by the first week of December, Barr’s wisdom is in peril of being wasted.
Video of Barr’s address on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/BhjD–oEsGQ
Begins about 19:00 in.
That link is busted, coming up 404, so let’s try this one (despite it looks the same? I just tested by pasting into the address bar and it worked, so . . . . .): https://youtu.be/BhjD–oEsGQ
I disagree with his negative view of the Freedom of Information Act. He is very critical of it but it’s pretty important for democracy. Most people want to know what the Executive Branch is doing whether it is lead by Democrats of Republicans. Recall that if not for the FOIA the Hillary Clinton emails would not have been available for the public to see.
Barr says there is not FOIA for Congress, which is true but what he does not mention is that there is also no FOIA for The White House. There is one only for the Executive Branch but the White House itself gets an exemption. And the reason there is no FOIA for Congress is because they have open committee meetings and all bills are available for the public to see. Also Congress does not apply legislation to itself. The FOIA was designed for agencies [originally the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act] which do not have public hearings. That said, transparency is very important for any democracy and if laws need to be passed for all branches of government to be even more open then that’s a good thing.
I watched in its entirety yesterday. I was very impressed with how he laid out the historical and constitutional foundations of his conclusions. He knows his stuff, and certainly knows how to build an intelligent case. He’s one smart dude.
What confused me was the vitriolic reaction from the left…well I guess it’s to be expected anytime he ventures into the public eye…but there was really nothing that I could see to really set them off. Same for the right, I watched because of all the hype the right was giving the speech, but once again I didn’t detect any huge revelations, or as some put it, “easter eggs”.
I used the term Easter eggs, physicsguy, but did not intend any “huge revelations” by it. Rather, I used the term to point toward deductive reasonings from statements Barr makes somewhat matter-of-factually, and the necessary conclusions to be drawn from those matter-of-fact statements together with the operating principles he claims — all in the context of our familiar Eeyores declaiming “woe, no one will be brought to the bar of justice for their abuses of our DoJ/FBI/CIA/FISC/NSA/DNI/DoS, etc.” I think Barr is telling us he will act, that’s all. If you need, I can go to the text and pull together the needful statements and propositions, but my guess is that won’t be necessary, for I believe them plain enough.
Barr’s speech should be required reading in every civics class and every law school but it won’t be because of the left’s complete destruction of the education system at every level. How sad.
“The impact of these judicial intrusions on Executive responsibility have been hugely magnified by another judicial innovation – the nationwide injunction. First used in 1963, and sparely since then until recently, …” — Barr
Neo brought this up earlier. The facts and history of this “innovation” are completely outside my knowledgebase. Obviously our Constitution is a rather small document and so can’t be highly prescriptive itself. But lots British law, common law, and tons of judicial precedence have given us a (too?) rich body of rules.
How the hell did this “innovation” slip by? Did people think it was OK if it was only used once in a great while? Let’s see, Robert Kennedy was the AG throughout all of 1963. That figures.
I am confident Barr and Durham will follow through without hesitation. IMO Horowitz is the weak link.
A bit of news from FNC: “Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Dec. 11, all but confirming the imminent release of his widely anticipated report into potential FBI and DOJ surveillance abuses against the Trump campaign.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-department-michael-horowitz-inspector-general-senate-testify-lindsey-graham
In light of the plan for a hearing on 11 Dec., sundance puts the OIG’s publication date at 2 Dec.
This Report is by far, the most anticipated (and, in some circles, feared) one in recent U.S. history.
Horowitz’s prior reports were published under the power of Rosenstein.
I’m cautiously hopeful, that Barr won’t lean on Horowitz, as Rosy probably did.
I wish Donald could articulate ideas like Bill Barr…
Excuse me while I straighten my bow tie…
The major problem here is that Horowitz can only recommend prosecution, not himself prosecute the violations of law he has discovered.
Thus, he is dependent on people at the DOJ to take up and prosecute any criminal referrals he might make.
Will they do so, or just ignore his referrals?
Its not just Barr and Durham, there is also a DOJ prosecutorial mechanism that has to be activated.
How many of those in that group of government employees who make up that mechanism are people who despise Trump, and who will likely put any impediments they can in the way of such prosecutions?
We’ll soon find out.
OK Snow, but what if those DoJ careerists could be busted for Obstruction, if they try sabotage OIG’s recommendations?
Taking on Barr, who knows Deep State ropes, looks like a low percentage play.
aNanyMouse–
I hate to be such a pessimist.
Perhaps I have this all wrong, and the MSM has been entirely successful in concealing a great upwelling of rage within the Federal bureaucracy, overwhelming numbers of whose bureaucrats are just furious about and ashamed of how some of its top-ranking members have betrayed their oaths of office, the Constitutional order, and the rule of Law in carrying out their coup attempt against a duly elected President Trump, and can’t wait to see these guys and gals get what’s coming to them.
But, unfortunately, from the record of the lack of any prosecutions—or, at least, very serious ones—to date for all sorts of things that have taken place in the Federal bureaucracy that should have been prosecuted, but weren’t, I am not so sure that, in this instance, you can count on any prosecutions.
Just as the “system” in existence has been “resisting” Trump and what he wants to do, I believe that same “system” will also “resist” any attempt to actually and harshly discipline any of its members for their resistance.
I would be much more confident of some actual, full bore prosecutions if I thought that Barr and Durham were not the exceptions but the rule in today’s Federal government; that they were indisputably in charge, and had overwhelming support from their supposed subordinates, and the larger Federal bureaucracy for their actions.
But I suspect that this is not so.
I have the suspicion that they are the lingering members of the old traditional order and were, once placed in their positions by President Trump, like commandos parachuted in behind “enemy” lines—in many ways likely trapped, isolated, and surrounded.
From the apparent lack of any real enthusiasm for Barr and Durham’s investigations, and the lack of any support voiced from within the Federal bureaucracy for them, I have to think that Barr and Durham are examples of a vanishing breed in a Federal bureaucracy that has been “fundamentally transformed.”
Unless I am greatly mistaken (and I hope I am) the “system” will protect its own.
Cont’d–If there are to be actual prosecutions, though, the charges must not be minor ones but rather major ones, with major penalties attached–not just a slap on the wrist but serious jail time fully served.
This coup attempt has to be slapped down, harshly and with overwhelming force–it has to be crushed–or else such coup attempts will be tried again and again in the future, until there is nothing left of the Republic which has served us well for almost 250 years.
As that comedic wag Rep. Ratcliffe said t’other day of Horowitz’s report (paraphrasing) “it doesn’t take 500 pages to say that nothing was done wrongly in the DoJ”; so now with the size of the report said to be more like 1,000 pages, all the less ought we doubt the truth of Ratcliffe’s observation.
The report will take a couple of weeks to digest prior to hearings being held, so we’ll be seeing it released pretty soon if the hearing is going to be on Dec. 11.
Powerline’s Scott Johnson finds the Eggs: Barr’s Preview
General Barr’s speech to the Federalist Society was Brilliant. He is beyond breathtaking in his critical thinking and understanding of the Liberty uniquely established by our Founders.