…and Trump withdrawing Barr’s nomination in 5… 4… 3…
Seems to me the argument is moving/has moved from did the President obstruct justice to meh. Only the congress can do something (impeach, try and convict) so meh.
Wait until he finds out that Roland Freisler isn’t available.
I always have to wonder with these people. At what point do they realize that Trump just handed them a live grenade and walked off with the pin?
tRump, you know, Barr, may just not be your man given the news of today. Plus that he really likes Mueller.
Poor wittle Donnie, what’s a criminal to do?
Now, the question to Barr should be, what is he going to do about it?
He should probably exit, stage left.
Barr: “I have never considered this question and will have to get back to you with an answer”
Sure! And, get him on record.
…and Roy Cohn is indisposed.
Except last night I read this blurb in which I think Barr gave tRump an out with regards to obstruction of justice, in his widely criticized memo that circulated to all of tRump’s lawyers and everyone’s brother before his hearing, which I believe Congress also has a copy of now, since Ben Wittes does.
The main part that is bizarre and seemingly contradictory is where Barr states that yes, its obstruction of justice, however (note the last sentence)…
"Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion – such as his complete authority to start and stop a law enforcement proceeding – does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."
So its not so much what Barr said in the hearing, its what he wrote about in his memo to the tRump legal team and what he really believes as to his authority to oversee what he considers tRump’s plenary powers as the country’s Pissant pResident.
VOTE NO ON BARR, DEMS or this is the kind of bullshit reasoning you’re likely to get once he’s in charge as AG at the DoJ. It may not stop him from becoming AG but it’ll put you on the side of the angels, on the right side of history, and all that is right with the world. Barr’s pure bullshit reasoning or interpretation was written as a means to merely protect tRump from consequences of his illegal actions. In some kind of weird legalese lawyer-speak I presume this is what is commonly called pretzel logic with a double twist.
Its basically Nixon’s modified version of “its illegal, but when the President does it, that means its not illegal.”
(I don’t have a twitter acct. so I’ve resorted as usual to screenshot with links.)
“Klobuchar asked Barr if the President telling someone to commit perjury would be obstruction of justice; Barr said yes. She asked if the President convincing someone to alter their testimony would be perjury; Barr said yes.”
“Ahhh, but if I bury that part of Mueller’s report under my bottle of Ol’ Red Eye in my bottom desk drawer, is it still a crime ?”, Barr mused…
…and Roy Cohn is indisposed.
A small blessing…
- Fake News! Fake News!
- Presumption of innocence folks; there’s no real proof
- Ok, there’s proof but was this really lying? There’s lying and then there are little white lies
- Oh look…Squirrel!
Barr didn’t slide himself into Indiv1’s field of vision to help Indiv1. He did it to to help Individuals 2, 3, 4, etc. aka congressional repugnicans. He’s willing to be assigned a nickname and get bullied, but he’ll Be Best for Mitch et al.
Barr has been a lawyer for a long time. I’m sure he’ll be able to find some way to skate on the definition of “person” or “commit” or “would”.
From your mouth to God’s ears…
“Sounds like” he thinks it’s obstruction? It matters not what Simon Barr Sinister thinks, it’s a crime…period.
Simon Barr Sinister (for “Underdog” fans everywhere. Yes, I’m that old)
