Author Topic: The US Presidency 2019  (Read 96363 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 213,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,565
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #875 on: Yesterday at 21:30:05 »
>I'm really quite surprised Barr is capable of saying anything considering how far his nose is up Trumps ***.

Well, there's the mark of a fair-minded observer giving a dispassionate analysis that is worth paying any attention to.

I've given up all pretense about being fair-minded when it comes to Barr. I wear my confirmation bias proudly on my sleeve and stand four-square with Eric Holder on Barr.

Quote
Washington (CNN)Former Attorney General Eric Holder believes William Barr is "unfit" to serve as the nation's top law enforcement officer, writing in a Washington Post op-ed that recent controversial comments by his successor "have been fundamentally inconsistent with his duty to the Constitution."

In the opinion piece published Wednesday night, Holder, who served in the Obama administration between 2009 and 2015, excoriated Barr for "a series of public statements and ... actions that are so plainly ideological, so nakedly partisan and so deeply inappropriate" for an attorney general to make. He pointed to a number of recent headline-grabbing remarks by Barr, including his comments this week that the FBI may have acted in "bad faith" when it opened an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe despite the Justice Department's inspector general report that said the bureau was justified in doing so.
"(It) was infuriating to watch him publicly undermine an independent inspector general report -- based on an exhaustive review of the FBI's conduct -- using partisan talking points bearing no resemblance to the facts his own department has uncovered," he wrote.
...
"To me, his attempts to vilify the President's critics sounded more like the tactics of an unscrupulous criminal defense lawyer than a U.S. attorney general," Holder wrote, adding that in his comments, Barr "exposed himself as a partisan actor, not an impartial law enforcement official."
"Virtually since the moment he took office, though, Barr's words and actions have been fundamentally inconsistent with his duty to the Constitution," Holder wrote. "Which is why I now fear that his conduct -- running political interference for an increasingly lawless president -- will wreak lasting damage."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/politics/eric-holder-william-barr-unfit-attorney-general/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eric-holder-william-barr-is-unfit-to-be-attorney-general/2019/12/11/99882092-1c55-11ea-87f7-f2e91143c60d_story.html

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,710
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #876 on: Yesterday at 21:50:38 »
To paraphrase a well known TV show: The Attorney-General is there to represent "the People" , not "one person".

I fully endorse FJAG's position, as "partisan" as any one wants to see it.
+300

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 74,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,950
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #877 on: Today at 01:18:12 »
>Eric Holder

Good choice when you want to call out someone for being "nakedly partisan".  Maybe next he'll hold forth on "obstruction".  FYI, Holder is just agitating for political advantage.

It is possible (and likely) for both of the following to be true:
1) Opening the investigation was justified (according to the rules as to how these things are opened).
2) The investigation was opened in bad faith.

And for the following to also be true:
1) The investigation was conducted within the rules.
2) The investigation was conducted with bad faith.

Other than in the fever swamps, who thought or even hoped the IG was going to deliver a report alleging a vast conspiracy, full of names and allegations?  For months the sane opinion columnists have stressed that Horowitz had a narrow scope of action, and predicted that findings would be limited to some wrist-slapping comments, not scathing indictments.  Holding up the report and shouting, "See? No evidence of a vast deep state conspiracy!" is...nothing.  What Horowitz described is bad enough.  I expect Durham to produce similar conclusions, but with some administrative or criminal sanctions recommended against a few people.

Widespread orchestration isn't needed.  All that is needed is people acting alone to shape political outcomes without due regard for constitutional rights and procedural safeguards (and professional duty).  And a safe bet is that Page and Strzok weren't the only two holding conversations involving only two, or a very few, people.  And there is the constant barrage of "will no one rid us of this turbulent president?", with no end of inventive ideas suggesting how that might be done.  A person might be moved to act, and to disrespect norms and customs while doing so.  A bit of exculpatory information omitted here.  A bit of source-impeaching information omitted there.  Misrepresenting the credibility of sources known to be untrustworthy.  Etc.  The "invisible hand".

The point of court review for certain kinds of intrusions is to safeguard constitutional rights.  Generally neither the people whose rights are about to be infringed nor their legal representation are present during deliberations to give the evidence favourable to themselves, so it is incumbent on everyone else present to do so.  In the case of the FISCs, very little will ever be revealed after the fact.  The decision maker must have all available relevant information in order to make a correct and just decision.  It is unethical and intolerable for applicants to withhold or misrepresent information which might shape the decision.  Without intent to deceive, it's merely incompetence.  With intent, it's bad faith.

>The Attorney-General is there to represent "the People"

Carter Page is one of "the People".  I notice that civil libertarians on both right and left think the whole affair stinks, so Barr's position is likely more commendable than Holder's and any other of Barr's critics.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.