Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the decision of President Donald Trump to waive executive privilege and the announcement of Attorney General Bill Barr that he has no intention to even give the White House an early look at the report. While Trump has not received any praise for that decision, it would (if true) represent a significant departure from past presidents and a major advance for transparency in government. Indeed, as discussed below, despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to be the most transparent president in history, Trump could have a greater claim to that distinction.
Here is the column:
Attorney General Bill Barr sent a letter to Congress on Friday, stating that he intends to release a public version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report in a matter of weeks. As with last Sunday’s release of a summary of the report, just two days after receiving it from Mueller, Barr’s handling of the report is the bureaucratic equivalent of a Nascar pace.
However, the most notable line of Barr’s letter was largely overlooked. Indeed, from a historical perspective, it could prove to be one of the important lines of the entire Justice Department deliberation over the report.
Barr stated that “There are no plans to submit the report to the White House for a privilege review.” And that would constitute a total waiver of executive privilege — an act that is both commendable and unprecedented in its degree of transparency.
The waiver of executive privilege has gone with nary a mention in coverage, as has the impressive speed and scope of Barr’s disclosure in handling the report. Yet, for critics of executive privilege, this is a decision that is not only historic but good for our democracy.
Many of us have criticized Trump for inappropriate comments that undermine the integrity and dignity of his office. That will be a lasting and troubling part of his legacy. However, this will also be part of the record, too. While praise is only begrudgingly given to this president by a media he constantly (and offensively) labels as “the enemy of the people,” the decision to waive privilege is not just worthy of praise but could well eclipse his predecessors in yielding inherent powers to the public interest.
In his letter to Congress, Barr noted that “although the President would have the right to assert privilege over certain parts of the report,” he decided not to do so. It was an extraordinary moment not only for Trump but for Barr. As I explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee at Barr’s confirmation, he has a robust view of executive power and, over the course of his career, has established one of the most unyielding, consistent defenses of executive privilege.
That line means Barr will confine his redactions of the report to four well-recognized areas: classified information, privacy-protected information, information related to ongoing investigations, and grand jury information. Mueller reportedly is helping to decide what information to redact.
Trump could have claimed sweeping privilege and tied up the report in the courts for much of the remaining two years of his term. Although Democrats have threatened to subpoena the report, such fights over hundreds of pages and thousands of sources can be like invading Russia in winter, as courts try to comb out privileged, protected information.
While Trump consented to Mueller interviewing his close aides, the disclosures made to Mueller were not waivers of privilege because Mueller is part of Trump’s Justice Department. Conversely, the Trump team has preserved privilege claims in testimony before Congress.
Even before this decision to waive privilege, Trump allowed far greater transparency than his predecessors.
President Barack Obama was repeatedly criticized for his sweeping claims of executive privilege and refusal to comply with congressional oversight committee investigations. The “Fast and Furious” investigation was a classic example: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives tried to track guns across the Southwest border, and one of those guns was used to kill a federal officer. The Obama administration stonewalled and slow-walked “Fast and Furious” document demands from Congress. The result was that former Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress, but the Justice Department refused to submit the case to a grand jury — a decision I heavily criticized at the time.
The same congressional Democrats now clamoring for disclosure on Mueller were conspicuously silent when President Obama refused clearly appropriate demands for disclosure in such investigations. District Judge Amy Jackson Berman rejected the executive privilege claims of the Obama Administration in the “Fast and Furious” case, noting that those were unsupported.
While Obama pledged to be the most transparent president in history, he immediately sought to prevent disclosures to the public and the media. The Associated Press documented the systemic denial of access to information by the Obama administration, which only became more hostile to press and public inquiries with each passing year.
If you separate his rhetoric from his actions, Trump’s record has been more limited in his claims compared presidents like Obama, who readily embraced notions of the “imperial presidency.” While Obama often voiced appealing sentiments of restraint and respect for constitutional authority, his record in the courts and Congress was breathtakingly extreme. Conversely, while Trump’s rhetoric is extreme and autocratic, his record is far more moderate on privileges claims.
Other presidents, such as George W. Bush, lost key court challenges to their own excessive claims of executive privilege. Bill Clinton invoked his inherent powers to refuse to testify and lost in spectacular fashion before the Supreme Court; his Administration also used privilege to stonewall Congress on investigative demands.
That is why Trump has been something of an enigma, legally.
None of this fits an easy narrative. It is hard to praise Trump for his restraint when he is rallying supporters in Michigan with ad hominem insults about “pencil-neck Adam Schiff” and attacks on the media. Yet, the more important measure historically is how presidents actually use their power and privileges.
Trump’s handling of the special counsel investigation and report reflects this anomaly. While Trump was unrelenting in his attacks on the special counsel, his actions stand in sharp contrast: He didn’t fire Mueller. He didn’t fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller and oversaw the investigation. He is not accused of destroying evidence or withholding resources from the investigation.
As for the report, Barr shocked Washington with the speed by which he released the summary of Mueller’s conclusions. He now is on track to release the public report in a fraction of the expected time for reviewing and redacting hundreds of pages, stating: “Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own. I do not believe it would be in the public’s interest for me to attempt to summarize the full report or to release it in serial or piecemeal fashion.”
That sounds a lot like transparency, and that is something we have not seen from a president in a very long time.
The irony is that the report does not, as Trump claims, “totally exonerate” him. The report is likely to be quite negative in its portrayal of Trump’s comments and conduct. Exoneration is not just a question of whether a president is a felon. We demand a bit more from our presidents than staying just short of the criminal code of conduct.
However, Trump has built an undeniable record of transparency during this investigation that could be cited for years by advocates as a gold standard for future investigations.
That’s right, Trump could have created a legacy here — and it does not involve an all-caps tweet.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
The media is not “the enemy of the people”. The media is the enema of the people. The loose poop is everywhere and particularly in DC. I am not watching CNN anymore. You folks should watch i24 if it is available in your TV setup. It is an Israel media outlet with a base in the U.S. too.
Collusion is an illusion and a delusion in which there is some pharmacy solutions. Chuck Todd called Ferguson Missouri a “Ghetto!” He will rot in Hell.
Trump is a man of action.
No need to waste time on daily reports.
JT: “Trump has built an undeniable record of transparency during this investigation that could be cited for years by advocates as a gold standard for future investigations.”
TRUMP IS TOO LAZY TO READ REPORT
Professor Turley praises Trump for ‘transparency’. But it’s been known for some time that Trump is notoriously lazy with regards to reading reports and daily briefings. Trump probably thinks Mueller cleared him completely and he wants the public to see that as soon as possible.
This decision could set up a darkly comical scenario in which the report boomerangs on Trump with incriminating revelations he failed to foresee. Then we’ll hear that Trump is ‘furious’ at his lawyers for not warning him. At this point Trump will bitterly denounce the report as ‘fake news’ and a ‘hit piece’ while demanding a Special Counsel to investigate Obama, Hillary, Schiff and Mueller.
“TRUMP IS TOO LAZY TO READ REPORT”
PETER LIES BECAUSE HE IS TOO LAZY TO LEARN THE TRUTH.
In fact it has been inferred that Peter is stealing from his employer. Apparently according to one commenter Peter is busy posting on the blog when he is supposed to be working. IMO that is theft.
The guy is CIC of the biggest military in history. It’s a busy day for him every day. So maybe he doesn’t have time to pour over reports, and this is the mark of an effective to exec?
Maybe the things you hate this guy for are actually his strengths that accrue benefit to us all.
Kurtz, it was known that Trump had no passion for reading long before he got the White House. He presumes Fox News will tell anything of ‘real’ importance.
He has a team of people who feed him the information they believe is necessary for him to make good decisions.
That is how most executives have to handle decision making, not just Trump
whether he likes to read or not is irrelevant. I doubt Chinggis Khan could read but he made a lot of effective decisions for his horde.
He watches TV for hours. Are you serious?
Yeah, the Gorilla Channel.
I would like to see a column from the professor defending the reporting of CNN and MSNBC over the last two years.
It is true that his actions are more important than his words. I just really wish that he would employ a team of speech writers to vet those all caps Tweets before he sends them. It would render his communications more effective and at the very least, prevent self-dug pot holes.
I am happy to hear that President Trump is being transparent.
Trump can’t restrain those Tweets, Karen. That’s what he naturally does, in the dead of night, when no Aides are around. Trump believes his gut instincts are infallible.
TRUMP’S GUT INSTINCTS ARE EXCELLENT.
The tweets are pure Trump. They’re why he won the Presidency and why he’ll crush the Dems in 2020. He’s unlike any President before…thank God.
Ivan, go back and look at the Popular Vote. Trump didn’t really ‘win’; a fact his supporters constantly forget when boasting about his ‘great victory’.
You know we have an electoral college. yes he won.
“Trump didn’t really ‘win’; a fact his supporters constantly forget when boasting about his ‘great victory’.”
TRUMP WON
It is more than 2 years post election and Peter still doesn’t know that Trump won. He also doesn’t know that had things been based on the popular vote Trump would have gone to those places where people didn’t vote and there is a good likelihood Trump would have won under that situation as well. Then Peter would make up still another situation becasue there is no way the anti-American crazies can accept Hillary’s defeat.
He’s complying with House requests for documents and releasing his tax returns? That’s good news!
“….despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to be the most transparent president in history…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-jD05_0Giw
Scandal grips Obama administration
Al Jazeera English
The Obama administration is on the defensive after not one, but three scandals have rocked the White House. The latest involved ousting the acting IRS commissioner from office after allegations that the tax agency unfairly targeted right-wing parties. While tackling that, the revelation that two months worth of phone records were seized from Associated Press journalists and offices without their prior knowledge has caused outcry from the media. Finally, Obama is also dealing with the fallout from the release of more than 100 pages of emails relating to the attack in Benghazi last year that resulted in the death of a US envoy. Al Jazeera’s Patty Culhane reports from Washington.
Those were bad scandals, indeed.
THIS IS AN IMPOSTER ANON (and probably Estovir)
Certain losers seek to sabotage this blog by using imposter handles. Anyone can pull thIs trick. It requires no genius. All it takes is some creepy nerd who can’t make intelligent arguments with their own handle.
“THIS IS AN IMPOSTER ANON ”
Too bad because it seemed that Anon was finally making sense.
I think we can all be thankful to know that Trump really did meant about better and cheaper healthcare, infrastructure updating, peaceful relations with (some) other countries etc.
He just couldn’t deliver on account of ? Democrats, Mueller, SDNY, Hillary, the Deep State, and the executives at the Fried Chicken Insurance Compny of Muleshoe, Texas.
The good professor Turley is going to lose his liberal card. Oh my!
He does not get invited to give speeches at the Federalist Society for nothing.
Thank God President Trump is stacking the Federal Courts with awesome judges as suggested by the Federalist Society
Hillary really blew it twice by being such a partisan arrogant shill for the Left. She could have been President and shaped the Judiciary.
such a dumb beach
@fishwings
What about Nadine Strossen of the ACLU? Lots of libs get invited to speak at the Federalist Society.
antonio
My caveat would be that it doesn’t take a lot of courage to be transparent about a silly farce like the Russia hoax. There was never any evidence for this silliness.
This was more than a hoax. This has destroyed lives that had honorably served America for decades. It is still in the process of bankrupting people that just happen to be ordinary Americans that may have inadvertantly been physicially close to the events without having the slightest idea of what might be going on. I think the number of such people is in the 80’s but people like Adam Schiff don’t care and neither do the Democrats that support such action.
In other words, you agree that it doesn’t take a lot courage for Trump to be transparent about this. Giving people rope who wish to hang themselves isn’t very hard to do.
“In other words, you agree that it doesn’t take a lot courage for Trump to be transparent about this. ”
Stevej, Absolutely not. It takes courage and fortitude along with being innocent. Mueller’s team here and in other cases have tried to destroy innocent people to meet their desires. I am sure there will be embarrassing things for the President because the aim of the investigation was to destroy the President. They failed so the President will be under fire for things worded in a way to hurt the President. Mueller already tried to do so with the funny way he worded the obstruction claim that when looked at legally was farscical.
While all this is going on the President is keeping his eye on the ball and trying to serve the American people to the best of his ability and is doing a d-mn good job.
Well you keep going off topic. Now that the report has been issued, there’s nothing extraordinary about Trump wanting it released. My comment says nothing more.
Glad you feel that way. I think it should be released but noting prior President’s actions on investigations I note tremendous reluctance to release information. A former Attorney General was held in contempt trying to keep actions secret.
Stevej, I would worry for precisely the reasons provided above that you consider going off topic when what to you is off topic is really the core of the issue.
“noting prior President’s actions on investigations”
This wasn’t a real investigation Allan. There was never ANYTHING there. I’ve never seen anything like it. Anyone who recognizes that would be surprised if Trump DIDN’T want it released.
SteveJ, I don’t know what you are arguing over. However, if desired I could write a report about circumstances surrounding you that would open eyes in horror even though those circumstances are meaningless. I am rather sure that in addition to the potential of fiction writing by Mueler and enhancements of insignificant facts that Mueller had some things written in a way to heighten any embarrassing things entwined in the report.
Former Presidents such as Obama in general kept that material secret via executive privilege or would release only the parts they wanted released.
I agree that the investigation was a hoax and there never was any sort of Russian conspiracy that existed.
Nothing extraordinary about wanting it released? Your ignorance knows no bounds. Turley’s got it right…this is unprecedented.
No. The so-called investigation was unprecedented. Give me another investigation like this that had no foundation whatsoever. I can think of a couple that had weak foundations. But nothing like this. Trump was never afraid of the investigation. He was outraged by it.
It is true he has been treated unfairly to put it mildly. But given the ridiculous circumstances, which Turley has not come to grips with yet, this isn’t a surprising or difficult action for Trump to take at all.
nor does failure of literacy equate to transparency
What’s the over-under on the word count of Natacha’s rant in response to this column?
I predict the shills will be out in force today. We will probably hear about Trump’s golf habit, Stormy Daniels, Trump and Area 51 – anything to distract people from a positive article about Trump. I am sure they are getting overtime.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
UFOs are no joke. That would have been the only good thing had Hillary been elected, old Podesta was going to get her to declassify a lot of stuff
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-campaign-chief-john-podesta-s-interest-ufos-out-world-n674711
Nobel prize winner in physics Michio Kaku admits there are UFOs that are beyond our ken. We will probably live to find out things that will be “literally mind blowing” as the kids say
this one’s a classic. f16 tracks UFO. released by Def Dept and published on USA today, this one’s no fake and no experimental aircraft
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fd6ssvcBoM
why are they laughing? because they are pilots and do their work with the knowledge that pilots and air traffic controllers have had since the foo fighters appeared during wwII – UFOs are real
anyhow, sorry for the digression. but this is a bipartisan issue
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/424808-harry-reid-urges-senators-to-push-for-more-ufo-research
here was another doozy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident
Congress has the constitutional authority to request the release of grand jury information under Rule 6(E)(I). A fair number of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury were members of the Trump White House. Nixon never challenged Jaworski’s Road Map, even though much of Jaworski’s grand jury information derived from The White Houses tapes of Nixon discussing the cover-up of the Watergate break-in with his top aides in The White House.
Some observers expect that Trump would challenge the release of Mueller’s grand jury information to Congress at least with respect to witnesses who had worked in the Trump White House. Of course, AG Barr could claim that no derogatory information about any subject or target of an investigation who was not indicted can be released to Congress under some other rule besides Rule 6(E)(I). But the real test for both Barr and Trump’s transparency will be whether executive privilege is asserted over any of Mueller’s grand jury information.
Trump legacy: Transparency with programs that worked and helped all people and provided future stability for America
Democratic legacy: Anti-Americanism, law breaking, downright stupidness and a whole host of other bad things
Today is April 1st. The First of April is also known as April Fool’s Day. Professor Turley has a well-known penchant for faithfully observing as many “Holidays” as humanly possible. What’s it mean? What’s it mean?
“Today is April 1st. The First of April is also known as April Fool’s Day.”
Yes, today is the day people like you are celebrated.
“Many of us have criticized Trump for inappropriate comments that undermine the integrity and dignity of his office. That will be a lasting and troubling part of his legacy.”
***********
If that’s the worst you can say about a President and in view of his economic, foreign policy and national security successes, call the sculptor and make some room on Mt. Rushmore. Integrity and dignity are in the pudding.
I read somewhere that LBJ used to conduct interviews while he was sitting on the pot, and worse. But that never seems to get mentioned much. Oh wait, he was a Democrat.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky:
It is said LBJ did his best thinking aboard the ivory throne. I think most of what he produced was flushable.
mes…….True about Lyndon……and his lust for power was septic.
Turley wrote, “Trump could have claimed sweeping privilege and tied up the report in the courts for much of the remaining two years of his term.”
Sweeping privilege claims that tie up the courts would presumably include presidential communications privilege over conversations between Trump and various people who never worked in the Trump White House nor the Trump administration, but who have been members of Trump’s Joint Defense Agreement omerta by means of which Trump abused the pardon power to suborn perjury and tamper with witnesses in just such a way as to obstruct any superceding indictment from Mueller on a charge of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. And yet, Turley would have us hail the same as an unprecedented victory for transparency. Really?
According to Jay Sekulow, Mueller posed 44 written questions to Trump. According to Rudy Giuliani, Trump answered only those question pertaining to the 2016 election and none of the questions about the transition period nor events after Trump took the oath of office as president. That means that Trump answered roughly 12 out of 44 questions Mueller posed to Trump, or 27%. That, in turn, means that Trump has asserted executive privilege over 73% of the questions Mueller posed to Trump. And yet, Turley evidently wants us to believe that stiff-arming Mueller on roughly three out of every four questions Mueller posed is an unprecedented level of transparency and cooperation from Trump in comparison to his predecessors. Really?
The entire Mueller Russia collusion claim was a hoax created by the DNC and Hillary Clinton. If it weren’t for total dishonesty of Democrats and specific individuals attempting to push the election to Clinton there would have been no Special Counsel which was partisan and looking for ways to entrap people since he knew he wouldn’t find criminality.
None the less the President permitted this phony investigation to run its course, permitted the people around him to talk without granting executive privilege and waived exectutive privilege on the release of the special prosecutors finding. None the less Diane continues her crazy ranting. There is nothing this President can do to satisfy her rabid cravings.
What he said!
Hillary and the DNC had nothing whatsoever to do with the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations continuing throughout the 2016 election. Hillary and the DNC had nothing whatsoever to do with the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower (New York) meeting. We know that because Hillary and the DNC would’ve whacked Trump upside his head but good with those revelations had they only known about them during the 2016 election. Guess what? They didn’t. Because they had had nothing whatsoever to do with those actions committed by the Trump campaign.
Nor did Hillary and the DNC have anything to do with the back-channel communications between the Trump transition team and the Russian Sovereign Wealth Investment Bank CEO What’s-His-Name or the Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
BTW, The Dragon’s Teeth of ongoing investigations that Mueller has sown are still out their in the field waiting to pop up like so many crocuses. And Hillary and the DNC had nothing to do with those Dragon’s Teeth, neither.
“Hillary and the DNC had nothing whatsoever to do with the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower (New York) meeting.”
That is your story, not the real one.
Diane, You are making up stories about connections that are coincidental. You have to demonstrate cause and effect along with proof. Your comments are always lacking in one of those components.
Allan you dolt, you. Had Hillary known about the Trump Tower meeting she could’ve destroyed Trump’s chances at winning the 2016 election. Do you seriously expect anyone to think that Hillary had Trump by the short hairs and refused to yank them out?
Involvement doesn’t mean direct involvement but you don’t think before typing. How did that Russian attorney get a visa to come into the United States?
Hillary doesn’t know or even want to know the detaisl of all the crooked things she has requested.Take a look at some of the activities of Bob Creamer as an example.
It would not be possible for an inanimate object to be as dense as FUBARAllan’s head. And there’s some incredibly dense inanimate object out there in this universe.
Veselnitskaya was representing Denis Katsyv in the Prevezon Holdings trial. That’s why she got her visa.
I’m sure this is just an oversight on L4B’s part, but the DOJ interceded on Veselnitskaya behalf to allow her re-entry
into the U.S. in June 2016. This was over the objections of U.S. Attorney NYSD Preet Bhahara.
” for an inanimate object to be as dense as FUBARAllan’s head.”
Fortunately most human responders on this blog aren’t as intellectually compromised as Diane. She can only think one mini step at a time.
All things of this nature eventually get back to the Clinton campaign
“Also on or around June 9, prior to and following the Trump Tower meeting, Veselnitskaya met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson, ostensibly related to hearings that involved their mutual client Denis Katsyv, concerning charges of Russian tax fraud and money laundering originally uncovered by Magnitsky. The Simpson–Veselnitskaya meetings were denied by Veselnitskaya herself but confirmed by Simpson’s lawyer. This has led to speculation from Trump allies linking the meetings to Fusion GPS’s concurrent work assembling opposition research against then-candidate Trump.[8][21]”
Had Trump known of the role of the Hillary campaign and the DNC in hiring a British operative to use Russian contacts to use Russian sources to get dirt on Trump, he could have exposed who was behind this Steele project a year before it came out.
I doubt if the Trump campaign knew of the Ukrainian meddling to benefit Hillary.
There are all kinds of “ifs” that “could have” changed both campaign’s actions prior to the 2016 election.
There’s an excellent chance that Oleg Deripaska knew about Christopher Steele. And possibly from Steele himself. Deripaska may have told Manafort. Manafort and Deripaska may have planted disinformation is the dossier. The Ukrainian meddling in favor of Clinton is already known to be a smear campaign produced by Paul Manafort. You’ve got nothing but garbles through and through.
Without dealing with the “may haves”, the actions by the Ukrainians we’re not invented by Paul Manafort. They were, like most, convinced of a Clinton win and knew that their pro-Hillary actions during the campaign put them in a bad position with Trump’s upset win.
They almost immediately set about mending fences with Trump in an attempt to compensate for their meddling on before of Hillary.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
Should be “on BEHALF of Hillary” in the final sentence, not “on before of Hillary”.
If Trump launches a counter-investigation against the witch hunt based on a hoax, then all of Mueller’s evidence will become discoverable as exculpatory evidence in defense of the witch-hunters and hoaxsters. Because the burden of proof is on he who accuses. So, by all means, go ahead on and shoulder the burden to prove the hoax to have been a hoax. For then the sum of all evidence uncovered by the witch-hunters will be publicly disclosed.
I would think that, of all people, L4D would support an investigation of a witch hunt.😉
Not if the witch is Hillary, or a Democrat
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
If there truly is no evidence at all of anything other than Trump playing footsie under the table with Russia while running for president, then there would be no reason for Trump to redact nor to assert privilege over anything in the Mueller report or in Mueller’s grand jury investigation. Unless, of course, Trump thinks that evidence of Trump having played footsie under the table with Russia during the 2016 election might harm Trump’s chances of being re-elected in 2020.
Keep plugging away over the next c. 18 months in your campaign to keep the Mueller investigation, the Mueller report, doubts about Trump’s links to Russia, etc., “live wire” issues for voters.
Your campaign, in tandem with another 100 or so TV appearances by Chairman ✏️ Pencil Neck, is a winning strategy.
“Pencil Neck’?
Really?
A little embarrassing to be Fatso’s parrot isn’t it?
Gnash can’t resist even the flimsiest excuse to use one of his beloved emojis.
L4D,
You might try using them to make the translations from Dianese into English easier.
Trump was disrespectful in referring to him as “little Pencil Neck Adam Schiff”; I called him Chairman Pencil Neck, out of respect for his position as Committee Chairman.
If your not embarrassed parroting ShareBlue and MSNBC taliking points, why should I be embarrassed about correcting and improving a Trump statement?
Other than quoting him on “It’s Tuesday” or “It’s raining” – after double checking – parroting Trump is 50-50 odds at best for not also being a liar.
You know this, right?
I can’t say for sure without knowing Schiff’s neck size. From appearances, he does appear to have a thin neck.
Diane, until now you didn’t think the burden of proof lay on the acusers. Instead you applauded a special prosecutor even though that burden wasn’t met and even though you couldn’t state the crime that was committed. The hoax continued. In days or possibly weeks any fair minded prosecutor would have ended the investigation so as to do the least harm to the United States of America and its people. That however, was not done and the prosecutor continued onward using despotic tactics to terrorize or otherwise cause great harm to innocent people just so he could get them to say things to justify his unjustified actions. Mueller failed and now Trump is permitting Mueller’s entire workproduct to be released less those things thta legally cannot be released or compromise national securiy.
Of course a counter investigation is appropriate. We already have crimes that have been stated. The burden of proof something you were formally disinterested in is now more than adequate. Since the evidence is all going to be released one doesn’t have to worry about the evidence becoming available . It will already be out there. As the perpetrators of the many crimes in this hoax start to speak they will gradually indict one another. The only thing stopping many of these people from going to jail is the unwillingness of the state to prosecute them because there is so much guilt spread all around.
Trump will not be allowed to suppress exculpatory evidence in pursuit of the supposed witch-hunters and hoaxsters who uncovered that exculpatory evidence. Rule 6(E) (ii) is clear about that. And so is The Brady Rule. Everything that Mueller uncovered is evidence showing that the FBI, the DoJ and the SCO had probable cause to investigate both Russia and the Trump campaign and the Trump Organization and other Trump associates. Your advice to Trump is worse than bad advice.
More nonsense from Diane.
Deep State has not yet begun to leak.
Deep State never stopped leaking.
The operative words in this column are “if true.” My guess is that it isn’t
He [is] a man, take him for all in all, [we] shall not look upon his like again.
I agree that his transparency is laudable. I disagree with the idea that somehow his rhetoric is less important historically than his official actions. His rhetoric against anyone and everyone who disagrees with him on anything has cemented a polarization and mutual distrust among us. I don’t know how long it will take to recover. I do think the damage more than offsets any positive effects of additional transparency.
GW:
That distrust existed long before Trump put on a red hat. The Left is totalitarian. Many of us oppose that. PC didn’t start in 2016.
Yes, but that was the rest of us distrusting them, and therefore of no importance.
“somehow his rhetoric is less important historically than his official actions.”
How about the rhetoric “Kill Bush”? Do we permit distatesful rhetoric from only one side? Obama said he would be the most transparent President. He wasn’t. Not only that but his administration despotically weaponized much of the bureaucracy. Do you wish to be on the team that using illegal means failed to get rid fo a legally elected President?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_jaundice
Neonatal jaundice is a yellowish discoloration of the white part of the eyes and skin in a newborn baby due to high bilirubin levels. Other symptoms may include …
the polarization of this nation began with those who supported obama because he would have been the first black president and hillary because she would have been the first woman. Those were acts predicated on cultural segmentation. Please lay the onus of polarization of those who would ban Chic Fil A from airports.
Let me see if I’ve got that right. You weren’t polarized until the polarizers polarized you. Is that correct?
I said “cemented,” which as I understand is a way of saying that something was there but not as durable or long lasting.
I don’t recall Bush, Obama or Hillary saying so many awful things about people who disagree with them.
Ha, ha, ha! Barr will do it for him. This column is an exercise in double speak if ever I saw one.
I remember the “Whitaker will do it for him” , “Whitaker is a stooge” comments here several months ago.
And I remember the investigate the investigators very bad evil and treasonous people comments from just last week. If that happens, then it is all discoverable as exculpatory evidence. I’m convinced that AG Barr knows that. Trump, not so much.
L4D probably remembers the “very bad evil treasonous people” in the 1970s who investigated Hoover’s FBI ( Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION).
Hoover was deceased by then, by he would have loved the kind of unqualified trust and support of people like her place institutions whose power can be abused.
One of the differences between the court of public opinion versus a court of law is that evidence from previous cases is not admissible as evidence in current cases before the latter of those courts.
A judge rules on what is or is not admissible.
Your views on what is admissible in court seem to be far afield from the topic(s) under discussion here.
Not one federal judge ever granted a motion to dismiss Mueller’s charges, quash Mueller’s subpoenas, nor suppress Mueller’s evidence. There were at least four federal judges who had such motions filed in their court. And I’m pretty sure the actual number might be higher–as in five or six different federal judges.
No federal judge was monitoring the FBI’s and DOJ’s contacts with a British operative working on behalf of one candidate by conducting Russian opposition research. So far, and for the foreseeable future, those actions have resulted in dismissals and resignations and demotions, not action by the judiciary.
If there is an investigation of the OSC investigation, it’ll be far broader than ruling on subpeonas, etc.
Holmes, the laughing should be by those listening to what you wrote. Tell us how “Barr will do it for him”. Long on laughter short on logic.