Bill Barr Is Wrong On Assange

Bill Barr has been (in my opinion) wrongly attacked for many of his actions with regard to the Special Counsel Report. Indeed, I defended his decisions in print and I testified in favor of his confirmation. I still believe that he is an excellent choice for Attorney General. However, on the charges against Julian Assange, he is wrong. Dead wrong. As I stated in a recent column, the use of the Espionage Act strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Now, the Washington Post is reporting that two prosecutors involved in the Wikileaks case argued against the new charges.

 The Washington Post reported Friday, prosecutors objected that the charges “posed serious risks for First Amendment protections.” They were of course correct. It is reassuring that some of the prosecutors saw the dangers and raised their voices in opposition. However, the decision (presumably by Barr) to move forward has created a genuine legal crisis for the press freedom in the United States.

What is troubling is that the Obama Administration appears to have rejected this course. However, in 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reportedly pushed the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia to take a second look the charges. Ironically, the veteran prosecutor who was asked to look at the case was named James Trump. He has a long and accomplished resume of prosecutions and is hardly timid in bringing charges. He was involved in the case against CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling for giving classified information to journalist James Risen.

However, Trump and his colleagues Daniel Grooms raised objections over the threat to press freedom. That debate appears to have raged for months.

I am assuming that Barr had to approve the final charges but there is no confirmation of his role.

I have always said that, despite our friendship, Barr and I hold divergent views in some areas. The most obvious is executive privilege and powers. I am a typical Madisonian scholar and tend to favor Congress in fights with the Executive Branch. My natural default position is to Article I. Barr’s natural default is to Article II and executive power. Barr is also a hawk on national security law, particularly when it comes to the protection of classified information. He is by no means anti-media. However, he has always been a hardliner on the protection of national secrets and national security.

Nevertheless, this is wrong and Barr should have stopped it. The initial charge against Assange avoided the direct attack on press rights but focusing on the stealing of information (and Assange’s alleged role in that theft). That restrained response was blown away with this all-out attack on First Amendment rights of journalists. Simply saying Assange is not a journalist is not enough. He is being charged for conduct that is indistinguishable from a wide array of reporters.

I previously wrote that Assange could have the makings of a modern John Peter Zenger trial. It now is and Barr and the Administration is on the wrong side of that fight.

112 thoughts on “Bill Barr Is Wrong On Assange”

  1. For anyone who hasn’t read it:

    The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret FBI, January 7, 2014, by Betty Medsger

    Oh, the secrets that we keep…

    Who will be the next Assange?

  2. “I am assuming that Barr had to approve the final charges but there is no confirmation of his role.” This is rather CNN-ish of you, JT. Instead of assuming, why not pick up the phone and ask Barr the question. I imagine he would have taken your call.

  3. You have to love the Johnny come lately’s to Assange’s right’s. No one has stood up for him except Tulsi Gabbard(and Roger Stone), but suddenly you get Sanders, Warren, and Wyden protesting when they have previously called his actions illegal.

    For those of you on the left, I highly recommend Tulsi Gabbard. The rest are full of it.

    1. It looks like the anti-Trump media(NYT,WashPost,CNN,MSNBC) are all “suddenly waking up” to the implications of prosecuting a journalist. Curious how that works, isn’t it? Assange has been public enemy number one for years and all these media outlets have all joined in the fun…UNTIL NOW. If you read the NYT,Post or watch CNN,MSNBC then you’re the fool.

    2. “For those of you on the left, I highly recommend Tulsi Gabbard. The rest are full of it.”

      I agree.

      (Wyden is all talk; he’s shown his true colors over the years.)

      1. I’m a fan of Gabbard, but she missed a golden opportunity that could have propelled her to the front ranks. She should have come straight out and said the Douma chemical weapons attack in 2018 was a false flag…because it OBVIOUSLY was. If you do not already know this then wake the fck up. This is a huge story that the media is slowly awakening to and she should have been in front of it and getting credit.

  4. An important aspect:

    Moira Meltzer-Cohen, a lawyer representing Manning, spoke of her disappointment. “It is telling that the United States has always been more concerned with the disclosure of those [leaked] documents than with their damning substance,” she told reporters.

    The charges against Assange are a direct attack on all journalists who work to inform us of what is really going on behind the government obfuscation and propaganda.

  5. Totally agree with JT. The on-going persecution of Assange is a travesty. I am a big supporter.

    However, I am very curious to know who leaked the info to Assange so we can have full transparency about everything that happened this past election. Pardon him in exchange for this info?

  6. Give Assange immunity for truthful testimony and factual revelation.
    _____________________________________________________

    John Jones, Assange’s extradition attorney, was assassinated by train.

    Seth Rich was assassinated by handgun without being robbed.

    Joseph Rago was assassinated by injection and false diagnosis by M.E.
    ________________________________________________________

    What did these people have in common?

    Jones worked on the same team as actor, George Clooney’s wife Amal. He specialized in extradition, war crimes and counter-terrorism;
    taking cases from the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Lebanon and Cambodia.

    Seth Rich worked at the DNC with Donna Brazile et al.

    Joseph Rago was on the verge of exposing Hillary Clinton’s “Veropharm” deal.

  7. Thank you, Jonathan. This case will define us…

    The headline might read:

    Jonathan Turley Is Right On Assange

    He is.

      1. L4D says–That’s fine. So be it. All I want is what Julian has always promised–radical transparency. Assange owes us that. Let’s see it.

          1. L4D says–The previous statement of “threat” (leverage) from Assange referred to the Vault 7 and Vault 8 leaks that Assange allegedly got from Joshua Schulte. Assange’s statements about Vault 7 & 8 are also a “defense” of sorts in that Wikileaks has not [yet] published the CIA custom hacking tools, themselves, hence the reference to “harm minimization procedures.” So far Wikileaks has only published documents that describe the capabilities and potential uses of the CIA custom hacking tools.

            The United States is keenly interested in fully recovering those CIA custom hacking tools and placing them under a far more effective lockbox than the one from which they were leaked in the first place. Other observers have suggested that our government has already closed all of the so-called zero-day vulnerabilities that the CIA custom hacking tools exploited. Even so, as far as I’m concerned, if Julian returns those CIA custom hacking tools to the custody of the United States, then he should be granted a pardon for whatever role he may have played in the leak of those hacking tools.

  8. I have to respectfully disagree with JT on this one. All individuals and organizations deserve privacy rights, so long as their public behavior is legal, and they are not engaging in covert illegality. The 24/7 multimedia culture would jettison all privacy rights (except for the self) in its unquenchable thirst for attention.

    National security is an elevated class of privacy rights, protecting the ability of the United States to conduct sensitive deliberations and diplomacy outreach. If the privacy protections become too thin, then it will disrupt critical exchanges of private information.

    To publish stolen information known to be Top Secret or Classified is NOT journalism. It is to act in league with the thief, or even to one-up the thievery by divulging the information to the public (to our adversaries). There must be strong deterrence against this way of inflicting damage on the U.S.

    Under Jonathan’s theory, national security is weak, consisting of 1-layer protection. If a breach of security is accomplished by a single person, then its game over for privacy protection, because the collaborator who publishes (Assange) can claim to be a journalist acting on 1st Amendment rights.

    If we are ever to regain a measure of shared appreciation for privacy rights, the first step is to clarify that the 1st Amendment is NOT so broad as to denude citizens and organizations of their privacy rights. The 1st Amendment protects freedom to express yourself in public, so long as no other laws are being broken.

    HIPPA protects personal medial privacy. If I burrowed into Jonathan Turley’s medical records and then transmitted them to a 2nd party to publish them for all the world to see, I wonder if he would stand by my doing so as protected by the 1st Amendment?
    I wonder if the publisher would also receive JT’s support?

    It’s the same with national security. I strongly defend not just my own privacy rights, but those of everyone else and every organization, knowing that it’s unrealistic that only my privacy rights will be upheld while all others are ransacked.

    1. “To publish stolen information known to be Top Secret or Classified is NOT journalism.”

      I call BS. Especially if the information reveals war crimes.
      “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

        1. That’s a naive position…have you ever led an organization through a crisis? Private deliberations and considerations of options is an essential aspect of sound organizational behavior. If there are snoops, leakers and reporters standing around the entire time, nobody in a position of responsibility will speak candidly, and decisionmaking will be stalled. It’s easy to strip others of their privacy rights. The question I want you to dwell upon is whether others deserve less privacy than you yourself? If so, why? Would you give up all your privacy?

      1. The term ‘war crime’ is an obnoxious rhetorical exercise.

        And, no, freelancers don’t get to decide what is and is not a state secret.

        1. War is crime. Peace is punishment. We’re supposed to know that we’re being punished by this peace between us for the crime of war that we’re not fighting against one another. Don’t ask me. It’s all in a couple of really big books written by a seriously fatalistic Russian.

          1. L4D says–No takers? Fine then. There were two really big books written by two different Russians, only one of whom was seriously fatalistic, the other of whom is much harder to pin down.

      2. I said that privacy rights are conditional on legal behavior. When there is objective evidence that a party has violated the law, the privacy shield is lowered as needed to investigate under 4th Amendment constraints. When government itself is the violator, we have whistleblowing laws that allow misconduct to be brought to light (to Congress), while not giving away valid national security information.

        The decision to publish very sensitive national security information to the entire world, including adversaries, is overkill to reign in official misconduct. In this age of outright infowarfare, standards must be crafted and refined to protect deserved privacy, uncover wrongdoing to assure correction, and maintain the balance of these two values. If the national security protections are weak and easily defeated (gamed), then who would not expect global adversaries (and malcontent defeatists among us) to take advantage of these loopholes?

      3. Over-classification of government information is a problem even acknowledged and addressed in Congress. The guideline for responsible journalism should be – and I believe often is the guideline – whether the information released will endanger lives or national security, though both – especially the latter – are obviously difficult to assess accurately.

        https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-111publ258

        1. L4D says–There are security-clearance levels for people as well as classification levels for information. Manning gave Assange “the hash” (don’t ask me) for the password of an officer with a higher security-clearance level than Manning had. Assange gave that hash to a specialist to crack. Had they been successful at cracking that password, then an innocent person would have been investigated for Manning’s actions.

          1. “Had they been successful at cracking that password, then an innocent person would have been investigated for Manning’s actions.”

            Not strictly true. L4D. “The FTP account wasn’t associated with any specific individual…” (Refer to the Forbes article and the excerpt, below.)

            And in this day and age — and especially in the context of the Iraq war — “innocent” is a loaded word:

            https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/04/16/unpacking-the-alleged-assange-manning-password-hacking-conspiracy/#28d4b82b6ee8

            The FTP account wasn’t associated with any specific individual, and the government alleged that if Manning had used it to pilfer files and hand them over to Wikileaks, she could have foiled investigators looking into who was behind the leaks. “Although there is no evidence that the password to the FTP user was obtained, had Manning done so, she would have been able to take steps to procure classified information under a username that did not belong to her,” the affidavit read. “Such measures would have frustrated attempts to identify the source of the disclosures to WikiLeaks.”

    2. “…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

      – Abraham Lincoln
      _______________

      People eligible to vote are People eligible to know secrets. Far too many citizens are eligible to vote. You may finally agree with the restrictions imposed by states in 1789, and the American Founders, that citizens must meet criteria and must be entitled to vote.
      _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

      republic noun
      re·​pub·​lic | \ ri-ˈpə-blik
      \
      Definition of republic

      b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

  9. I am a typical Madisonian scholar and tend to favor Congress in fights with the Executive Branch. My natural default position is to Article I.

    Well this isn’t Madison’s Congress, or at least the one he thought would exist in a large republic. In Federalist 10 he explains what the dangers of a democracy would look like. While we opted for a republic, it hasn’t prevented Congress from functioning as bolded below:

    The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

    The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.

  10. I”m not a lawyer, don’t play one on TV, yada, yada, yada,

    However, even I can see the reason for prosecuting Assange, particularly this year.

    Either the laws against leaking classified information should be enforced, or they are unjust and should be repealed. Congress has decided to do neither. The Democratic party in particular has gotten an obscene amount of mileage out of the double standard on leaking this past three years, So has the press.

    Both the Democrats and the press have systematically shown that if you divulge national secrets against the right people, or if you are the right people, the laws protecting those who help us with information on illicit nuclear weapons, plans for making war against us, networks for illegai importation of drugs, or simple bad faith in diplomacy may as well have been printed on two-ply rolls of bumwad. Clintons in particular have wiped themselves with the United States Code outlawing disclosure of classified information with depressing regularity

    The press, on the other hand, modestly talk about how moral they are and immoral their enemies are. Then they lie. Worse, they bribe those in the highest echelons of law enforcement and national intelligence with money, gratuities like tickets to entertainment, sex, and the chance to humiliate political adversaries.

    They’ve done that over, and over, and over again and have not only been congratulated for it by their peers, they’ve collaborated in elaborate schemes to place people in the ultimate positions of power in our nation. And failing to do in 2016, they plunged us in a national nightmare of duplicity and largely succeeded in hoodwinking the American people that non-existent conspiracies with foreign powers exist.

    If the Trump administration wanted to reward its friends in this way for breaking our laws, nothing would be simpler than to decide that there is no justification to prosecute Julian Assange for walking Private Manning step-by-step through breach of the walls protecting our nation’s secrets. If Trump had done so in exchange for wikileaks’ damning release of illegally obtained information on the Democratic Party, many of us within and outside that party would have cheered.

    But AG Barr has apparently decided that it’s time for the circus surrounding leaking of cliassifed information to close. While Julian Assange isn’t the most culpable publisher of our nation’s secrets, letting him go with a sharp rap on both wrists legitimizes the long cover-up of an even more systematic violator of those laws.

    If there’s any prayer at all of sending Hillary Clinton to jail for the thousands of secret documents she’s allowed our enemies to see after signing documents explaining how illegal it was for her to do so, the last thing we should do is give her attorneys a reason to say “but you let Julian Assange do it!”.

  11. Meanwhile, Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg attacks Trump over handling of Iran

    Pete has surged the past two months to become a credible contender — also vowed that “I’m going to win” as he took an indirect jab at former Vice President Joe Biden, the clear front-runner in the Democratic 2020 race.

    Keep in mind that Iran still puts gay guys to death by hanging or stoning. If Pete is elected, he better make sure the codes to launch the nukes are close by. The middle East kings won’t like Pete.

  12. P.H. IS FINE WITH THIS

    Since I don’t like either Barr or Assange, I’m fine with this development.

    If this case blows-up on Barr, that’s okay with me. Yet if Barr succeeds in putting Assange away for years and years, that would delight me too. From my personal point of view, this is a win-win situation.

    1. Congratulations, Mr. H. you’ve finally lived long enough to achieve contentment. Don’t worry. Something will come along tomorrow or the next day to upset your applecart all over again. And you’ll always be fresh and hip, anyway. Keep on Trucking. (Oh! That’s so yesterday.) L4D since 1389.

  13. As long as Bradley Manning is walking the streets, prosecuting Assange seems odoriferous.

      1. You missed this:

        Chelsea Manning Sent Back To Jail For Refusing To Testify Before Grand Jury

        May 17, 201912:00 AM ET

        https://www.npr.org/2019/05/17/724133556/chelsea-manning-sent-back-to-jail-for-refusing-to-testify-before-grand-jury

        In addition to being held in custody for the duration of the grand jury’s investigation or until Manning testifies, the judge ordered her to be fined $500 every day that she is in custody after 30 days and $1,000 every day in custody after 60 days, according to a statement by Manning’s lawyers.

        Moira Meltzer-Cohen, a lawyer representing Manning, spoke of her disappointment. “It is telling that the United States has always been more concerned with the disclosure of those [leaked] documents than with their damning substance,” she told reporters.

        She went on to say that the Trump administration was “obsessed with unwinding Obama’s legacy, from health care to Chelsea’s commutation.” (end of excerpt)

        1. L4D says–Oily Crepe! I can’t keep up anymore. In the jail. Out the jail. Back in the jail. Obviously the United States Government is experiencing Incarceration Dysphoria. Is there a therapy for that? I’m not sure I want to know.

        2. I realize Chelsea Manning is supposed to be a sympathetic figure to far-left wing-nuts. But that latter group does not include me.

          As a military power power the U.S. is finished if low-ranking staffers think they can leak reams of documents and pay no serious price.

          Furthermore, I don’t think the U.S. Military is any place for people unsure of their gender. If someone has deep misgivings about their gender, they honestly have no business entering any branch of the service.

          1. L4D says–But, but, but . . . “Be All That You Can Be. In The Army.”

            Don’t you remember that commercial jingle? Some folks take Uncle Sam literally when he says stuff like that.

            1. I remember that jingle, L4D. It was a good ad campaign.

              People pursuing military engagements should honestly want to soldier, sail or fly. People entering the military for any reason other than those are probably bad candidates.

              1. L4D says–I understand, Mr. H.. And I agree, too. I’m just poking fun at you. Because . . . Smith won’t let me poke much fun at anybody else anymore. (Geez, that sounds really horrible. Doesn’t it.) I’m sooooo sorry. Please forgive me.

      1. His step-mother pegged him as a sponge and an attention-whore and though his father should cut him loose. I think she had the right idea. Brian Manning in his own life had benefited from his time in the Navy and thought the service might be the tonic for his n’er do well son. His son turns out to be a Loki-like figure who leaves ruin in his wake. The best place for him was prison, where he would annoy his jailers but where everyone else was protected from him. Including his father, his step-mother, and their other children.

  14. Professor Turley, thank you for setting up the chess board where each combatant carries a clear banner, Article one and Article 2. The problem in my eyes is that both combatants are fighting for the right thing so we have to be very careful in drawing the battle lines so that both end up winners.

    1. L4D says– Now I’m stumped, Allan. Turley’s remark about Article I [legislative power] versus Article II [presidential power] comports well enough with the notion drawing battle lines. But it’s not immediately clear how drawing those battle lines so that both The Congress and The Presidency end up winners would work with respect to the seventeen additional charges against Assange under The Espionage Act.

        1. Clarity, schmarity! Clarity begins at home, Allan.

          Tells us, please, how drawing the battle lines between the press versus national security so that both The Congress and The Presidency end up winners might play out the chess board where each clearly bannered combatant (Article 1 and Article 2), make moves with the pawn who goes by the name of Julian Assange in the seventeen additional charges in the most recent indictment against Assange under The Espionage Act?

          Contributed by The L4D–Allan Claims That He Already Gave Clarity At The Office–Project

  15. Assange should be granted transactional immunity and testify about exactly where he got those emails. It would likely debunk all the noise about Russian interference in the election and prove conclusively our intelligence services lie, repeatedly, and that the Dems are every bit the threat to our democracy that the Russians are.

    1. Curious! I agree with the transactional immunity request. However, I agree for the exact opposite reason that The Counselor has stated. Intriguing!

      Late4Dinner

        1. Aye. Unless I misunderstood, Assange has admitted that Seth Rich was a source. If you look at the demographics of homicide victims in DC, you’ll see his case is an outlier.

          1. Podesta’s Gmails were not leaked from the DNC email servers. Podesta’s Gmails were hacked from Podesta’s Gmail account. There were many other hacks besides the hacks on the DNC email servers. The mangling and garbling is long since past decrepitude.

            Late4Dinner

          2. DSS, where does that leave us? How does that impact the struggle between the press and the security of the nation, Article 1 and Article 2?

            1. Allan, the First Amendment is not the only thing in The U. S. Constitution that goes by the name of “Article I.” Nor is the Second Amendment the only constitutional thing that goes by the name of “Article II.”

              Please don’t be upset. I’m only trying to help. My God. What’s wrong with me? Late4Dinner

              1. Diane, don’t worry. You are of no help whatsoever. You never say much of anything while you ramble along.

                  1. Uncomfortably Allanumb clearly implied that Article I is the freedom of the press rather than the part of The U. S. Constitution that vests The Legislative Power of the United States in The Congress. L4D

                    1. Wrong as usual.

                      ” I am a typical Madisonian scholar and tend to favor Congress in fights with the Executive Branch. My natural default position is to Article I. Barr’s natural default is to Article II and executive power”

                    2. “Allanumb”…skull is perfect. Thanks, L4D.

                      It would seem that you need a day off, Allanumbskull. More than a day, now that I think about it.

                    3. Allan on May 25, 2019 at 9:20 AM

                      DSS, where does that leave us? How does that impact the struggle between the press and the security of the nation, Article 1 and Article 2?

                      L4D

                    4. Two seperate but related questions separated by a comma.

                      “How does that impact the struggle between the press and the security of the nation, Article 1 and Article 2?”

                  2. Tom feels that there is not enough time to figure out what is wrong with Diane. I agree.That is why I trash most of her comments unread. She has made the word anonymous a synonym for sickshit.

                    1. FTR, I have never lodged a complaint with Smith nor Turley about anyone else who posts comments here. And all of my complaints about Smith and Turley are posted right here on the blawg where anybody can read them. There be some ______ tattletales on this blawg. If you don’t know what ______ means, read Allanasty’s post above. Smith will not do anything about it.

                1. L4D wrote “My God, what’s wrong with me?”.
                  Do you have a three day weekend to field that question, Allan?

                  1. L4D says–You haven’t even read what Allanumb wrote.

                    Neither one of you can follow a thread, let alone the thread.

                    1. Tom understood real well. You, Diane, didn’t understand at all. That is the problem when one’s mind is nothing more than a word salad.

        2. That seems to exclude punishment and deterrence.

          Turley seems so sure of his position, but in part because I lack information I don’t see how he can be that confident. The same would apply to Barr if he took a similar position on Article 2. I’m stuck in the middle because there is good reason to side with both.

          Ultimately it appears I have to know what I want as a result before drawing conclusions. Who is lying is just one part of the puzzle to me. Firstly what do we do with the one that is lying and what are the other pieces of the puzzle? Do these pieces extend past the boundaries we think they lie in? You are the attorney so you have a set way of looking at things but will that methodology be correct in this type of decision Article 1 vs Article 2? Very troubling.

          1. Allan wrote, “Who is lying . . . [edit] . . . what do we do with the one that is lying . . . [edit] . . . this type of decision Article 1 [legislative power] vs Article 2 [executive power]?”

            Allan also wrote, “Two seperate but related questions separated by a comma. ‘How does that impact the struggle between the press and the security of the nation, Article 1 [The Congress] and Article 2 [The Presidency]?'”

            Paraphrase 1: How does who is lying and what do we do with the one that is lying impact the struggle between the press and the security of the nation?

            Paraphrase 2: How does who is lying and what do we do with the one that is lying impact the struggle between the legislative versus the executive power of the United States?

            Paraphrase 3: How does the struggle between the press and the security of the nation impact the struggle between the legislative versus the executive power of the United States?

            Paraphrase 4: How does the struggle between the legislative versus the executive power of the United States impact the struggle between the press and the security of the nation?

            L4D asks–Who is lying? And what do we do with the one who is lying?

    2. Assange? Hell, I’m waiting for mespo to reveal his contacts on the theft of DNC emails, since he claims our intelligence agencies and FBI are lying about the Russians. Maybe Nunes can ask that he be subpoened to aopear.

  16. Facts. How do we get to real facts. Take the Dow Jones Industrial average and acitivity for yesterday. If you look on Googe Finance they have it wrong. They have the market down by 170 pts or so. They had the opening and close wrong. They had it wrong yesterday at the close of the market and are still wrong this morning. So. To get facts correct look at several sources. Go look at Yahoo Finance for example. Or go on TV and watch one of the finance shows such as Fox. Fox does not have it different from the NBC finance channel. In regard to Barr and all these other humans and their statements of facts we must fact check. Having done a little of that I vote for Trump over Pelosi on statements of facts in the past three days.

  17. Turley wrote, “However, the decision (presumably by Barr) to move forward has created a genuine legal crisis for the press freedom in the United States.”

    So you finally woke up and snapped out of it, did you Turley? Fine then. Let’s try paying attention to what’s going on as our next step in the process.

    First, Barr made the decision that Trump ordered Barr to make. That’s who Barr is–a loyal and dutiful servant to The POTUS, any POTUS. That’s what Barr has done in the past.

    Second, Trump needs to push the press as well as the DOJ, NSD and FBI back on their heels so that none of them will even dare dream of leaking nor publishing the exculpatory evidence that will put The Big Lie to Trump’s “Spy-Gate” counter-narrative that Trump also ordered Barr to make good upon by assigning U. S. Attorney Durham to yet the third investigation of Trump’s “Spy-Gate” counter-narrative.

    Third, the seventeen new charges against Assange under The Espionage Act are perfectly suited to the task of suppressing by prior restraint any would-be leakers or whistleblower as well as journalists or publishers who might dare to solicit or otherwise acquire any exculpatory evidence that would put The Big Lie to Trump’s “Spy-Gate” counter-narrative.

    Fourth, the power selectively to cherry-pick and declassify only such classified information that might make good upon Trump’s “Spy-Gate” counter-narrative, can only be exercised in the absence of Durham bringing any indictments against any of the persons whom Trump just yesterday named as presumed to be guilty of Treason and subject to the death penalty. IOW, Durham’s investigation and Barr’s cherry-picking of declassified information are nothing else but Trump’s campaign strategy for getting re-elected in 2020.

    Fifth, if Durham brings indictments against any of the people whom Trump singled out yesterday as traitors who need to be put to death, then those defendants will file motions for discovery of the classified information that will exculpate them from whatever charges Durham brings against them based upon Barr’s cherry-picking of the declassification procedure. Those indictments would thereby necessarily be dismissed with extreme prejudice. Otherwise, the trials would have to go CIPA and be conducted in a SCIF. But there is nowhere in America where a jury could be impanelled that would not already have been prejudiced by Trump’s public declaration that the defendants are guilty of Treason and subject to the death penalty. Therefore, there will be no indictments brought against any of the supposed traitors. And the whole “Spy-Gate” counter-narrative will remain nothing more nor other than a re-election campaign strategy implemented by the Attorney General of the United States on the orders of the POTUS.

    Contributed by The L4D–Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition–Project

    1. L4D:

      You win the “Legal Word Salad” award today. Every argument you make applies to Assange yet still he is indicted and will likely be convicted.

      1. I’m assuming compensation rates at Correct-the-Record are by the word. It sort of reminds you of Reuel Marc Gerecht’s description of evaluation for promotion at the CIA. The key metric per Gerecht was the number of assets you developed. The quality of information you got from those assets wasn’t evaluated. (In case you wanted to know how Aldrich Ames was promoted time and again).

      2. Hasty reader said, “Every argument you make applies to Assange . . .”

        Assange is not running for re-election in 2020. If Assange were President now, he could not be indicted. Assange has no Attorney General to order a partisan political witch hunt based on a hoax for the sake of getting re-elected, either.

        Durham will bring no indictments. If he did, then the charges would be dismissed. And if they weren’t, then when the exculpatory evidence was presented at trial, Barr would be exposed as the partisan political witch-hunter in chief and Trump the hoaxster in chief.

        Late4Dinner

      3. You win the “Legal Word Salad” award today.

        Wernicke’s aphasia is due to damage of the temporal gyrus of the brain producing among other unintelligible speech known as word salad

        You might have stumbled onto something with that observation. Kudos

    2. “Second, Trump needs to push the press as well as the DOJ, NSD and FBI back on their heels so that none of them will even dare dream of leaking nor publishing the exculpatory evidence that will put The Big Lie to Trump’s “Spy-Gate” counter-narrative…Third, the seventeen new charges against Assange under The Espionage Act are perfectly suited to the task of suppressing by prior restraint any would-be leakers or whistleblower as well as journalists or publishers who might dare to solicit or otherwise acquire any exculpatory evidence that would put The Big Lie to Trump’s “Spy-Gate” counter-narrative.”

      To what “exculpatory evidence” do you refer? Your entire narrative appears to hinge on the existence of something not identified.

      If the rest of your narrative is correct, I’ll settle for the guilty parties who spied being fired and losing their pensions (if the latter is possible), and losing multi million dollar lawsuits brought by all the innocent parties the scum bag FBI and CIA destroyed for the crime of helping elect Trump.

      Democrap Feinswine employs an actual Chinese spy for 20 years in her office. The FBI calls her on the phone and she fires the guy, case closed. Trump does nothing (per Mueller) except commit the crime of running for President without being vetted by TPTB/Deep State, and the CIA and FBI financially destroy and threaten to imprison a few innocent persons helping Trump like Carter Page.

      1. L4D says–As I’m sure you know by now, Your Highness, The Russians cultivated and attempted to recruit Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. They may have succeeded. or not. Any classified information showing substantial, credible suspicion for opening a counter-intelligence investigation into the possibility that either or both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos may have been acting as agents of a foreign power while advising the Trump campaign would be exculpatory evidence discoverable through pretrial motions for any defendant whom Durham might someday indict for . . . I don’t even know what charges Durham might bring. Let’s call it inappropriate spying on the Trump campaign.

        Now, if AG Barr selectively declassifies classified information so as to suppress exculpatory evidence for someone Durham indicts, then a fair number of people with access to the exculpatory evidence will be sorely tempted to leak that exculpatory evidence to the press. And that’s why Trump and Barr are using the indictment of Assange to put the fear of Espionage charges into the hearts and minds of leakers, whistleblowers, journalists and publishers for the sake of making good on Trump’s “Spy-Gate” nincompoopery.

        Durham will bring no indictments against anyone. The counter-investigation against the investigators is all about getting Trump re-elected in 2020 and nothing more than that. Ask yourself: Has Trump locked up Crooked H, yet?

  18. For your sake JT, I hope Trump does not get wind of your criticism of Barr since he would not take kindly to anyone who is “nasty” to his Attorney General.

    1. L4d says–Trump always stiffs his contractors. Julian Assange really ought to have known better.

Leave a Reply