Justice, Lawyering, Media, Politics

“Very Dangerous and Indeed Incendiary”: Barr Gives Controversial Speech To Federalist Society

I have long defended Attorney Bill Barr, who I believe has been unfairly criticized for his handling of the Mueller Report and other issues. However, despite my continued respect and long association with Attorney General Barr, I believe that he has been rightfully criticized for his speech at the Federalist Society last Friday. It is absurd for some to call for his impeachment, but the fiery political speech was in my view inappropriate and ill-advised for an attorney general. Indeed, given this difficult and historical period for the Department, the speech itself could fit Barr’s description of an “incendiary” moment for our system. This is a time where the Attorney General should strive to stay above the political fray — not contribute to it.

Barr drew the legitimate criticism for this portion of the speech to the largely conservative legal audience:

Unfortunately through the past few years we have seen these conflicts take on an entirely new character. Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called ‘The Resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch and his administration. The fact of the matter is: that in waging a scorched earth, no holds-barred war of resistance against this administration, it is the left that is engaged in the systemic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law. . .

This is a very dangerous and indeed incendiary notion to import into the politics of a Democratic republic. The fact is, that, yes, while the president has certainly thrown out the traditional beltway playbook and punctilio, he was upfront about what he was going to do and the people decided that he was going to serve as president.”

There is no need for the Attorney General to engage in such political discourse. That is particularly important at this critical historical period when a president is facing what appears a likely impeachment. Moreover, the Justice Department is not just investigating aspects of the 2016 election (including the criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham) but also investigating Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani. Given those investigations, this is a particularly bad time for such comments (even if one could think of any good time).

Of course, no sooner had Barr committed this unforced error, critics on the other side rushed to prove his point. Former White House Ethics Counsel Richard Painter tweeted “Another lunatic authoritarian speech as Barr goes from attacking ‘radical secularists ‘ [at Notre Dame Law School] to one month later attacking the ‘resistance’ at [the Federalist Society]. Impeach Barr now!” He then added “Bill Barr is the type of bare knuckles lawyer the Church would have hired thirty years ago to cover up sex abuse cases. The bishop would have been someone like Rep. Jim Jordan. Neither of these men belong anywhere near the impeachment inquiry.”

This is an outrageous statement that is not only wrong as a constitutional matter but grossly unfair as a personal matter. It is not an impeachable offense for a cabinet member to criticize what he views as a destructive political environment or obstructionist environment. I do not think it is wise but it is ridiculous to suggest that the speech constitutes impeachable conduct. The added insult that Barr would “cover up” child abuse for the church so just how unhinged and unfair our political discourse has become. Barr is a deeply religious person and a Catholic. However, no one has ever suggested that he would cover up the rape of children for the Church.

I have previously disagreed with the overextended and unsupported claims of critics on allegedly clear criminal violations by President Donald Trump, including past statements by Painter. This includes this suggestion that simply doing fundraisers for fellow Republicans is impeachable bribery. These comments however are far beyond the pale even in this age of rage.

164 thoughts on ““Very Dangerous and Indeed Incendiary”: Barr Gives Controversial Speech To Federalist Society”

  2. The Principle of Contradiction.

    The Consequences of Not Following this Principle

    Most classical philosophy from Aristotle onward, teaches that without the principle of contradiction, we cannot know anything because we would be incapable of distinguishing between what is and what is not. We cannot develop thought since it requires us to make relationships with the things that we know.

    Without the principle of contradiction, we cannot distinguish between truth and error, good and evil, or beauty and ugliness. We cannot classify and identify a hierarchy from which society is ordered. Without this principle, we could not even distinguish ourselves from nature or the cosmos. Thus the knowledge of a Creator, distinct and superior to all His Creatures, would be impossible.

    A world without the principle of contradiction is confused and dysfunctional. The most absurd things rule, and nothing works according to its nature since it cannot be known. Communications become difficult because there is no single meaning. This is a picture of our society today.
    https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2019/11/roots-american-polarization-john-horvat.html?utm_source=The+Imaginative+Conservative+%28Daily%29&utm_campaign=3606f8c5a9-Today%27s+Essays&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b25fb6fc69-3606f8c5a9-132528881&mc_cid=3606f8c5a9&mc_eid=c1f326aae5

    1. Olly, Assange is being prosecuted by the DOJ. The USG demanded and received all his lawyers communications. This is proved, it is not speculation. You must realize that for the USG to have these communications (ordered by the CIA) is illegal under our Constitution. That is the truth. I understand that you do not want to think badly of Trump but in this case, he is doing something both unethical and unconstitutional through his DOJ. This isn’t something which is open to interpretation. It is the truth.

      Now you can either be like Obama supporters and ignore this wrongdoing because you “like” Trump or you can be a citizen and get out there and DEMAND that your govt. support our Constitution. You are no less complicit than any Democrat if you let this go down without speaking against it.

      1. the issue of assange’s prosecution is a legit question to raise but in this fiasco of undermining the lawful president we have a matter of more profound importance for the future of government.

        will the elections have meaning or will a deeply entrenched bureaucracy be able to cancel them with a thousand salami slices of sabotage?

        and indeed the issues are inter related, because you see, the war powers want to have guys like assange indicted. they have bought off the precious NYT from the NYT v US Pentagon papers case– NYT is no threat to the Deep State whatsoever– now if the precedent were to have meaning it would be applied to journalists of lesser stature.

        Trump, in a weak position from day one due to the Russia hoax, was in no position to deny the war powers their deeply desired prosecution of assange.

        get Trump into a solid position and maybe he will be in a place where he can pardon him or bring more mercy to the defendant one way or another. right now he can’t do even the most basic parts of his job without insider spies ginning up impeachment against him.

        1. Trump should not be prosecuting Assange, period. He should not have been spying on his lawyer’s communications w/a client. This has everything to do with abiding by our Constitutional guarantees and has nothing to do w/Trump being under attack by anyone. Trump has chosen many illegal paths. Citizens must be able to see past circuses and even real attacks. The president takes an oath to protect and defend our Constitution. This does not mean he will do that later while in the meantime he’s free to break it at will.

          Citizens believe and support our Constitution, end of story. They don’t make excuses for their pet president who is breaking the law at will. They stand up and say, NO!

          1. you have a very simplistic view of how the DOJ and CIA operate. You do realize Jill that the president does not give them operational orders, they mostly run themselves, via the cabinet officials that the POTUS appoints, and the POTUS mostly lets them run the agencies?

            It sounds like you think Trump is out there telling them what to do on a day to day basis. No Trump can barely do his job without those very agencies telling him what to do every day and then trying to impeach him even when hes acting strictly within the range of his own discretionary authority!

            Jill, take stock of practical realities. and don’t let these perpetual internet dissenters suck you into the “perfect as enemy of the good” Fallacy.

            1. You are saying that Trump is a weak man. I agree. He is supposed to be in charge of the CIA, not the other way around.

              People like yourself who excuse everything illegal done by your pet president are the reason that our Constitution and the rule of law is failing. That’s where your false realism gets all of us. We need citizens who are willing to stand up for our nation and demand that there be the rule of law, that our rights are no longer violated. This takes strong people.

              Why don’t you write Trump and tell him you don’t want him to kowtow to the CIA? Tell him to fulfill his oath of office. If he is too frightened to do this then he can always resign. He has sent our soldiers to die for far less than the freedom and rights of our nation. If a president asks this of others then they should be willing to put their own life on the line for the good of our nation. We don’t need more cowards in office.

              1. you dont know me jill and let’s keep it that way

                you totally missed the point about the functional complexities of government and any large organization,

                dissident personalities are always harping on something, always on the soapbox, never ready to learn

              3. Wow. The Great Battle for the Rule Of Law In our Country is exemplified right here, with the Assange case. Don’t you realize that it is the very people attempting to take down our President, that are eyeing Assange with Knives sharpened? Please expand your horizons and research the Trump AND Assange Take-Downs. They are connected.

      2. I understand that you do not want to think badly of Trump but in this case, he is doing something both unethical and unconstitutional through his DOJ. This isn’t something which is open to interpretation. It is the truth.

        Jill,
        If that’s what you understand, then I have severe doubts as to what else you supposedly understand.

        Perhaps you’re unaware, but the President continues to have alligators within the alphabet soup of bureaucracies just itching for him to do anything for which they can devour his presidency. Number one on the list of stupid recommendations would be for President Trump to direct the DOJ on any individual cases that are anyway tied to what Barr, Horrowitz and Durham have been investigating.

    2. well said. a equals a. today rather every fool thinks his own preferences can be made into reality

    3. Olly, it looks like you’re offering a grab-bag of high-minded words to say exactly what? ‘Aristotle would be defending Donald Trump’? ..’William Barr is really a tower of wisdom and truth’..?

      1. it looks like you’re offering a grab-bag of high-minded words to say exactly what?

        To say your response is Exhibit A.

        Try again.

    1. Mark,
      If you consider the differences in the way Mueller’s investigation leaked information to manufacture their truth and the way the IG/Durham investigations have not, I believe the latter will have a truth so compelling, manipulating public opinion will not be necessary. The facts will do that all by themselves.

      1. There you go with those conspiracies again. If Durham doesn’t fulfill your fantasies what is next? As always somethings always comes along to preclude your truth from being revealed. What will it be when Durham fails? SAD way to live, swabby.

        1. Tony – I know that Durham will never fulfill my fantasies, so I just have limited expectations.

        2. I took an oath. So did our public servants. What’s sad is you and your ilk disrespect those that honor it and respect those that don’t. You’re pathetic.

  4. So Turley’s side starts catching some heat and suddenly Jonathan gets the vapors.

    Never would have seen that coming. Not in a million years.

  5. Bill Barr covered up Iran Contra. He was a part of Epstein’s outrageous plea deal and seems to be covering up for him now (although we need to wait on that to see what actually happens, if anything– No arrests of people clearly involved such as Wexner and Maxwell so far.) He is in process of writing unconstitutional instructions to allow “law” enforcement to pick up anyone the govt wants to if they declare them to be involved in “pre-crime”. He has been a part of the deep state IC for a very long time. He is actively engaged in the suppression of free speech and fair trial of Assange.

    However, in answer to the person below, it isn’t really clear if Clinton actually did get a majority of human votes. It has been found that her people put extra polling places and machines in place that counted some ballets. it is unclear how many of her votes were real or not. Her people also initiated the false story called Russiagate, something still being used as a weapon against our population and other people such as Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein.

    It is difficult for me to know whether there are factions of the deep state who are fighting each other for supremacy or if they are just playing good cop/bad cop. As a citizen I do not want the deep state running this govt. either via Trump or via Democrats. They have no place in our Constutuion and they should not be allowed to “run” this govt. I reject all of them. This includes Bill Barr, Trump, Clinton and other Republicans and Democrats who are beholden to (or actually a part of) the IC in any way.

    2. it isn’t really clear…It is difficult for me to know…

      You buried the lede…again. But don’t worry, in the larger picture, your truth is not as important as the truth.

      Human reflections of meaning and human portrayals of truth might change but meaning and truth are not themselves dependent on such reflections and portrayals. That which is objectively real is not changed by the way it is perceived subjectively.
      https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2019/11/crucifixion-resurrection-truth-joseph-pearce.html?utm_source=The+Imaginative+Conservative+%28Daily%29&utm_campaign=c80931fd1b-Today%27s+Essays&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b25fb6fc69-c80931fd1b-132528881&mc_cid=c80931fd1b&mc_eid=c1f326aae5

    3. How can you think that “Trump [is] beholden to (or…part of) the IC”? They are the one’s conducting the Star Chamber farce.

  6. BARR IS FUNCTIONING AS TRUMP’S LAWYER

    I hadn’t heard about this speech. But I’m glad Professor Turley has reported it. This speech confirms my worst fears about William Barr. He is, as many of us suspected, more concerned with protecting Donald Trump than serving the nation.

    Roger Stone’s conviction on Friday confirms the Mueller Probe was well justified. Stone was the conduit between Trump’s campaign and Wikileaks. Yet half the country felt William Barr delayed the Mueller Report long enough to let Trump’s exoneration claims take root.

    And now William Barr tells a fraternity of hard-right judges that Donald Trump was the victim of organized resistance from Day 1. That “the left shredded all norms” and engaged in “scorched earth tactics”. This is Trump’s “Deep State” narrative with only the term “Deep State” missing.

    The fact that William Barr, the Attorney General, is promoting this Deep State narrative before a hard-right judicial group indicates he is essentially functioning as Trump’s lawyer. I don’t know how Barr can be seen as impartial from this point on.

    This passage from Barr’s speech conveys the most flawed of narratives:

    “This is a very dangerous and indeed incendiary notion to import into the politics of a Democratic republic. The fact is, that, yes, while the president has certainly thrown out the traditional beltway playbook and punctilio, he was upfront about what he was going to do and the people decided that he was going to serve as president.”
    …………………………….

    Said passage is basically the standard defense of Trump that rightwing media has pushed since the very beginning. First one must note that only 27% of the total electorate voted for Trump in 2016 and he famously lost the popular vote. So this idea that Trump’s ‘victory’ represented the people’s will is factually inaccurate. A large majority of Americans never voted for Donald Trump.

    So when a candidate gains the White House without majority support, they don’t have the right to “throw out the beltway playbook”. Instead they should compromise and seek common ground with the opposition; something Trump never ever considered. To the contrary, he and his supporters have pretended from the start that he won a ‘great victory’.

    I’m surprised that Barr’s speech wasn’t a major news story. The country needs to know he’s a tainted A G.

    1. Peter Hill – this might come as a shock to you but a large majority of Americans and illegal aliens did not vote for Hillary Clinton.

      1. Paul. That’s true. Had Hillary gotten the White House she would have done without majority support. And she too would have been obliged to acknowledge that and compromise.

        1. So far compromise on the left has been one lie after another along with impeachment starting the day Hillary lost. So much for what Hillary would acknowledge. She still doesn’t admit Trump won the election.

    2. it is absolutely proper for Barr to uphold the lawful authority of the President against this slow moving coup d’etat engineered by former CIA boss Brennan, his CIA pawn Eric Ciaramella, and all the other assorted CIA rogues, as well as the various other conspirators in this unlawful cabal.

      1. Kurtz, I thought you were a lawyer. Trump is not the state. You shouldn’t be confused about this if indeed you passed a bar exam.

        1. chief executive is the head of the state and insubordinate petty officials are not.
          they’re derelicts of their duties and acting “ultra vires”
          there’s some legal gibberish for you if you need a fancy phrase to describe sabotage

        2. I’m not confused, it’s you who have been mis-educated for decades, and it’s sad because so many people have as well

          there’s a total collapse of culture happening before our eyes and you can’t even tell when you’re part of a big mudslide wrecking everything in its path

          so many good people have no clue about the foundations of ordered liberty
          they think the liberty part can come without the order.
          it’s always ugly when they eventually find out out.

          neglect the order, you get disorder, and then some other authority will assert itself, usually worse than the one that existed under the initial neglected order.

          i realize that this notion of cyclical devolution is very old fashioned to the point of being ancient– my views do not accord with fanciful Enlightenment notions of “progress”

        3. I thought…

          It should (but won’t) be apparent by now that anytime you begin a comment with those two words, or words to that effect, the following words will have very little to do with actual thinking.

          1. “I thought…”

            Peter Shill cannot extend his thoughts beyond the talking points he has been provided. He should skip thinking and just copy and paste.

  7. So Professor Snowflake, did Barr say anything that was not absolutely correct? How else would you describe the situation when the WaPo published and article with the headline The Impeachment of Donald Trump Begins nineteen minutes after he was sworn in? How about the not-a-whistleblower’s lawyer tweets saying the coup has begun and impeachment will follow with the help of CNN?

    Instead of whining about Barr, why not write something about the completely BS notion the the president is guilty of bribery or the president is guilty of using irregular channels in his conduct of diplomacy? Ever hear of Harry Hopkins? how about John Jay or John Scali of ABC news?

    The bros up on 125th Street have a message for you: Get over yourself!

  8. For some reason, the site blocked me when I tried to quote a duly elected representative from Michigan. Let’s try this again, lightly edited:

    “Why am I running? Because this is about electing the jury to impeach (POTUS) and I will make a heck of juror.”
    -Rashida Tlaib, candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives

    “We’re gonna impeach the mot*rf*ker”
    -Rep. Rashida Tlaib, January 3, 2019

    Political partisans in the DOJ and FBI hijacked the secret FISA courts to spy on the campaign of a political opponent. That is the real scandal, and the true threat to our republic.

    AG Barr is going to get the full Kavanaugh treatment. And then some.

    1. Partly agree. Real constitutional “checks & balances” are between co-equal branches of government – not one branch policing itself. The FISA Court seems to be an Article II Court (housed and operated by an Article II agency) policing the same Article II Executive Branch. The Bill of Rights requires an Article III (judicial branch court) to check & balance an Article II (executive branch agency) and Article I (legislative branch). The reason Congress is listed first in Article I is so presidents wouldn’t perceive themselves as being a dictator or monarch. Presidents’ executive branch agencies are listed second in Article II.

      1. “one branch policing itself” is precisely what the SCOTUS has been doing for decades

  9. Wise analysis from a former POW that spent years being torture in a foreign gulag then became a U.S. Senator. This American hero was spot on:

    “The United States has been the greatest force for good in the history of the world, but at what point does the United States go from being a force for good to being a force of imperialism.” by John McCain in the documentary “Why We Fight”.

    Maybe this is what’s really going on at the DOJ?

    1. Both Obama and McCain were co-conspirators in a bipartisan attempt to usurp the Presidency,by fraud, during time of war. That makes both Obama and McCain traitors and spies. Pelosi was complicit. “Imposters in the Oval Office” by me. (iUniverse Publishing (c)2018).

  10. JT, This is exactly what I have been trying to get through to you. Barr is accusing the left of being the problem. The “left” is part of the problem but where the real problem lies is with the powerful. Powerful people in corporations (FB, Twitter Youtube etc.) and this deep state govt. don’t have a left or right point of view. They aim, all of them, to smash freedom of speech and a free press. They spying against Assange’s lawyer’s doctors and visitors, all of which was sent to USG who is currently trying to prosecute him, intensified under Trump. I doubt anyone would accuse Trump of being a liberal or leftist. The powerful remove free speech at will, corrupt the judicial process and punish anyone who says things they don’t like. To mistake this by naming it a “left” wing problem is to miss the heart of what is actually happening. The US is being closed down to freedom of speech and press by the powerful. The powerful know no nation or ideology except raw, evil intention power to harm ordinary people.

    Barr is engaging in propaganda aimed at Trump supporters. Like Obama supporters before him, they will see wrong doing everywhere except in their “leader”. No “leader” should be above criticism or the ability to look at what they are actually doing as opposed to what they say or people are lead to believe they are saying.

    1. “Barr is engaging in propaganda aimed at Trump supporters.” Well said. Also, in his past two widely reported public speeches, Barr said openly what he has wanted to say for decades, vilifying the sovereignty of the people in a democratic society in favor of a parochial communitarianism where all public virtues and values would be reducible to school-spirited volunteerism and flow from the Catholic Church, a veritable nightmare which can only result in ignominious obedience to authority and the theocratic abolition of the separation between Church and State. In this respect, apart from these views representing implacable hostility to the First Amendment, given what Barr has said publicly, and what he has written for decades about the prerogatives of executive authority, I do not think it is obvious that he would NOT to go to bat for child molesters of the cloth, especially not if the Pope gave him his marching orders to do so.

      Nonetheless, I think Professor Turley is still right about the dishonesty of the official left-wing (which tempers the characterization of Barr of spewing Trumpian propaganda here), inasmuch as that means the Democratic Party and McResistance, who have gone Trump crazy and would attempt to dislodge Trump by any means necessary no matter how underhanded from the point of view of their alleged principles. They’ve surrendered those wholesale, if they ever had them in the first place, because they disagree with Trump about the direction of U.S. foreign policy. Check out the campaign of Shaid Bhuttar in San Francisco, who is seeking to unseat Nancy Pelosi. That’s where the democratic future is.

    2. “Powerful people in corporations (FB, Twitter Youtube etc.) and this deep state govt. don’t have a left or right point of view. They aim, all of them, to smash freedom of speech and a free press”

      well of course the powerful are always where the problem lies

      but you are wrong about which powerful want to destroy a free press and why. the less powerful don’t like the free press, which the more powerful like Geo Soros, manipulates like so many pawns, to accomplish his nation-wrecking ends.

      in China they have no free speech. The PRC government abuses that reality, of course. But at the same time, observe that Soros can’t work his evil magic on them, at least not in the same ways he attacks Western leadership.

      And if you think that Soros controls the Chicoms, um, no. he doesn’t. I have heard that one many times before. This is not realistic. But that is their system and we have ours. Turning now back to ours….

      Right now the big reform that would help would be to get rid of NYT v Sullivan a precedent that allows rampant defamation of public figures by the media who operate with impunity wrecking reputations to suit their narrow agendas. Let them have to follow the same standards of defamation the rest of us do perhaps? Oh but they will cry freedom.

      A freedom that only they the big newspapers enjoy, while we do not. The freedom to slander!

  11. Indeed, given this difficult and historical period for the Department, the speech itself could fit Barr’s description of an “incendiary” moment for our system. This is a time where the Attorney General should strive to stay above the political fray — not contribute to it.

    Incendiary? Sure. But with the the massive brush fire about to hit the entire country with the release of the IG and Durham reports, this is merely a controlled burn.

  12. Bill Barr describes a Presidency free to be utterly corrupt — not subject to Congressional oversight and (if Barr had his way) also protected from such nuisances as the Freedom of Information Act. Aside from the partisan political tone of the speech, it describes a Presidency the Founding Fathers would not recognize. It comes a surprise to me that the Federalist Society would give a standing ovation to such an ahistorical and dangerous view of the Presidency.

    1. RWS,
      Here once again is an example of the Left projecting on conservatives what they are doing and have done themselves.

      As asserted by McConnell on Thursday and as is frequently stressed by Fed Soc-ers, the responsibility of the judiciary is “to say what the law is, not what it should be.” There’s a disturbing trend on the left to refashion society into what they have determined it should be, even if that means upending democratic norms and self-government itself to do. As Barr stated on Friday, “Their [the Left’s] holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a pursing a deific end.”
      https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/18/federalist-society-drowns-out-unhinged-protesters-with-applause-for-brett-kavanaugh/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=69e5781b8b-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-69e5781b8b-79248369

      1. Never accept facts, it is always what about them. Poor victim, America home of the brave except for you you and your ilk.

        1. Dear Diary, Never accept facts, it is always what about them. Poor victim, America home of the brave except for you you and your ilk.

          Once again, fixed it for you. No thanks necessary.

  13. And there’s this: “It sounds like a James Bond movie, but it really happened. Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks journalists and every single lawyer, reporter, politician, artist and physician who visited the founder of WikiLeaks at the Ecuadorian embassy over the last seven years was subjected to systematic espionage. Meetings and conversations were recorded and filmed, and all the information was sent to US intelligence. Sometimes the espionage operations were truly off the wall: at one point spies even planned to steal the diaper of a baby brought to visit Assange inside the embassy. The purpose? To gather the baby’s feces and perform a DNA test to establish whether the newborn was a secret son of Julian Assange.

    Repubblica has had access to some of the videos, audios and photos. Meetings between the founder of WikiLeaks and his lawyers, medical examinations of Julian Assange, diplomatic encounters of the Ecuadorian ambassador Carlos Abad Ortiz, meetings between Assange and journalists. Everything was spied on.”

    https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/11/18/news/a_massive_scandal_how_assange_his_doctors_lawyers_and_visitors_were_all_spied_on_for_the_u_s_-241314527/

  14. The Prof. has demonstrated that he is a wing-brush apologist for the criminals and unfortunates of the present administration, such as Barr. Barr is a henchman for the current president, and most, less one columnist, can clearly see that. Barr is indefensible. He has demonstrated that he will jump the bounds of decency and the requirements of his office to defend his dear leader. Examples abound. I have enjoyed Turley in many of his posts, but his recent milk-toast defense of Trumpism puts him in league with Giuliani, Dershowitz and all who have partaken of the kool aid. I no longer respect his slanted views and so bid the column goodby. Perhaps I will return in future when politics does not dominate, if ever that happens.

    1. “Barr is a henchman for the current president, and most, less one columnist, can clearly see that. Barr is indefensible. He has demonstrated that he will jump the bounds of decency and the requirements of his office to defend his dear leader.”
      *************************
      For those keeping score at home, please add Chuck to the natacha zone!

      1. Thankfully 😄😆😁, Mespo, he left the door open to returning at some future point.

  15. The far bigger issue is, the U.S. Department of Justice has been “out-of-service” for almost two full decades. The DOJ’s “Civil Rights Division” is one of the few constitutional divisions left that upholds it’s constitutional Oath of Office. The name also needs to be more accurate, it should be named the “Attorney General’s Department” or “Federal Prosecutors’ Department”. Many average Americans, that didn’t attend law school, think the DOJ is there to protect citizens – due to the misleading name. Instead of pursuing court cases, crime victims trust the DOJ to uphold their Oath of Office. For Post-911 Cointelpro-style blacklisting victims, the DOJ engineered the destruction of material evidence. The DOJ didn’t protect innocent blacklisting victims, they destroyed evidence apparently to obstruct justice. Except for the Civil Rights Division, the rest of the agency needs major reforms. The DOJ green-lighted torture, warrantless domestic spying, exploited the federal Material Witness Statute, exploited the Espionage Act of 1917, destroyed Geneva Conventions protections for U.S. troops, destroyed the “Nuremberg Defense” legal precedent (used to prosecute Nazis) and has little to do with actual justice. The DOJ needs major reform or we need to abolish it altogether.

    1. Civil rights division is the only good part of DOJ? Preposterous. Probably all the “civil rights division” budget should be cut to zero and 100% reallocated to hiring immigration judges. That might give the “civil rights” of native born Americans a chance.

  16. And now back to reality.

    Thank you JT but we will take it from here. Feel free to go back to your ivory tower where the stench of broken justice doesn’t reach you. Meanwhile Americans are fed up with our justice system going down in flames, no thanks to your idle “scholarly work”

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/obamas-wingman-eric-holder-says-an-attorney-general-has-to-appear-to-be-neutral/

    “Obama’s ‘Wingman’ Eric Holder Says an Attorney General Has to ‘Appear to Be Neutral’”

    Need a good laugh? On Tuesday, Obama’s former attorney general, Eric Holder, who ran the most politicized Department of Justice in history, accused current Attorney General Bill Barr of “cross[ing] the political line.”

    “I think the attorney general needs to be a little bit more sensitive to the appearance that that gives. You have to not only be substantively neutral, you have to appear to be neutral when you’re the attorney general of the United States. I fear he has crossed the political line.”

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This is the same guy who, as attorney general, obstructed dozens of investigations to protect Obama, and who also referred to himself as “the president’s wingman” during a radio interview in 2014. Exactly how is that “substantively neutral” and giving the appearance of being neutral?

    In addition to obstruction investigations, as attorney general, Eric Holder launched bogus investigations into administration corruption and obstructed dozens more, including the investigation of his inexplicable dropping of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, the Iran ransom scandal, and Benghazi. In August 2014, 47 of 73 inspectors general wrote an open letter to Congress informing them that the Obama administration was obstructing their investigations. Holder also lied to Congress about Fast and Furious and refused to provide documents to Congress for their investigation, prompting a historic contempt vote.

    “I think when people look at the Justice Department and think that it’s in some ways politicized, that has a negative long-term impact on the department,” Holder said.

    We can thank him and Barack Obama for that. They politicized the Justice Department in an unprecedented fashion. It’s laughable that he thinks he has any business lecturing AG Barr or anyone else about appearing neutral.

  17. I would posit that Barr has read the IG report and is up-to-date on the Durham investigations. He is getting annoyed.

        1. Paul Tony never makes sense. He is only here to defecate all over the blog being unable to contribute to the discussion.That is the type of person we are dealing with.

        2. Obviously friend was a typo poorly corrected. …….and… would have sufficed. A genius like you should have been able to adapt.

          1. Tony – if you corrected it and it still did not make sense, that is even worse.

  18. “Unfortunately through the past few years we have seen these conflicts take on an entirely new character.

    “Immediately after President Obama won election, opponents inaugurated what they called ‘The Resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch and his administration.

    “The fact of the matter is: that in waging a scorched earth, no holds-barred war of resistance against this administration, it is the Right that is engaged in the systemic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law. . .”

    Wow: Barr really went after McConnell here. Shocking.

  19. “Barr drew the legitimate criticism …”

    Legitimate in your biased view. I see nothing incendiary about what he said. He is simply stating the truth. If anything, he is performing a public service by bracing the people for the ugliness that will eventually be exposed. Your TDS-Level-6 is showing Turley.

      1. Allan doesn’t want to appear as one of those who comments frequently (when JT announces his next milestone), so Allan is hiding beyond “Anonymous” for now.

        2. Anonymous the Stupid, You show your true anxieties by constantly telling others that they are racking up post’s thinking others are as stupid and cowardly as your anonymous self. You should worry more about your content and also worry about Fido peeing on your leg.

          1. There is only “Allan the Stupid.”

            No anxieties or worries on my part. You must stop projecting, Allan.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, your profile is one of stupidity, cowardice, and an inability to write anything original.

              Your pants are all wet. Is Fido peeing on you or did you just get scared and pee on yourself?

  20. Barr is weakening his position when we most need a strong neutral attorney general. Thank you for having the courage to write your piece.

    1. “we most need a strong neutral….”

      Why ? Since when is “neutral” a requisite in government never mind politics?

      Puhleeeze. Turley is writing a blog and blogs are for gossip and sensationalism, never mind neutral

Comments are closed.