Barr Confirms Details That The Clearing Of Lafayette Park Was Unrelated To Church Photo Op

440px-William_BarrMargaret Brennan just completed an interview with Attorney General Bill Barr on CBS Face the Nation.  For days, the allegation from politicians, the press, protesters, and pundits has been that the Park was cleared for the purpose of the widely criticized photo op held by Trump in front of St. John’s Church.  For example, in an uncorrected segment still up on the Internet, NPR declaresPeaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op.”  (Tear gas was also not actually used as opposed to pepper spray — though that distinction is technical at best since pepper spray has much of the same impact on individuals even if it is based on capsicum). The photo op allegation continues to be repeated on the Internet despite various media reports debunking it.  This morning Barr confirmed the details in those reports and offered some new details.  Barr however continues to support the level of force used in the Park and the decision to go forward with the clearing of the Park

Barr confirmed that the plan to clear the park came from the Park Police, which asked for the expansion of the perimeter on Sunday night.  He reviewed the plan Monday morning and, with others, approved the plan.  The order was transmitted to Park Police at 2 pm. (I will return to that issue).  Here is the key exchange:

BARR: I’m going to- let me get to this, because this has been totally obscured by the media. They broke into the Treasury Department, and they were injuring police. That night,–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Sunday night?

BARR: Sunday night, the park police prepared a plan to clear H Street and put a- a larger perimeter around the White House so they could build a more permanent fence on Lafayette.

MARGARET BRENNAN: This is something you approved on Sunday night?

BARR: No. The park police on their own on- on Sunday night determined this was the proper approach. When I came in Monday, it was clear to me that we did have to increase the perimeter on that side of Lafayette Park and push it out one block. That decision was made by me in the morning. It was communicated to all the police agencies, including the Metropolitan Police at 2:00 p.m. that day. The effort was to move the perimeter one block, and it had to be done when we had enough people in place to achieve that. And that decision, as I say, was communicated to the police at 2:00 p.m.. The operation was run by the park police. The park police was facing what they considered to be a very rowdy and non-compliant crowd. And there were projectiles being hurled at the police. And at that point, it was not to respond–

MARGARET BRENNAN: On Monday, you’re saying there were projectiles–

BARR: On Monday, yes there were.

MARGARET BRENNAN: As I’m saying, three of my colleagues were there.

BARR: Yeah.

MARGARET BRENNAN: They did not see projectiles being thrown–

BARR: I was there.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –when that happened.

BARR: I was there. They were thrown. I saw them thrown.

Even at 2 p.m. the movement of the Park Police was not related to a decision to walk to the church and such a plan was not known to him or the Park Police since it came later in the day.  Brennan did not challenge the reporting supporting that timeline or the fact that the order was unrelated.

Brennan does challenge what she said was Barr’s assertion that the Secretary Mark Esper did not rule out the use of the Insurrection Act.  This may have been a lost in legal translation moment. It think Barr was making a narrower legal point while Brennan thought it was a more general statement. Here is what Barr said:

“The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.”

Esper was not saying that the Act could not be used but should only be used as a “last resort.”  Neither Barr not Esper supported invoking the Act, i.e., ordering deployments under the Act.  Both however agreed it could be used as a legal matter if circumstances warranted. Here is what Barr said:

MARGARET BRENNAN: So in this Monday meeting with the president, when the Defense Secretary, who has now publicly said that he opposed using the Insurrection Act, you said what to the president?

BARR: I don’t think the Secretary of Defense said he opposed it. I think he said that it was a last resort and he didn’t think it was necessary. I think we all agree that it’s a last resort, but it’s ultimately the president’s decision. The- the reporting is completely false on this.

Both Esper and Barr seem to agree that the Act is available but that current circumstances do not warrant their use. Both agree it should be used as a “last resort.”

Here is where I disagree with Barr.  If the park was to be cleared, it should have been done before the protesters appeared.  Barr earlier said that he wanted it done in the morning for that reason. It was delayed waiting for reinforcements.  In my view, it was mistake not to either clear the park in the morning or wait for the next morning.  Barr’s position is that 150 federal officers had been injured and the park had to be cleared.  He also insisted that the level of force was warranted. I again disagree. The move escalated the tension. We have seen the same decisions by District police and state police across the country. Indeed, a federal judge today issued an order to restrict state and local police in Oregon in the use of such means.

However, there continues to a common narrative being promulgated on the photo op.  There are various investigations being demanded and we will likely get more information on whether Barr is outright lying on these details. However, it would be perfectly insane to do so when you are citing Park Police plans that will be available to Congress and the public in time.

Here is the transcript: Barr interview

292 thoughts on “Barr Confirms Details That The Clearing Of Lafayette Park Was Unrelated To Church Photo Op”

  1. All those left-wing media types should correct themselves when the Government tells them the real truth…

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-lafayette-square-trump-protest-remarks

    “Attorney General Bill Barr ordered law enforcement officials to extend the perimeter of Lafayette Square before President Trump ventured outside the White House on Monday to visit sites vandalized during violent protests, administration officials tell Fox News.”

    “[A] senior Justice Department official told Fox News the decision was made early Monday morning after the Treasury Department and St. John’s Church — which are both in the area — were vandalized the night before.

    On Monday afternoon, according to an official, Barr went to survey the scene. But after arriving, the source said, he was upset to find out the perimeter had not been widened like it was supposed to be earlier in the day. Barr, who was surrounded by his security detail, toured the police line keeping the protestors at bay while demonstrators shouted at him. The night before, fires were started and buildings were vandalized in the area.

    Someone threw a bottle at Barr when he was there, the official said. *He gave the order* to move people out before the president arrived. Shortly after, police mounted on horses used smoke to move protesters demonstrating against police brutality.”

  2. Mr Turley,

    Here is a file Bill Barr was reading as he took over the reins at DOJ, important because it is actually what shut down the Mueller impeachment forays. The US President has tweeted about it.

    One of the most important freedom of speech cases of the era, US lawyers have been afraid to act to defend the victim, because of the open bribery of two Virginia federal judges by a Bush-Clinton donor

    The author of this report, an ex-DOJ employee and also EU citizen, is someone I know, he is now a key consultant to the European Commission. My friend says that, despite its importance, you are likely too fearful to engage with this material until the indictments come down.

    ‘Report on evidence of felonies violating Civil Rights, and bribery by foreign agents, implicating United States Special Counsel Robert S Mueller III as a criminally-tainted agent of foreign & racketeering interests’
    https://www.docdroid.net/eVAAjIq/doj-ig-memo-mueller-bribery-extortion.pdf

  3. Sorry, Jon, but neither you nor Barr has any credibility any more. After Trump does something that make him look bad, then you Trumpsters do damage control by trying to create Kellyanne-esq “alternative facts”. This is just one more example. It’s pathetic.

    Trying to fine-tune the issue of whether the protesters were tear-gassed is also lame. According to the CDC, any aerosolized substance designed to cause irritation to the eyes and breathing passages upon deployment is technically “tear gas”. Tear gas was used. Of course, Trump will probably try to bully the CDC into changing its definition of “tear gas”. The protesters were peaceful. I’ve seen interviews with Episcopalian clergy who were present to hand out bottled water and snacks, and who say they were tear-gassed. They were cleared away to provide a photo op after it was reported that the fat sissy was hiding out in the bunker like the coward that he is. Now that his macho-man walk has been exposed, it’s time to recreate the facts.

    And, BTW, if Barr’ revision of facts is true, why weren’t the St. John’s rector and Episcopalian Bishop consulted first, if there was going to be a perimeter established that would limit access to their church? Another reason to doubt the truth of Barr.

    You haven’t even touched on the matter of using St. John’s church and a bible as props for campaign purposes.

  4. it would not matter one dime if Trump had ordered the budding riot cleared for his walk or not.

    This is inconsequential.

    Actually what is needed are propmt arrests of the saboteurs inside government that have undermined Trump’s lawful leadership, summary trials and punishments, and then proceeding against the billionaire traitors who continue to ruin America. They too should suffer prompt summary trial and punishment.

    Unfortunately Trump can’t do that, perhaps because he was just a head fake of the system to fool the American middle class into thinking they had a voice in the first place. That’s why some of my friends told me and I thought they were wrong. Now I believe them.

    A real “tyrant” would have rolled heads by now, thousands of them, and there would be no thought of riot anywhere. Trump is no tyrant, he has insufficient support from the bureaucracy.

    Stalin showed that in the modern state, there is no substitute for support inside the bureaucracies. That’s how he aced out Trotsky in the first place.

    Our future Napoleon will almost certainly come from among the generals, just as Napoleon rose in the army. Trump is not that person.

    Whatever revolutionary creeds spouted by Napoleon, liberty equality blah blah blah, he actually was loved because he was the one who restored order.

    Regular people need and flourish under order. America is not now ruled by regular people it is ruled by billionaires and their managers and lackeys.

    The funny thing about the perpetually ineffective right wing in America, is that they always fail to grasp the class realities that are so critical to understanding trends. The reality, if you understand math, is the consolidation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, and that all forms of rioting which are aimed at false bogeyman like the police, are in fact controlled by, ultimately, billionaires. billlinaires who have their own full time security details, lots of walls, guns, alarms, and lawyers to defend them, and very very deep pockets. They could care less about law and order. They own law and they have order if they want to have it. or not!

    How do they control? well, through stuff like this, that’s how

    https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants

    and thus they manipulate universities, mass media, journalism, and street agitators like BLM

  5. Radley Balko
    @radleybalko
    Barr claims “violent rioters” had “dominated Lafayette Park” last Monday. This is a lie. There is zero evidence for this. None. There’s two hours of video from Reuters from multiple angles that shows nothing of the kind.

    Andrew Fleischman
    @ASFleischman
    · 14h
    How weird that the gathering at Lafayette Square is incredibly well-documented, with tons of video evidence and thousands of eye-witnesses, and yet only the government saw looters.

    https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1269768379642138624

    1. So St. John’s caught fire all by itself ?
      And the businesses on H & I street looted themselves in the prior 24 hours ?

    2. How wierd that the MSM thinks that what happened in the last 2hrs is all that matter ?

      Any action by Barr took far more than 2hrs to plan and implement.

      Aparently in your world Barr is lying unless he “catches them in the act” ?

    3. I will bet the video of Osama Ben Laden behaving peacefully for atleast two hours before the Seals struck.

      Why do I suspect that if there was obvious violence 35min before the park was cleared – the story would be multiple camera angles show the park was peaceful for 30min before ?

    4. “with tons of video evidence”

      Yet no one links it – have all you libs forgot how to link suddenly ? Did the cops beat it out of your brains ? Not even your link links it…

      \Endless hours of exactly nothing

      1. What does it matter – we know that less than 24hrs early people in this park had been burning and looting.

        I have no problem with Barr concluding that people congregating in the same park less than 24hrs later were likely to engage in burning and looting again.

        It is possible that is incorrect.
        It is possible that the rioters from the night before did not come back and that they were replaced by “very fine people”

        But I am not going to fault Barr for contemplating the alternative.

        It is not like the national mall – with 1.6 miles of space set aside for public protests is 1000miles away

    1. Pepper is pepper, not tear gas. You knew what he meant. I would have preferred they used a mix of tear gas and vomit gas, even better if there were a gas that made them defecate in their drawers. They are rioters; treat them like rioters.

      1. I have no problem clearing the park.
        I have significant problems with this :”everything I do not like is a lie” nonsense.’

        But I am in no rush to label everyone in these protests a rioter.

        The bad news for the left is that a bit over a week ago we saw lots of protests, by armed people angry with the lockdown.
        No looting.
        No burning.
        no shooting
        no killing
        no destroyed police cars.

        So we know what a peaceful protest looks like

        At the same time this was not the 1968 riots.

        1. If your peaceful protest turns into a riot and you remain with the mob rather than depart you are a rioter.

          No law enforcement agency can sensibly separate mere protesters from rioters. They need to separate themselves. Leave or risk injury or arrest.

          It is true that these are not the 1968 riots. These are worse because many politicians and some of the police and most of the media are siding with destruction. There were fewer anarchists in government in 1968.

          1. Rights belong to individuals.

            It is irrelevant whether it is convenient for law enforcement to separate the rioters from the protestors.

            It is their job. It is a tough one, if they do not like it – find another one.

            The existance of rioters is a good reason for legitimate protestors to leave.
            But one does not loose their right to protest because rioters are also present.

            I do not agree with what some of this protestors say.
            But I will fight for their right to say it.

          2. Politicians are personally responsible for their own conduct – we are all watching and judging.

            The media is also responsible – we are all watching and judging.

            Were you alive in 1968 ? I was. Have you heard of Weather underground, the SLA, the Black Panthers, the Red Brigades, SDS, ….

            Things were MUCH worse.

            1. I was there. I agree. By far, but that included assassinations and VN., all of which fueled the social disruption.

      1. Gotcha – so when I go out to have chilli – that is a chemical agent.

        h2o – chemical agent.

        co2 – chemical agent.

        When I was manager of the football team. We used smelling salts when a players bell got rung. Now i know that is wrong, they were “chemical irratants”

    2. Oh! Glad you cleared that up.

      Next time I have Chilli I will note that I am eating chemical irritants.
      And anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

      The left has been doing this for years – before Trump.
      But it is getting ridiculous now.

      You can take any fact pattern and spin it anyway you want – if you know the outcome you want and you do not care about the truth.

      Water is a chemical. Salt water is a chemical irritant.

        1. Smug ? I am not the one plying moral umbrage over trivialities.

          Bug spray made from chrysanthemums can trigger asthma attacks,
          its even a “chemical agent”

          There are a few actual things in the real world to get outraged about,
          if you Whig out over pepper spray you are going to spend your life foaming and frothing.

            1. >“AG Barr says pepper spray ‘is not a chemical irritant.’ But the company that makes pepper-spraying balls says otherwise.”

              >No “foaming and frothing” on my part. Maybe you’re projecting.

              Generally those talking about projecting are projecting.

              I have already addressed this.

              Salt water is a chemical irratant.

              No one likes. smart asses making picayune arguments.
              Not even media smart asses.

              Only left wing nuts think hair splitting is proof of lying.

              Regardless, when you accuse someone else of lying – you bet your integrity against theirs.

              Barr is going to get the benefit of the doubt from sane people,
              Hair splitters will not.

              We have had 4 years of this nonsense from the left and the media.

              Who lied about Trump/Russia ?

              If you said the sun will rise tomorow – I would be inclined to question that.

              When you lie big, loud and often, and you ultimately get caught.

              People with integrity will no longer beleive you.

                1. George Washington used cannons and muskets to put down whiskey tax protestors.

                  You are trying to argue that a bit of pepper spray is an existential threat to the republic ?

                  I trust Barr more than you and more than the media. So I accept what he says regarding Laffeyette Park.

                  I am separately disturbed about clearing protestors from in front of the white house. ‘

                  But even if Barr was wrong, neither of these are as consequential as the arson at St. Johns.

                  1. It would appear that tear gas may have been used, as well. But here’s the thing:

                    If Barr was dishonest about the tear gas and pepper spray, what else that he’s said, isn’t true?

                    https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1270123559571070978

                    Radley Balko:

                    ‘Thorough, meticulous reporting. What’s clear:

                    1. Police used several chemical irritants, including tear gas.
                    2. The crackdown was not in response to protester escalation.
                    3. Protesters did not throw bricks or corrosive liquids. A few threw water bottles.”

                    I’ll get back to the rest of your comment, later.

      1. Even cooler would be taking some pepper balls to the face while eating chllli. Liven things up a bit.

    1. Too bad the ACLU has forfeited all credibility. It is just another crappy mob of activists engaged in propaganda and lawfare. Why post links to their rubbish?

      1. Me too, about the time they dropped their principles and decided totalitarianisn wasn’t so bad after all.

  6. FBI Directory Christopher Wray went to the public square and went on his knees in obeisance to antifa rioters and anarchists.

    Well, not quite that. A number of FBI agents did it acting on Wray’s behalf.

    That disgraceful scene should be carved in granite and affixed to the door of the Director’s office.

    Every agent who is humiliated by this should resign. Every agent who isn’t humiliated by this should be fired.

    If the FBI were staffed only with whores, pimps and gamblers it would considerably elevate the moral tone of the agency. They at least have some pride and they actually earn their money.

        1. All you have to do is follow the facts:
          The FBI says a man is not guilty of any crime and the DOJ comes along after and manufactures a new story that contradicts the facts presented by the FBI and wrongfully prosecutes the man.

          Then 3 years later the same DOJ says hey its all the FBI’s fault because the FBI should never interview anybody unless they know they are guilty of a crime. If the FBI had not interviewed the man the DOJ could not have made up the story that the man lied during the interview.

            1. I take that you are evading because you can’t dispute the facts.

              The FBI left a record that said Flynn was not lying in that interview.
              Peter Strzok is on the record as saying he believes Flynn was not lying.
              There us no evidence that Flunn lied to the FBI

              But then the DOJ takes the case away from the FBI and disregards the record left by the FBI and changes the story to Flynn was lying. And just in case there are any doubters the day after Flynn pleads guilty Trump jumps in to tweet, in contradiction to the FBI evidence, that Flynn did lie to the FBI.
              https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/pres-trump-says-he-fired-flynn-for-lying-to-pence-and-the-fbi-1108420163773

              1. The FBI ‘lost’ the original 302 and forged a different one. FBI agents admitted lying. One could go on and on but it would be pointless with you.

                1. Oh please, go on and on. That’s what those afflicted with flagrant idiocy do. We’re here for ya, bruh.

                  1. There is plenty of speculation that the original 302 exists.
                    The FBI has come issues finding things in its computer,
                    But actually losing 302’s is very rare.

                    Regardless, if the FBI can not produce the 302 on which the lying claim is based, the case should be dropped.

                    We are in the midst of a great public debate over policing.

                    We should not be deluded into idiocy that we do not need police.
                    But across the board there is good reason to demand that law enforcement do its job better, and that we quit making excuses.

                    Produce the 302 or drop the case.

                    1. they already dropped the flynn case. stupid judge won’t dismiss. he should be impeached. sullivan, lifetime tenured tyrant in black robes

                    2. One of the most fundimental problems we have with government today whether judges, or prosecutors of police officers or bureaucrats is that recognized by Madison in Federalist 51.

                      If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

                      Insufficient oversite always results in abuse of power.

                    3. There is plenty of speculation that the original 302 exists.
                      __________________________________________________
                      Maybe the original 302 does exist even I am willing to speculate on that, but that has nothing to do with the Flynn case. The 302 was not presented as evidence to the court. A version of 302 was given to the defense under the Brady rule that required the prosecution to turn over any exculpatory evidence to the defense. None of the parties in this case have ever claimed the 302 of the interview is evidence of Flynn’s guilt.

                      Why do you keep babbling about 302’s when they had absolutely nothing to do with the prosecution of Flynn?

                      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                      Regardless, if the FBI can not produce the 302 on which the lying claim is based, the case should be dropped.
                      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                      That is like saying if somebody took a dump in wrong toilet the case should be dropped. The 302 has nothing to do with Flynn getting prosecuted. The DOJ did not rely on anything in the 302 to make its case.
                      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                      But across the board there is good reason to demand that law enforcement do its job better, and that we quit making excuses.
                      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                      Law enforcement had concluded that Flynn had committed no crime, but that did not stop the DOJ with the help of Flynn from prosecuting this case. The Flynn case was always designed to turn into another nothing burger. What they didn’t count on was a judge that would say “hey wait a minute, why has the prosecution and defense been lying to the court for years?”

                    4. The original 302 has everything to do with the Flynn case.

                      First and Foremost – that 302 is the official record of the interview.

                      Subsequent 302’s are suspect.
                      Both as a matter of logic and as a matter of process.
                      I heave heard from myriads of FBI agents that the 302 is prepared the day of or fater the interview, or at worst within the next few days – and that very rarely.

                      Not months later. 302’s do not receive frequent edits months after they are written.

                      All of these are halmarks of fraud.
                      We know from studies that the recollection of witness degrades rapidly after events.

                      Even minutes alter perception.

                      The FBI is one of few law enforcement services in the world that does not required interviews, And it is the only one in the US where false statements are a crime.

                      That is a recipe for disaster.

                      Regardless, Brady entitles Flynn to the original 302.
                      The right to confront your accuser also entitles him to the original 302.

                      If the FBI can not produce that – they never should have prosecuted.

                    5. “the 302 was not presented in court”

                      Irrelevant.

                      If you are arrested for armed robbery based on an eyewitness ID made 3 months after the robbery, and you claim you did not do it and have an alibi,
                      and the bank has video of the robery, but the prosecution fails to turn it over.

                      That is a brady violation.

                      A prosecutor may be allowed to use only his best evidence to obtain a conviction.
                      But the defense is entitled to everything – because the other evidence may prove innocence.

                    6. If the FBI can not produce that – they never should have prosecuted.
                      _________________________________________

                      I guess you are brain dead. But I will say it again…
                      The FBI did not prosecute
                      The FBI said they believed Flynn was not lying.

                    7. But the defense is entitled to everything – because the other evidence may prove innocence.
                      _____________________________________________

                      The other evidence did prove that the FBI agents involved believed that Flynn was not lying. The defense chose not to present that evidence to the court even though the defense had that evidence (given to the defense under the Brady rule) . The defense chose to support an alternate set of facts that contradicted the statements made by the FBI,

                      There is no way the evidence record created by the FBI could have been used to convict Flynn. Both FBI agents involved in the interview stated very clearly that Flynn was not lying.

                      The only possible way to get a conviction is if the FBI is removed from the case and Flynn helps the prosecution by swearing to a set of facts that contradicted the FBI evidence.

                2. The FBI ‘lost’ the original 302 and forged a different one.
                  __________________________________________________

                  Even if that story was true it had no bearing on the Flynn case.

                  You are just evading the facts. The FBI 302 was not used to convict Flynn. Neither was anything that came from a FISA warrant used against Flynn so don’t bother dragging that irrelevant story out of your barrel of stories
                  __________________________________________________
                  FBI agents admitted lying
                  ___________________________________________________
                  Maybe they did, but that is just another of your evasions as there were no FBI lies used to convict Flynn. FBI lies had nothing to do with the DOJ decision to charge Flynn.
                  In regard to Flynn the FBI (including Strzok) told the truth and said that Flynn was not lying. but the DOJ ignored the FBI evidence that cleared Flynn and prosecuted Flynn

                  https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/16/fbi-michael-flynn-fbi-no-charges-lemon-sot.cnn

  7. It would be insane for Barr to lie when the details showing him to be lying will be available eventually?

    Well, that is exactly what he did with the Mueller report. Lied about its contents, and then when the truth comes out a month later showing he has completely lied the press will have largely moved on to something else.

    Bald face lying to control the short term narrative is exactly what Barr does, and exactly why Trump keeps him around.

    1. Deer Stupid: AG Barr has more integrity in his little pinky than you will ever have in your entire lifetime. His entire career has been praised by both sides of the aisle. But once Trump hired him, Delusional Morons like yourself like to rewrite history. It wasn’t the Mueller report, it was the Andrew Weissman report. Please tell me one case in American history where somebody was assumed guilty because they weren’t Exonerated. Bob Mueller made a total full of himself!

  8. Certainly tangentially related, but the Professor has not addressed this in a while. My understanding is that the hospital system should be imploding by now because of all the crowd gatherings. I’m curious as to whether Her Highness from the fiefdom of Michigan is allowing her subjects to go to Lake Michigan yet, or whether this results in arrest.

    1. More than 110, 000 people have now died in the U.S. from COVID-19.

      Not sure which “crowd gatherings” you’re referring to, but if it’s the protests in the last week, you wouldn’t expect to see increased ICU visits yet. From the CDC: “The incubation period for COVID-19 is thought to extend to 14 days, with a median time of 4-5 days from exposure to symptoms onset. … Among patients who developed severe disease, the medium time to dyspnea ranged from 5 to 8 days, the median time to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) ranged from 8 to 12 days, and the median time to ICU admission ranged from 10 to 12 days.” If you say in more detail what you’re referring to, we can look up the state-level data.

        1. Don’t count on it. In the state that I live in, the average age of the people who have died is 86. In Rhode Island 77% of the people were residents of long term care facilities( nursing homes ). If there is no bump in covid cases in New York then maybe the lockdowns should just end.

      1. Less than 50,000 have now died from covid-19.
        That’s after calculating in the lies demanded on the certs.

        Might be 25,000.

  9. “However, it would be perfectly insane to do so when you are citing Park Police plans that will be available to Congress and the public in time.”

    Turley hasn’t been paying attention to this White House, they don’t produce records or witnesses, ignore subpoenas. Their only goal is not to get caught before November.

    1. Dowd gave Mueller absolutely everything he asked for.
      The WH did not assert privilege ONCE with the SC.
      It did not go to court to fight a single request or subpeona.

      And yet Mueller found nothing.

      Worse still he knew in Aug 2017 there was nothing to find, and yet he blundered on.

      1. Trump refused to be interviewed. He was given written questions to answer and refused to answer many of them without invoking the 5th Amendment or providing any reason that made his action legal. It was another element of his obstruction.

        The SCO chose not to go to court over it.

        Mueller found evidence of conspiracy and obstruction, but concluded that it was insufficient to charge conspiracy and that the President also cannot be charged while in office.

        The obstruction likely prevented the conspiracy charges.

        1. “Trump refused to be interviewed.”

          That is correct, there was no basis to interview him.

          The entire purpose of the Trump interview was to create a perjury trap.
          There was no question Mueller could ask he did not already have the answer to.
          There is therefore no investigative purpose.

          “He was given written questions to answer and refused to answer many of them without invoking the 5th Amendment or providing any reason that made his action legal. It was another element of his obstruction.”
          What is your source ? This is nonsense.
          I do not beleive that a single person in this entire mess every invoked the 5th – maybe Cohen.

          AS Barr noted and even Mueller grasped if he was unwilling to admit,

          You can not obstruct injustice.
          Further no one – not the president, not any employer is obligated to provide anyone – even a court with a reason for firing an at will employee.
          That said Rosenstein’s memo provided a long list of reasons.
          And Trump has publicly offered different reasons.

          Investigate means seek answers you do not know.

          “The SCO chose not to go to court over it.”
          Because they would have lost.

          If the SCO beleived that the interview was necescary and proper – they would have been OBLIGATED to go to court. This was not a choice, it was a concession that they had no basis. It is also why Dowd gave them every document, witness etc. that they asked for.
          Because if you have nothing left to learn – the investigation is over.

          Mueller has a long reputation for torturing people with extensive interviewing and setting perjury traps. Dowd and Sekelow out lawyered him and deprived Mueller the oportunity to try to manufacture a crime when none existed.

          “Mueller found evidence of conspiracy”
          Conspiracy requires a crime. There was no crime, there is no conspiracy.
          Your idea of evidence is – after exhausting all known leads speculating that you missed something.

          “and obstruction”
          Obstruction requires both a crime and a legitimate investigation.
          Horowitz ashcanned the legitimacy as of Jan 2017.

          “but concluded that it was insufficient to charge conspiracy”
          Yes, zero evidence is insufficient

          “and that the President also cannot be charged while in office.”
          Irrlevant to the investigation – and Mueller himself testified to that.

          “The obstruction likely prevented the conspiracy charges.”

          ????
          The only claim of Obstruction was rooted in firing Comey. That obstructed nothing.

          Who conspired with who to commit what crime ?

          The public is learning alot now – specifically not only that there was no crime.
          But that the FBI, DOJ and Obama WH KNEW this. that pretty much everyone involved in the top of the Obama administration and the XFH investigation KNEW this.

          That the pretty much knew it by Oct 2016, that the knew there was nothing involving Flynn by late Dec 2016, that they had lost any hope of finding anything and any basis for continuing the investigation from mid Jan 2017.

          So long before Mueller was appointed, before Comey was fired, the last vestigages of XFH were already continuing illegally and those involved KNEW it.

          So for nearly 4 years these people you claim to trust have been lying to the public, and BTW to the courts.

          The FISA court has already flushed 2 of the warrants, Rosenstein has already admitted he never should have signed the other two.

          So if there was no basis for the FISA warrants – what was the basis for Muellers warrants and subpeona’s ?

          Exactly the same standard must be met, and all the way to this day, there is no new evidence that was not used for the FISA warrants.

          IF they were invalid – then every single Mueller Warrant and Subpeona was invalid for the same reason.

          We did not know this – but Comey knew this. Mccabe knew this, Strzok knew this, Rosenstein knew this – though he has not yet admitted to knowing it before August 2017,
          Mueller also knew this as did every Mueller attorney.

          While Horowitz found all kinds of misconduct in the XFH team, he was unwilling to conclude that the garbage that was used as evidence had degraded beyond reasonable suspicion until Jan. 17 2017. But after the FBI interviewed Steele’s primary sub source who admitted the entire Steele Dossier was lies rumours and disinformation – the XFH investigation was legally over. Any continuation was improper, unethical and illegal.

          There was no evidence of a crime, and no longer even a credible allegation of one.

          EVERYTHING after that was improper.

          But after bazzillions of hours – Mueller came up with nothing more.

          1. “there was no basis to interview him.”

            That’s false, as is clear from the set of written questions that were submitted, which are in Appendix C of the Mueller Report. That’s also a source for my claim that he refused to answer many of them, nor did he claim any right that allowed him not to answer. He simply didn’t answer. You can see the answers he did submit in Appendix C. There are no answers for any of the questions from Section V except question (a).

            “The entire purpose of the Trump interview was to create a perjury trap.”

            Nope. As long as there’s a legitimate legal reason to question someone (as there was here) and the goal is to get truthful info (ditto), that’s not a perjury trap.

            “There was no question Mueller could ask he did not already have the answer to.”

            Prove it (your claim, your burden of proof). As a simple example, tell us the answers to V(c)(i) and V(c)(iv):
            — “Did you [Trump] direct or suggest that LTG Flynn have discussions with anyone from the Russian government about the Russia sanctions?” and
            — “When did you learn that sanctions were discussed in the December 29 and December 31, 2016 calls between LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak? Who told you and what were you told?”
            Also tell us how Mueller would know the answers — what testimony he’d already obtained that answered these.

            Of course, in an interview, you can also ask follow-up questions. I’d have liked Mueller to ask a follow-up to the second question above, along the lines of: “Did you inform Vice President Pence that LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak discussed sanctions? If so, when? If not, why not?”

            Re: invoking the 5th, the Mueller Report says “Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity.” Trump Jr. is likely one of them.

            “they would have lost. ”

            That’s your belief, but it’s a conjecture. There is know way to know.

            “Conspiracy requires a crime.”

            Conspiracy is itself a crime: 18 United States Code § 371.

            “The only claim of Obstruction was rooted in firing Comey.”

            That’s false. Here’s a good overview of the multiple instances of possible obstruction and the page #s in the report: https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

            You make a bunch of other unsupported claims. It’s not my job to disprove them 1 by 1. It’s your job to back them up. Based on your error rates so far, I’m not going to take your word for it.

            1. Whatever the facts on the questions, if Mueller had a valid basis to interview Trump, then he should have brought him infront of his grand jury. SCITUS has already decided that sitting presidents can be deposed or compelled to testify.

              There is only one reason not to – because you do not have the grounds for a subpeona.
              And that is a low standard.

              Please read ginsberg on what constitutes a perjury trap.

              And just look arround the entire mueller investigation – must of his plea’s are because he tripped someone up into a perjury trap.
              None of these people committed actual crimes.
              They just got a date wrong or forgot an email.
              All things Mueller knew before he questioned them.

              Mueller was appointed to investigate. If he beleived that there was something legitimate left to investigate, he is morally ethically and legally obligated to continue.

              Of course the converse is also true.
              The fact that Mueller did not proceed further is prima facia proof that he could not.

              “Prove it ”
              See above.
              First asking what he already know and then using mistakes in answering is Mueller’s MO.

              Next, You can not have a conspiracy of one. If Trump conspired with anyone over anything, Mueller has already interviewed the co-conspirator. Given that no one was every charged with anything but process crimes there is self evidently no con-conspirator.
              There is no crime.

              “Did you [Trump] direct or suggest that LTG Flynn have discussions with anyone from the Russian government about the Russia sanctions?”
              Not relevant – there is no crime involved.
              BTW you raise another issue. Relative to Flynn. In the charges filed against Flynn, Van Grack identified “sanctions” quite specifically and narrowly – he cited a specific Obama EO by name and number and claimed Flynn discussed that with Kislyak.
              That EO added a bunch of Russian oligarchs to the treasury watch list.
              We now have the Transcripts, that EO and those oligarchs were never discussed.
              Van Grack lied to Sullivan in his charging. And this gets worse. Van Grack was ordered by Sulivan to do something he is obligated to do anyway – provide Flynn with any brady material – The Transcripts are clear brady material. So Van Grack violated a court order, and violated an ethical requirement. Further he also filed a sworn response that no exculpatory material exists.

              Regardless, the Flynn issue is not the hill you want to die on.
              You really want to go after Trump for a legal act By Flynn whether directed by Trump or not, that DIJ has admitted the FBI improperly investigated ?

              “When did you learn that sanctions were discussed in the December 29 and December 31, 2016 calls between LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak? Who told you and what were you told?”
              Also tell us how M

              So you think Trump has to answer Mueller about an investigation that was illegal and one in which Mueller’s prosecutor has lied to the courts and violated numerous rules of ethics ?

              And one in which Mueller has already used as an improper perjury trap ?

              I would note that LONG AGO attorney’s like Derschowitz noted the the Flynn interview was an illegal perjury trap, and the claimed lie was immaterial and unprosecutable – and that was BEFORE all of what has come out.

              Do you think that Mueller and his team were ignorant of that ?

              I would further note that Flynn’s attorney’s and Trump’s were part of a joint defense agreement prior to Flynn’s plea. that creates a legal nightmare if Trump testifies.
              He can not testify to anything he or his attorney’s learned as a result of information shared per that agreement.

              1. “There is only one reason not to – because you do not have the grounds for a subpeona.”

                That’s false, as there can be more than one reason (e.g., another reason is that it can take a very long time for subpoena challenges to work their way through the court system, and the SCO didn’t want to have to wait that long).

                “The fact that Mueller did not proceed further is prima facia proof that he could not.”

                That’s false. It could be proof that he *did* not, but it’s not proof that he *could* not, and some of the investigation was turned back over to the DOJ, which is why there were so many “Harm to Ongoing Matter” redactions in the report.

                You earlier asserted “There was no question Mueller could ask he did not already have the answer to,” and when I responded “Prove it (your claim, your burden of proof),” you refused. This is yet another example of you not meeting your own burden of proof. I gave you a couple of examples of questions that Trump refused to answer, and you asserted “Not relevant – there is no crime involved,” ignoring the fact that a crime is not needed for a counterintelligence investigation (and Mueller’s investigation had a CI component). The questions were quite relevant to the CI investigation.

                “he cited a specific Obama EO by name and number and claimed Flynn discussed that with Kislyak. That EO added a bunch of Russian oligarchs to the treasury watch list.”

                You’re once again sloppy with the details. The Statement of Offense defines the sanctions as Executive Order 13757, and EO 13757 modifies Executive Order 13694, so you have to look at both to understand how the SoO defines “sanctions.” Here are those two EOs:
                13757: obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/executive-order-taking-additional-steps-address-national-emergency
                13694: obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m
                Those EOs did a lot more than “add[ing] a bunch of Russian oligarchs to the treasury watch list.”

                “Van Grack lied to Sullivan in his charging”

                Again: your claim, your burden of proof. Simply asserting it isn’t evidence that your claim is true.

                “So you think Trump has to answer Mueller about an investigation that was illegal and one in which Mueller’s prosecutor has lied to the courts and violated numerous rules of ethics ? And one in which Mueller has already used as an improper perjury trap ?”

                These exemplify the loaded question fallacy, as they contain contested assumptions, and you’ve provided no evidence that your assumptions are true.

                “the Flynn issue is not the hill you want to die on.”

                I’ll die on the hill of you failing to substantiate your claims with actual evidence and failing to avoid fallacious reasoning.

                1. “There is only one reason not to – because you do not have the grounds for a subpeona.”

                  That’s false, as there can be more than one reason (e.g., another reason is that it can take a very long time for subpoena challenges to work their way through the court system, and the SCO didn’t want to have to wait that long).

                  Fine, you have two choices – Mueller had no basis, or he was unethical.

                  All the reasons you list are prosecutorial misconduct.
                  If Mueller had a reasonable suspicion of an identifiable crime that was inside his domain – then failure to persue it was an ethical violation.

                  The charge to the C was not – investigate things – if it is convenient.

                  Further if Mueller beeleived he had reasonable suspicion and failed to persue it he was obligated to explain that in the Mueller report – he did not do so.
                  There is lots of weaselly nonsense in the Mueller report.
                  But it does not address this, and worse none of it is actual a real explanation.
                  Instead of explaining why he did not do what he could. Mueller explained why he really was free to do what he was actually barred from.
                  But that is another matter.

                2. >“The fact that Mueller did not proceed further is prima facia proof that he could not.”

                  “That’s false. It could be proof that he *did* not, but it’s not proof that he *could* not, and some of the investigation was turned back over to the DOJ, which is why there were so many “Harm to Ongoing Matter” redactions in the report.”

                  What Mueller turned back to DOJ was those things outside his scope.

                  He was obligated by his charge to persue reasonable suspicion of any crimes inside his charge and refer those outside to DOJ.
                  Anything related to Trump/Russia was inside his charge.

                  Every prior SC/IC has persured every single lead. While they have not engaged in the same bullying conduct that Mueller did. They left no stone unturned.
                  Where they thought there was a stone outside their scope – they asked that scope expanded – in all instances where the president was a subject – they received that permission.

                  This “Mueller let Trump off easy” claim is Bullshit.

                  Not only is persuit an ethical requirement, it is a public policy requirement, and finally it is highly incentivized.

                  An SC appointment is the pinnacle of a high profile career. For Mueller this was his swan song. We were all told going in Mueller was honest but tough and non partisan.

                  Learning me later we find Mueller is a pitt bull, he is not partisan – though his staff was, but he never was honest.

                  Regardless, Mueller was expected to turn over every rock – and he did,
                  He went far outside the law. There is much to complain about Mueller.
                  But the claim that he whimped out is ludicrously stupid.

                  If Mueller did not go somewhere – it was not because there was a yeild sign, or a stop sign or a traffic light. It was because there was a 5 story tall concrete barrier in his way.

                  “You earlier asserted “There was no question Mueller could ask he did not already have the answer to,” and when I responded “Prove it (your claim, your burden of proof),” you refused.”

                  Please refer to the actual posts. I told you to review Ginsburg’s SCOTUS Oppinion on Entrapment and 18 USC 1001. No I do not have a cite – but it has been addressed many times – including on this blog, as has the entire issue with regard to Flynn.

                  Further it is a simple matter of logic. and law.

                  Investigations are for the purpose of gathering information.
                  There is no purpose to investigating what you already know.
                  The law does not exist to create criminals.
                  It is a violation of a persons rights to lure them into lying when no other purpose is served by your question.

                  I answered this before. Though in less detail. I fully met my burned of proof.
                  Then and now.

                  >I gave you a couple of examples of questions that Trump refused to answer, and you asserted “Not relevant – there is no crime involved,” ignoring the fact that a crime is not needed for a counterintelligence investigation (and Mueller’s investigation had a CI component). The questions were quite relevant to the CI investigation.

                  And that poses a separate question – Rosensteins descision to merge a counter intelligence and criminal investigation was improper.

                  SC’s investigate crimes. That is all they are entitled to do. Within the FBI and government Intelligence and crime are completely separate. The entire purpose of the FISA court is to manage the narrow bridge between them

                  But addressing your argument a different way – there is no subpena power to a counterintelligence investigation. There is no power to compel.

                  If as you say Mueller had a counter intelligence reason to query Trump, then Trump was free to decline to answer.

                  Finally, I noted that Counterintelligence is not in the domain of the SC,
                  But more than that – it is the domain of the president. It is Trump’s business, not Muellers. Any basis for the questions that you want asked that is not a criminal investigation, is than a question of policy – and those are Trumps not Muellers.

                  To the extent there is the slightest issue – that would be that Congress – not Meuller has oversight on matters of policy. Congress could ask the questions you pose – but not of Trump, and probably not of Flynn.

                3. “You’re once again sloppy with the details.”
                  Not at all.

                  If you are going to provide links, it would be polite to provide ones that worked.
                  You do this all the time. You provide links that must be carefuly cut and pasted and edited.

                  Regardless, did you read the EO’s you linked ? Clearly you did not.

                  I think my characterization of them was accurate, but if you wish to quible over details I do not care.

                  We have the EO’s We have the Charging Statement. We have Flynn’s transcripts of the calls.

                  Flynn generically discussed unspecified FUTURE Obama actions – there is no possible means that can apply to EO’s at the time of the conversation.
                  That is the bulk of what Flynn discussed. Begging the Russians to do more than respond in kind, not to escalate, and not to create a conflict that Trump would inherit.

                  Only left wing idiots think that is a Crime. Susan Rise should have been on the phone to Kislyak saying exactly the same thing.

                  Frankly Obama should not have been acting as a lame duck, He was creating policy for the future, one that was not his – No other president has done that.
                  But I will cede that Obama was not required to stand down or consult Trump.
                  That would merely have been proper.

                  Regardless, because they were about responses to what Obama MIGHT do in the future, Those parts of the Flynn transcript are irrelevant, they can not be about those two EO’s.

                  What is NOT in those EO’s is the actions regarding diplomats.
                  And that is the ONLY other thing Flynn discussed.

                  I would further note that Sanctions in the context of the law, and prosecutions has a legal meaning, and nothing Flynn talked to Kislyak was “sanctions”

                  Regardless – as YOU point out the Charge statement references two specific EO’s.
                  That is what Flynn is alleged to have lied about.

                  Read the EO’s, read the transcripts, without bending time, or twisting the law into a pretzel show me was Flynn even talked about something speccifically related to those EO’s.

                  If he did not talk about it, he can not have lied about it.

                  Conversely UNLESS it is CLEAR that he talked about it

                  Then Van Grack Lied to the court, in a document where he swears his statements are true.

                  This is not an FBI interview. A charge statement is a carefully constructed legal document, Van Grack was not being peppered with questions. he constructed it himself in his own time. It is the situation with the highest burden for getting it right, while Flynn’s remarks were in the situation with the lowest.

                  “Those EOs did a lot more than “add[ing] a bunch of Russian oligarchs to the treasury watch list.”

                  There pretty short, and simple and specific.
                  Regardless, what they did do, is not critical.
                  What matters is they did not overlapp anything Flynn discussed with Kislyak.
                  They did not. The burden of proof is on you and Van Grack.

                  He lied. You could atleast correct yourself.

                4. You fixate on “burden of proof” but your understanding – particularly outside of a court is pretty narrow.

                  In early 2017 if I was claiming that the Carter Page warrant relied solely on the Steele Dossier, the burden of proof would be on me – and I could not meet it because almost no one had access to the warrant application.
                  But that is not true today.

                  Today it is reasonable for me to ASSUME you are familiar with FACTS that have been made public, that either are common knowledge or atleast broadly publicly knowable.

                  The burden is NO LONGER on me to prove well known facts.
                  It is on you to prove that disbeleiving them is credible.

                  This is also a matter of common standards.

                  I have spent 4 years arguing against all this misconduct. During that time I have faced many like you saying “PROVE IT” and often because so much that should not have been classified was, I was unable to do so. Or have to count on logical arguments or reasonable inferences from facts.

                  Today – the burden of proof problem is YOURS not mine.

                  I have labored for years meeting yours. Now it is time for you to meet YOURS.

                  1. You falsely proclaim that “Today – the burden of proof problem is YOURS not mine. I have labored for years meeting yours,” but everyone, including you, has an ongoing burden of proof for their claims, and AFAIK, we’d never encountered each other prior to the last couple of days.

                    Since you’ve made it so clear that you have no intention of meeting your own burden of proof in this exchange, and you continue to refuse to do even simple things like substantiating your claim “Mueller misquoted Dowd” / “[the Dowd quote in the Mueller Report and the transcript of the VM] contradict each other,” I won’t waste any more time on this or reengage in the future. Bye.

                    1. “You falsely proclaim”

                      What is false about the assertion that those who have been repeatedly wrong should be less trusted than those who have not ?

                    2. What has the fact that you an I have not previously encountered each other got to do with the the lack of credibility of you and those who sold and continue to sell falsehoods ?’

                    3. What I have made clear is a tautology. Neither of us have any obligation to comply with the demands for proof of an other.

                      The choice is voluntary.

                      I have independently stated what is very nearly a tautology – that trust, the willingness to accept the assertions of another with little proof, is a consequence of a past record for truth.

                      Every time you post your personal standard for credibility, you complete ignore that.

                      Your standard presumes that the past does not exist, or atleast has no weight, and that whether you have spent years selling snake oil, or have spent that time refuting purveyors of snake oil should have no bearing on how your assertions today are weighed.

                    4. You and I may not have encountered each other before, But we do not come to this debate with a blank slate.

                      You are pushing claims that whatever weight they might have been entitled to 3 years ago should be met with deep skepticism today.

                      I am making assertions that were credulous years ago that have subsequently proven true.

                      I keep offering Alex Jones – someone who for good reasons all of us should deeply distrust. Yet even he has proven correct about things you have not.

                    5. Do you believe there should be no cost for false assertions ?

                      That your credibility today is unaffected by your past accuracy ?

                      Do you believe there should be no cost for false claims of immorality ?

                      That your integrity today is unaffected by your past false moral allegations ?

                    6. When You say I do not live up to my own standards – what is your basis for that ?

                      I have not claimed some absolute standard – that is your claim.

                      My standard is that we are individually free to decide for ourselves the extent to which we support our assertions.

                      And that I will evaluate your factual and moral assertions based on your credibility and integrity.

                      While we have not previously encountered each other. It is reasonable for me to conclude that if you are still selling Trump/Russia collusion:
                      a) You have been for a long time
                      b) You are blind to the actual facts that have emerged slowly over the past several years.

                      Those are excellent reasons to weigh your credibility as poor and your integrity as low.

                      You are free to draw your own conclusions about me – using a Ouija board if you wish.

                      You are not free to demand anything of me. Just as I am not free to demand anything of you, regardless of how poor your credibility or integrity.

                    7. Why do I owe you more on Dowd or Mueller ?
                      You have already established that Mueller’s edited version and the actual transcript of Dowd’s call are available to you. You are free and able to determine whether the edits are faithful or deceptive on your own. I and myriads of others have made our judgments already. Nor is this a rare instance in which Mueller has been found untrustworthy.

                      The elephant in the room which you refuse to acknowledge is that he spent 22 months and massive resources trying to disprove what the FBI had reluctantly concluded on its own and he failed and offered 400 plus pages of whining that just because the FBI had failed before him, and with no new evidence he had reinvestigated the same failed claims, and accomplished nothing beyond proving even more strongly that there was no substance to the allegations, still maybe a 3rd attempt might prove successful ?

                      That is not the work of a moral or trustworthy person.

                      Yes, I am entitled to make allegations regarding Mueller without meeting your picayune demands and expect that those who value credibility and integrity will accept them
                      and I continue to be entitled to do so as long as my credibility and integrity are intact.

                      Though we calculate credibility and integrity individually, and we are each free to do so under whatever standard we wish.
                      The overwhelming norm is we do so based on the accuracy of past factual and moral claims.

                  2. John,
                    I’ve had similar exchanges with him, using the same arguments. With all the information that is now available in the public domain, I can only surmise that the burden of proof he is demanding from us is to prove he is not hopelessly delusional. To repeat your last line: Now it is time for you to meet YOURS.

                    1. Olly,

                      I started the discussion with him on a different issue,

                      But he raised his “Burden of Proof” argument.

                      While it has some merit in a vacuum – with some adjustments,
                      It is even an argument that I have made permutations of myself.

                      At the same time it is a fallacy. The truth of an assertion has nothing to do with whether you have properly cited a source. True is True, False is False.
                      Something True remains True even if never explicitly proven.

                      His burden of proof remarks are not an argument, they are an offer of a method to verify truth. That method is legitimate, but it is not exclusive.

                      I have countered with credibility and integrity. Those are also legitimate methods.

                      Regardless, I used him to polish an argument that I have used before, because he gave me a new perspective on that argument.

                      Even Trolls are useful sometimes.

                      As J. S. Mill said
                      “he who knows only his own side of an argument knows little of that”

                      Even debate with trolls can improve the quality of your own arguments.

                      Further especially in this moment the credibility and integrity arguments are very important.

                5. >“Van Grack lied to Sullivan in his charging”

                  >Again: your claim, your burden of proof. Simply asserting it isn’t evidence that your claim is true.

                  A bit more complex than that.

                  Burden of proof is much more complicated and nuanced than you claim.

                  Van Grack is making a moral, ethical and criminal claim, and he is doing so in a completely uncoerced, and personally directed way as possible.
                  He is not obligated to act, he is not being questioned. He has time.

                  The burden of proof on Van Grack is possibly the highest that there is.

                  Criminal claims have the absolute highest standard of proof – both in law, and genally.

                  When you accuse someone else of a Crime, either you are correct, or you are a liar.
                  Especially in this case there is no middle ground. you are free to say nothing,
                  But you choose to make a moral, ethical and criminal claim about the character and actions of another.

                  If you are wrong YOU are immoral, and unethical. The charge is required to be sworn – and that means you are also a criminal.

                  False criminal allegations against others are a crime – even if not sworn.

                  So the burden on Van Grack is the highest possible.

                  I am posting on the internet – I have nearly the lowest actual burden of proof.

                  It is a bit higher because I am making a moral allegations – “Van Grack lied”

                  But it is also lower, because the burden for claiming a “false allegation” is the lowest of all claims for lying – spefically because Van Gracks burden is the highest.

                  assertions regarding facts have the absolute lowest burden of proof – alleging a fact is not making a moral or ethical claim.

                  >“So you think Trump has to answer Mueller about an investigation that was illegal and one in which Mueller’s prosecutor has lied to the courts and violated numerous rules of ethics ? And one in which Mueller has already used as an improper perjury trap ?”

                  “These exemplify the loaded question fallacy, as they contain contested assumptions, and you’ve provided no evidence that your assumptions are true.”

                  True – but the “contested assumptions” are far more solidly established than the actual basis for XFH and Mueller. We know what Mueller knew – or atleast what he should have known. Those things are now fairly well established facts.

                  We know as an example that not only was the Steele Dossier garbage, we not it was from Russia primarily, and that it was likely disinformation. And we know that FBI (and State) knew that – atleast as early as Oct 2016, We know that the FBI knew that Steele was being used by the Russians atleast as early as 2015, we know that the FBI knew that the primary subsource disavowed the veracity of all the contents of the dossier in mid January 2017.
                  There is a massive amount more like this that we now KNOW.
                  And most of it not only do we know, but we know that the FBI knew.

                  The only speculation is:
                  when did rosenstein know
                  When did mueller know.

                  And related, when SHOULD they have known.

                  The first two questions have no answer at the moment.
                  The 2nd two do. Rosenstein and Mueller were ethically and legally obligated to know before they acted.

                  Sorry, but the actual number of “contested assumptions” at this point is quite small.
                  And there is no question that Mueller and his people were OBLiGATED to know.

                  Finally – you say I have offered no proof ? These issues have been publicly debated for years. Nearly every allegation I make has existed for 3 years.
                  3 years ago you could demand I provide proof.

                  Today you are claiming that I must prove the Steele Dossier is garbage ? Really ?
                  Sorry, 3 years ago, much of what I have claimed was in conflict with “common knowledge”. But that is not true today.

                  Very little of my claims are even being contested anymore.
                  All that is being contested is the implications.

                  I hear no one arguing the Steele Dossier was evidence anymore.
                  No one is arguing that some other evidence existed
                  The FISA court has already asserted that two of the FISA warrants were improvidently granted. They have not retroactively invalidated the other two because though they are as bad as the last two, it is arguable the FBI did not know how bad they were at the time.

                  While I have not provided links or “proof” for much of this – are you contesting it.

                  Are you going to force me to produce primary sources for all of what almost no one is fighting about anymore ?

                6. >”the Flynn issue is not the hill you want to die on.”

                  “I’ll die on the hill of you failing to substantiate your claims with actual evidence and failing to avoid fallacious reasoning.”

                  If I have offered a fallacy – point that out.
                  Those are pretty easy to identify.

                  If I have made an invalid logical assertion – demonstrate that.

                  If I have made a claim regarding facts that is not readily publicly available from primary sources and reported – point that out.

                  You tried to assert that I was wrong about the Sanctions EO’s,
                  You further got the burden of proof wrong.

                  You linked the Obama EO’s – thank you.
                  They do not contain anything Flynn discussed with Kislyak.

                  So you made my case.

                  Flynn is not the hill you want to die on

                  The treatment of Flynn, by you, the left, the media, Mueller, Van grack the obama admin is dispicable.

                  All of the above have criminalized political differences.

            2. Tell me what answer Trump can provide to Mueller regarding the Flynn questions that has any bearing on anything ?

              Say Trump directed Flynn ? Flynn is the incoming NSA and Trump is the president elect.
              Both are actually government employees at that time. there is not even a violation of the ludicrously unconstitutional logan act.

              As the transcripts confirm “Sanctions” as defined by the law and Mueller were not discussed. the expulsion of diplomats was, as was whatever future generic response Obama might make.

            3. Sorry I forgot another reason that Mueller can not ask about Flynn.

              Executive privildge discussions between a president and his advisors – especially about national security matters are the most absolute form of executive priviledge.

            4. The fact that you can speculate on questions does not make them legitimate.

              AS even the Obama administration found by January 2017 – there was no crime in Flynn’s communications with Kisylak.

              Mueller can not investigate a non-crime.

            5. “Re: invoking the 5th, the Mueller Report says “Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity.”
              Mueller interviewed 500 witnesses.

              “Trump Jr. is likely one of them.”

              Because you say so ?

              BTW you can be an unlikely candidate for immunity – because there is no actual crime involved.

              You do understand that there is no legally permissible conclusion that there is a crime from invoking the 5th.

              If Mueller interviewed me I would involve the 5th instantly.

              He is not to be trusted – it is self evident that he uses interviews to trap people into innocent false statements and then prosecutes them
              That is sufficient for me to invoke the 5th.

              And who knows – maybe it was Comey, or McCabe or Strzok or Page or Hillary.

            6. “18 U.S. Code § 371.Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States”

              Conspiracy requires an underlying crime – your own cite.

            7. lawfare is not a cite. That is just a disaster.

              They have been wrong on the law by the numbers on everything.

            8. “It’s your job to back them up.”
              I have many jobs that is not one of them

              Based on YOUR error rates so far, I’m not going to take YOUR word for it.

              Please identify a single point thus far that you have been correct on ?

      2. Dowd gave Mueller absolutely everything he asked for

        ___________________________________________________
        Well of course the White House gave Mueller everything he asked for and more.

        Mueller was the senile old man that Trump had his buddy Rosenstein hire to shut down the FBI investigation and create a phony Russia investigation with phony controversies to take the place of the FBI investigation.

        One example of a phony controversy was the Flynn Flam BS that Flynn lied to the FBI after the FBI had said that they had found no crime for which Flynn could be charged.

        You will notice now the White House won’t let Congress see what the gave to Mueller or talk to the witnesses.

        1. “Mueller was the senile old man that Trump had his buddy Rosenstein hire to shut down the FBI investigation and create a phony Russia investigation with phony controversies to take the place of the FBI investigation.”

          Wow, that is the best one I have heard in a long time.

          “You will notice now the White House won’t let Congress see what the gave to Mueller or talk to the witnesses.”

          Nor has SCOTUS

          1. Wow, that is the best one I have heard in a long time.
            ___________________________________________________

            I take it you are not used to hearing statements of facts.

            feel free to provide evidence that challenges the facts.
            And forget the silly nonsense about the FBI is only supposed to investigate when they know in advance that someone is guilty.

            Mueller did not need warrants and subpoenas the white house volunteered everything.

            1. “I take it you are not used to hearing statements of facts.”

              I have honestly never heard this Trump/Rosenstien/Mueller conspiracy theory before.

              Please tell me more, I would love a detailed explanation of how this is supposed to have worked ?

              So Trump’s ranting at Mueller – that was all for show ?

              There is just so much to parse.

              I would love to see how you resolve all the contradictions that come from this theory.

              “And forget the silly nonsense about the FBI is only supposed to investigate when they know in advance that someone is guilty.”
              I do not recall saying that.
              No government body can start a criminal investigation without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been commited, and no investigation can continue if that is lost.

              That is not unique to the FBI. This is not a policy state, you can not be investigated just because the government wants to.

              The attempt to impeach Trump rests on the premise that he had insufficient predication to request an investigation of Biden.

              “Mueller did not need warrants and subpoenas the white house volunteered everything.”

              That is true

              Still 22 Months, 19 Lawyers, 40 FBI, 2,800 Subpoenas, 500 Search Warrants, 500 Witnesses

              The white house was not the only place Mueller sought information.

              1. I have honestly never heard this Trump/Rosenstien/Mueller conspiracy theory before.
                ________________________________________________
                Trump, Rosenstein and Mueller did have a secret meeting in the oval office after Mueller was selected as special Counsel and the day before it was announced. When Mueller testified to Congress he said he couldn’t remember what was discussed.
                ________________________________________________

                I would love to see how you resolve all the contradictions that come from this theory.
                __________________________________________________

                What contradictions?
                Do you mean how come trump called it a witch hunt and a coup attempt? Because gullible fools of both the right and the left would instantly believe it, not because there was any evidence but because they badly want to believe it.
                ____________________________________________________
                The attempt to impeach Trump rests on the premise that he had insufficient predication to request an investigation of Biden.
                ___________________________________________________

                That is another completely phony controversy without a shred of evidence to back it up. Purely BS stories. Just like the Mueller investigation it was designed from the start to end up as a big nothing burger.
                An investigation by Ukraine is close to worthless. You might as well ask the mafia to investigate Biden

                Here is what a Ukraine investigation looks like:
                https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/04/ukranian-prosecutors-finds-no-evidence-against-hunter-biden

                The purpose was to get the US news media to drag the Bidens through the mud which they of course did.
                __________________________________________________

                Still 22 Months, 19 Lawyers, 40 FBI, 2,800 Subpoenas, 500 Search Warrants, 500 Witnesses
                __________________________________________________

                An enormous amount of hot air. Trump squandered $25 million putting on a phony show that was always designed to turn into a steaming pile of nothing burgers. The Mueller report reads like a goofy soap opera.

                1. Trump interviewed Mueller as a potential replacement for Comey at FBI,
                  Rosenstein then at DOJ interviewed Mueller as SC.

                  I am sure Trump met Rosenstein at various times – Rosenstein was Deputy AG.
                  All whitehouse meetings are secret until the WH decides otherwise.
                  When Mueller testified it was a miracle he could remember his name.

                  So Trump concocted a giant Food Fight with Mueller and Rosenstein, all to inflame left wing nuts ? and make it nearly impossible to do his job ?

                  “That is another completely phony controversy ”

                  Really ? Please explain this too me ?

                  Are you saying that Democrats conspired to faux impeach Trump ?

                  What I read in your link is that another Ukrainian prosecuter was axed for convering up the corruption that everyone in Ukraine knows it there.

                  1. All whitehouse meetings are secret until the WH decides otherwise.
                    _______________________________________________
                    No very few people get into the white house without it known to the press. You have to sneak in through underground passages and doctor the WH daily calender of events.
                    ___________________________________________________
                    What I read in your link is that another Ukrainian prosecuter was axed for convering up the corruption that everyone in Ukraine knows it there.
                    _______________________________________________

                    It was the same prosecutor that Zelensky in the phone call with Trump called “honest” and would loopk into the matters Trump raised.

                    The point is you have to be an idiot to believe that the intent was to get Ukraine to investigate anything. And yes there are millions of idiots. Some on the right think that asking for an investigation is proper and legal and millions on the left think it is immoral an illrgal but they are all idiots for believing the request was real.

                    For one thing Hunter Biden has never been in Ukraine and thus Ukraine has no jurisdiction. If anyone is really interested in investigating Burisma and Biden they should look to European authorities. Europe is where Burisma has its HQ and holds its board meetings and does all its money laundering and other shady deals.

                    1. “It was the same prosecutor”

                      Honestly it does not matter which one.
                      It is pretty clear that no matter what the actual truth is Ukraine can not be trusted to find it.

                      “The point is you have to be an idiot to believe that the intent was to get Ukraine to investigate anything.”
                      I am not going to judge intent. But I will agree with you that Ukraine is so corrupt, it is impossible to beleive any result from there.

                      “For one thing Hunter Biden has never been in Ukraine and thus Ukraine has no jurisdiction.”
                      Right, and the US is not extradicting Assange.

                      “If anyone is really interested in investigating Burisma and Biden they should look to European authorities.”
                      They may be less corrupt, but there are highly political. They are not doing anything.

                    2. “For one thing Hunter Biden has never been in Ukraine and thus Ukraine has no jurisdiction.”
                      Right, and the US is not extradicting Assange.
                      _________________________________________________
                      It would be the same level of stupidity to ask Ukraine to extradite Assange as it would be to believe that Mueller was trying to get his job as director back or that anybody was trying to coerce Ukraine to do an investigation. Only the profoundly stupid believe any of these stories.

                  2. Trump interviewed Mueller as a potential replacement for Comey at FBI
                    _________________________________________________

                    This statement is every bit as moronic as claiming Trump had good cause to ask Ukraine for an investigation.

                    Mueller is the one person in the whole country that federal statutes identify as being prohibited from being FBI director after sept 2013.

                    Its understandable that you are ignorant of the statutes and it is understandable that you are ignorant that no candidates for that position had secret meeting with Trump, but those are the facts

    2. You ARE Hans Frank, aren’t you JT?

      Well, I suppose Bill Barr is kinda too….

      and your star pupil, Kellyanne.

      Why do I feel like I’m gonna puke?

    3. enigma…..your community is killing itself, soiling its own nest, which even animals won’t do, destroying black, white, brown businesses, and defacing property ……..and THIS is what you choose to talk about: Turley and the White House?? No wonder your people are unable to achieve much.

      1. My people also have a knee on their throat. I have the ability to talk about any number of subjects without everything being about my people. You on the other hand seem to have a fixation.

  10. Until the day comes that the trolls here are called upon to testify before Congress based on their history of expertise like Professor Turley is, I’m going to continue to scroll through their posts. I don’t agree with JT at all times, but his integrity is bullet proof. Commit, Fishy, Seth, Olaf, David Painsome, Molly (all quite possibly the same person) et. al. and ad nauseam – a whole lot of people read this blog, a whole lot, and we are ignoring you. Why do you waste your time, unless you are being paid for it? If it really is that caustic a case of narcissism, I don’t what to tell you. Go pound sand, because if you can’t make a single cogent point, if all that you have to offer is 7th grade inflammatory nonsense, we simply don’t and won’t care. Not everyone that reads chimes in, but they sure do pay attention.

    1. Candace Owens testifies to Congress too. Is she officially “troll free” according to you, the arbiter of serious opinion”, James?

      JT has defined himself as one to not be taken too seriously. He has defined himself as an extremely right wing fella.

      He hasn’t made our discourse any better by twisting facts, hair splitting nomenclature arguments, and being a tool of the GOP for years.

      The most outrage to injustice he can conjure up is “concern” and “worry”. Lord forbid he would ever make a stand that he oils to fall in line with folks that’ve been using their energy to make things better for the few and worse for most of us.

      1. Just as it’s almost certain the professor has more expertise in Constitutional law, it is without question Candace has more experience being a young black woman in America than you or any of the others I mentioned. So much for solidarity.

      1. “His administration used force on peaceful protesters so that this morally deficient, scripturally ignorant payer-off-of-porn-stars could awkwardly pose with a borrowed Bible as a stalwart defender of public order and Christian values in front of a church.”

        George Conway piece in WaPo.

          1. Well that would be wasted jealousy, given Trump’s age and health. I wished they’d try and maybe solve a bigger problem.

        1. I don’t understand how George and Kellyanne Conway are still married.

          I’m sure that my politics differ significantly from George Conway’s but I agree with him when it comes to Trump, and I appreciate the efforts of Republicans like him to prevent Trump’s reelection via ads by the Lincoln Project and Republicans for the Rule of Law.

          1. I agree. George is a lowlife who is constantly embarrassing his wife. She is a paid advisor to Trump. He can learn to keep quiet. In terms of keeping campaign promises, Trump is the most honest president in the past 30+ years. Obama the most dishonest. Trump’s personal life? Nothing to write home about, but as the Democrats move further left, they really don’t offer a reasonable alternative. So I guess I am stuck with Trump.

            1. “In terms of keeping campaign promises, Trump is the most honest president in the past 30+ years.”

              Go ahead and prove it. Tell us the % of campaign promises kept by each, and tell us the source of your data.

              And campaign promises are far from all that matters when it comes to honesty. Trump dishonesty is astounding. As a simple example, here are just some his pandemic-related false claims: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/politics/fact-check-trump-march-may-part-1/index.html

              Hopefully none of us will be “stuck with Trump” come next January.

              1. “Go ahead and prove it. Tell us the % of campaign promises kept by each, and tell us the source of your data.”

                Is that your criteria ?

                Source: Mark I eyeball.
                Trump has kept more promises than any president in my lifetime.
                Including many I wish he had not.
                If those he has failed to keep he actually tired.

                Did Obama get us out of Gitmo, Afghanistan, Iraq ?
                What was the last president that did not start a foreign war ?
                Carter ?
                I am not a wall fan, but inch by inch it is moving along. And but for Dem’s it would be done.
                I am not a fan of Trump’s confrontational trade approach – but he did exactly what he promised.

                “And campaign promises are far from all that matters when it comes to honesty.”
                What ? Is that famous quite honest in big things dishonest in little ones ?

                “Trump dishonesty is astounding.”
                Aparently you do not know the difference between dishonest and imprecision.

                “As a simple example, here are just some his pandemic-related false claims: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/politics/fact-check-trump-march-may-part-1/index.html

                Can you name anyone – Biden included, experts included, that has been more accurate about Covid ?

                Everyone has been horribly wrong.

                Regardless that is not dishonesty – atleast not on the part of Trump,
                That is error.

                As an example a lie is

                If you like your doctor you can keep them.
                If you like your insurance you can keep it
                Benghazi was about a internet video.
                I can be more flexible after the election – oops, that one was true.

                I thought it was Trump that was the Putin shill ?

    1. How much space in DC do protestors need ?

      And separately why are people protesting the death of a black man at the hands of Minnesota police doing so at the whitehouse ?

      DOJ is already engaded in a civil rights investigation there is nothing more the executive can do on its own.

      If you want to change the law – we have a congress for that.

      If the police trigger you – their not federal cops.

      In the entire George Floyd matter.

      In fact in the death of ever unarmed black man by the police – there is not a republican in site. These are all local police in blue states with blue govenors and blue mayors and blue city counsels, and in many cases black mayors and city counsels.

      And they have been that way for almost my entire life.

      If you step on a nail in your driveway – it is not Trump’s fault.

      If your city counsel is corrupt policy toadies – that is not Trump’s fault.

      If you are having problems with rats in your backyard – go after the rats in your backyard,
      Not an elephant in india.

  11. Let’s see what lie can I tell today. I’ve got it. “The police were actually handing out cup cakes to the protestors when the whipped cream containers malfunctioned. Yea, that it. That’s what happened. Cupcakes and whipped cream. The crowed loved it. They were so happy they ran away to tell all their friends. Yep, those are the details! “

    Barr is a disgrace.

  12. Your claim that “Barr’s statements and the so-called “media” narrative are not in conflict at this point” is false.

    Among other things, the media have contested Barr’s claim that the protesters were not peaceful prior to LE action, as well as Barr’s claim that “there was no tear gas used [on Monday]. … No, there were not chemical irritants. Pepper spray [which he later changes to ‘pepper balls’] is not a chemical irritant.”

      1. I didn’t say or imply that, nor do I believe that. But there’s plenty of video evidence in this case.

        Moreover, Steve’s claim (which is what I was responding to, though my comment got unthreaded from his) was that “Barr’s statements and the so-called “media” narrative are not in conflict at this point,” and regardless of whether the media are telling the truth or lying vs. Barr telling the truth or lying, Steve’s claim is false. The two narratives *do* conflict.

    1. Your claim that “Barr’s statements and the so-called “media” narrative are not in conflict at this point” is false.

      Barr is saying something like this: “Since there was already an idea tossed around about extending the perimeter, and I have just been informed that Trump wants to walk to the Church, I think you should implement that idea — which was kicked around well before now and therefore has no correlation to Trump walking to the Church.”

      You can take that for what it’s worth. Although I doubt you could purchase a gumball with it.

    2. We are to trust the media now ? That would be the same people who told us that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign ?

      Regardless it does not matter.

      Are you saying that the AG can not have the park police clear a park adjecent to a building where arson tool place less than 24 hours before and between streets where looting took place within the past 24 hours ?

      What is the issue for you ?

      Are these people unable to walk to the Mall ?
      It is not far.

  13. Absurd said it: why is Barr managing the Park Police?

    Also: why, at this point, should Barr be trusted on *anything*?

    1. Also: why, at this point, should Barr be trusted on *anything*?

      Translation: he’s inconvenient to the Democratic Party, so must not be trusted.

      1. Nah. It’s because he’s a liar that shouldn’t be trusted. But thanks for the flawed translation and attempt to put words in my mouth. A faliled attempt, as always.

    2. Maybe Barr was looking into Vince Foster ?

      What does it matter ?

      You are not owed an explanation for everything.

      1. Why? Is he the king?

        To find Vince Foster, you just have to drink some bleach as dear leader suggested. Your eyes will open up.

  14. Retrocession cannot occur without the agreement of both Congress and the MD legislature.

    I live in MD near DC, and neither the residents of DC nor the residents of MD favor retrocession, so there’s no chance of it happening, because the MD legislature isn’t going to agree to it.

    And both Esper and Barr retain free speech rights, even for decisions that are not theirs to make.

      1. MD doesn’t want another House Rep. in exchange for retrocession.
        MD would be better off with DC becoming a state.

        As for your comment about Barr and Esper, if Trump only wants toadies who publicly agree with him about everything — which certainly seems to be the case — he can fire Esper any time. Barr is the toady Trump desires.

    1. Also, Esper and Barr may indeed practice free speech. The place to argue an alternative to the President’s policy is in Cabinet meetings or closed-door sessions. That’s true for any Cabinet member to any President. Or, they can resign and air their opinions in the public square.

    2. And both Esper and Barr retain free speech rights, even for decisions that are not theirs to make.

      They actually work for somebody whose decision it is.

      1. Actually, it has quite high personal income per capita. Plenty of sales tax revenue, not to mention large swaths of residential and commercial property.

Leave a Reply