CNN Analyst Calls For Barr’s Impeachment

This-is-cnn-CNN’s legal analyst Asha Rangappa is calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Bill Barr.  Rangappa claims that Barr “tried to bamboozle the country” in the recent controversy over the replacement of Geoffrey Berman, who until Saturday had been the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. She further states that there is no ability for the Inspector General to investigate any improper conduct despite evidence that “Barr was attempting to obstruct justice by removing [Berman].  There is no such evidence and the call for impeachment shows a continuing misconstruction of the history and standard for impeachment.

I have previously challenged analysis on CNN the claims of established crimes or impeachable offenses in the Trump Administration. Much of that analysis has proven incorrect, including the breathless accounts of Russian collusion with the campaign. This does not reflect any agreement with the underlying acts, which I have also condemned by the detachment of analysis from any controlling legal authority.  What also concerns me is how the expansive views of criminal or impeachable conduct is often coupled with highly technical and narrow views of such allegations against Trump critics like Rangappa’s defense of James Comey.

The suggestion of that Barr should be impeached is framed as the only possible option since “The special counsel regulations don’t contemplate investigating a potentially corrupt AG—because a corrupt AG would never invoke the regulations to investigate himself.”  The fact is that Barr’s actions can be investigated by the Inspector General or Congress. Indeed, I have supported Congress in demanding answers to any lingering questions.

The only compelling basis for the impeachment of a cabinet member would be credible evidence of a crime like obstruction.  Rangappa does not bother to cite any such clear evidence.  Indeed, reporting from respected journalists like Pete Williams at NBC have cited multiple sources for saying that this move had nothing to do with the Trump-related investigations.  Indeed, as I wrote earlier, it did not make much sense since there have been no reports of interference since Barr took office.  These investigations have continued unimpeded.  Barr himself told the SDNY staff to report any such interference to the Inspector General and repeated his position that the underlying investigations be allowed to proceed without interference.

Beside those reports and the lack of evidence, Rangappa still believes that Barr should be impeached.

Barr actually addressed this issue in a prior hearing in an exchange with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.):

Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. A United States Attorney. Would you allow the President to fire a United States Attorney and thereby stop an investigation?

General Barr. I would not stand by and allow a U.S. Attorney to be fired for the purpose of stopping an investigation, but the President can fire a U.S. Attorney. They are a presidential appointment.

The point is obvious and correct.  The President has the constitutional prerogative to pick high-ranking officials.  No attorney general would contest that right.  Rather, Barr was pledging to refuse any such change if it sought stop an investigation.  In the Berman matter, Barr reaffirmed that same principle.

Once again, what is the legal basis for an impeachment?  Unless impeachment is little more than raw politics, there is usually a modicum of evidence before you commence an impeachment, particularly when news reports contradict the claim of an effort to obstruct justice.
So here is a suggestion, which might seem a tad naive or old-fashioned.  Why not allow Congress to investigate and for additional evidence to come forward like an actual move to obstruct or hinder investigations for political purposes? It is certainly not a popular approach but it a legal one.

91 thoughts on “CNN Analyst Calls For Barr’s Impeachment”

  1. Instead of cleaning up their act and rejoining the USA CNN continues to front for the socialists.

  2. > a continuing misconstruction of the history and standard for impeachment.

    Turley-speak for, “You can impeach Democrats but not Republicans.” See his testiomony if you don’t believe me.

  3. “Law professors and faculty from George Washington University Law School, Attorney General William Barr’s alma mater, said in a letter Tuesday he has ‘failed to fulfill his oath of office to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States.’’ … In a bi-partisan statement signed by 65 faculty and professors from the law school, the group wrote that Barr’s actions as attorney general ‘have undermined the rule of law, breached constitutional norms, and damaged the integrity and traditional independence of his office and of the Department of Justice.’ Signatories to the letter include president and CEO of the National Bar Association Alfreda Robinson and interim dean of the school Christopher Alan Bracey. …”

    I assume Mr. Turley wasn’t one of the signatories.

  4. “Law professors and faculty from George Washington University Law School, Attorney General William Barr’s alma mater, said in a letter Tuesday he has ‘failed to fulfill his oath of office to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ “

  5. A reminder: Trump could have nominated Clayton and simply left Berman in place until the Senate confirmed Clayton.
    Instead, Barr created a scene by falsely claiming on 6/19 that Berman was “stepping down” and that Trump had “appointed Craig Carpenito” to replace Berman, when Carpenito wasn’t eligible to replace Berman. Word is that Barr also lied to Carpenito: “Mini-Scoop: NJ US Attorney Craig Carpenito held a conference call Saturday morning with his entire staff and told them he’d only agreed to take over SDNY because Barr had told him Geoff Berman had resigned of his own volition. The first he’d heard about the whole thing was Friday afternoon when Barr called him to ask him to take over. He was apparently shocked to learn late Friday evening that Berman wasn’t resigning voluntarily and actually hadn’t resigned at all.”

    Why were Trump/Barr so anxious to get Berman out?

  6. What a strange and twisted bubble of logic this group of commenters has!

    JT has surrounded himself with an echo chamber of right wing idiocy.

    It’s hard to believe that I used to take JT seriously.


    1. I’m in complete agreement. This place has turned into a Trumpist nuthouse.

      1. Acromion– “This place has turned into a Trumpist nuthouse.”

        Perhaps you would hallucinate less if you took the Red Pill instead of the LSD pill.

      2. “I’m in complete agreement. This place has turned into a Trumpist nuthouse.”


    2. See, Olaf, your comment “What is wrong with YOU people?” It does not leave room for any open debate about anything.

      If you have already pre-judge others/someone as “thinking” the “wrong” way, then you are not leaving any room for any open conversation.

      The reality is simple.

      Humans are violent, humans have as Animals been trained and groomed to live civil society.

      Look at the Middle East, look at Africa. They still drag people out into the middle of the street light them on fire and watch them burn while the crowd cheers.

      In fact, China and Saudi Arabia are the two countries that are notorious for executions without any justice, a simple…you’re guilty, drag you into the street, Pop-pop, and that’s it.

      I have seen the videos, so I should know.

      As as western society, America is more civilized and more removed from the old ways, that many countries today still have and seem to think the old ways, is A-okay.

      Moreover, humans in tribes have always disagreed and learned to co-exist.

      The level of intolerance for others’ opinions that do not fall in line with your opinion / set-reality, is at such an all time high.

      The reality is there are very few critical thinkers now. Very few open to honest debate and discussion. Open to agreeing to just disagree. Open to compromise.

      You know what that reminds me of? The Marxist Lenisim communist bull that a lot of the world lives under today in 2020. The US worked very hard to fight these forces, and it is showing its ugly head again via BLM and Antifa.

      News flash, you cannot consider yourself, Antifa, a.k.a., Anti-Fascist, and then run around shutting others down and being just that, FASCIST. It is hypocrisy to the max.

      If you like the commies so much, please go live under Putin’s regime. And please, go protest the injustices of that society, and see what happens. Unlike the US of A, they do not tolerate those who insult their leader and insult the Powers that Be. I wish you the best of luck. I will pray for you while you are living there.


    I like to check in on GW Law from time to time, and I happened to come across this complete piddling second-rate trash talking wannabe journalist’s article.

    I think my head spun around 3 times reading the absolute asinine e-motive agenda driven hoopla rubbish.

    If you want to get a good laugh from an adult man-child with no real life experience making judgments on others like he is the “judge, jury, and executioner,” all wrap into one boo-hoo cry baby tantrum of an article, then this is the article for you.

    I always love when barely adult college-students find themselves as God’s of the “right way” to think, and then question every adult they come across. Might as well make them all a bunch of meter maids so they can run around and cite everyone they believe “offends them” or is “offensive.”

  8. Just more evidence dems know they can’t win fairly. Whatever and yawn. All too typical and not at all impressive.

  9. What a frigging twerp! FBI AGENT Extraordinaire Asha Rangappa was so dumb she fell for Russiagate. In another more beautiful age, she would have been a bartender of the demi-monde. She deserves an Irish Poem put down!

    An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm

    There once was a chick named Rangappa
    Who passed herself off as a coppa!
    But she couldn’t find her a$$
    With a magnifying glass!
    And her theories of law all went floppa!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Married for 7 years to a mysterious FBI agent, divorced and now a talking head / twitter addict

      Such are the priorities of Americans today

      At 31, Rangappa left the FBI to become dean of admissions at Yale Law School. She remained in that post for 12 years before moving to Yale’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, where she handles admissions and teaches national-security law. However, she’s best known as a talking head and active Twitter user.

      This phase of her life began when President Donald Trump tweeted in early 2017 that President Barack Obama had wiretapped him. “I said to myself, ‘This is impossible! I know how this stuff works,’” Rangappa says. So she wrote an explanatory article about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and cable networks began bringing her on as an expert. Her appearances accelerated after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, and Robert Mueller ’66, former director of the FBI, was tapped as special counsel to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

      Rangappa feels strongly about the need for Congress to fully investigate the allegations against Trump. “I believe in the process. He may never be convicted in a trial, but I do think there are important principles to stand up for,” she says. Still, she understands why the whole matter seems to make many Americans’ eyes glaze over. With the investigation of Russian election meddling “things got very complicated very quickly. It became a Tolstoy novel,” she says. “Scandals stick when they’re simple.”

      One particularly depressing trend for Rangappa is the effort to reject unfavorable news as biased. “We’re in such a tribal society now that to stand for principles like the rule of law or to defend democratic norms means that, de facto, you are seen as being on the other side,” she says.

      insert eye roll


      1. “Married for 7 years to a mysterious FBI agent, divorced…”


  10. Once again, what is the legal basis for an impeachment? Unless impeachment is little more than raw politics,….

    For 3 years all the Democrats have done is divide and conquer…

    their 2 latest salvos with COVID/”lockdown” & encouraging of rioting and destruction of cities are fresh on the minds of Americans.

Comments are closed.