Newly Released OLC Memo Shows Staff Lawyers Found No Basis For Obstruction Charges In Mueller Report

The long-awaited, though partial, release of a memorandum from the Justice Department this week left many “frustrated,” as predicted by the Washington Post, in Washington. The reason is what it did not contain.  Critics had sought the memo as the “smoking gun” to show how former Attorney General Bill Barr scuttled any obstruction charges against Donald Trump. Instead, the memo showed the opposite. The staff of the OLC actually found that the allegations did not meet the standard of obstruction even without any defenses or privileges related to Trump’s office.

The issue of obstruction of justice ran throughout Barr’s second term as Attorney General. Before his confirmation hearing, a memo was released that Barr wrote to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The memo discussed flaws in the use of the most likely federal provision on obstruction of justice against Trump. Barr was hammered by Democratic senators on his view of obstruction, as was I when I testified the next day as a witness. I agreed with many of the flaws noted by Barr in the memo.

Barr’s more nuanced arguments were drowned out by a long litany of experts like Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe who publicly insisted that obstruction was not only clearly established (with a long litany of other crimes) but that Barr’s rejection of that crime was evidence of his raw partisanship. In a public letter to me, Ralph Nader, Lou Fisher, and Bruce Fein stated that his rejection of obstruction was akin to “a papal encyclical that President Trump was innocent of obstruction of justice” that ignored Mueller’s “chronicle [of] multiple instances of evidence of obstruction.”

Throughout this never-ending barrage, Barr remained largely silent on the internal review of the matter and declined to release the full OLC memo. That only increased speculation that Barr must be hiding countervailing conclusions of legal staff. We know now that (at least the now disclosed portion of) the memo supports Barr’s prior view and, despite that fact, he withheld the information out of concern for the confidentiality of the internal deliberations.

It turns out that the review and debate over the obstruction allegations began before Barr started as Attorney General. The memo also confirms that the Mueller staff was part of that analysis with career prosecutors at Main Justice. The memo states that the prosecutors reviewed the Mueller evidence and concluded that the evidence “examined by the Special Counsel could not, as a matter of law, support an obstruction charge under the circumstances. Accordingly, were there no constitutional barriers, we would recommend, under the Principles of Federal Prosecution, that you decline to commence such a prosecution.” In plain English, that means that the prosecutors came to the same conclusion as Barr that the alleged conduct did not satisfy the elements of this crime. Moreover, it stated that it would reject such a charge even without consideration of any constitutional barriers presented by Trump’s office.

The new information was released after Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a scathing criticism of the Justice Department, including arguments and representations advanced by the Biden Justice Department. The Justice Department apologized for a lack of clarity on some points but said it would appeal the order to release of the entire OLC memo.

Jackson however lashed out at Barr. In issuing his controversial summary of the report, Jackson said Barr suggested that he had little time to review the whole Mueller report when “[t]he fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given.”

Jackson seems to ignore the obvious to justify the most sensational takes on these facts.  She declares: “So why did the attorney general’s advisers, at his request, create a memorandum that evaluated the prosecutorial merits of the facts amassed by the special counsel? Lifting the curtain reveals the answer to that too: getting a jump on public relations.”

The answer would seem obvious. Since his nomination, the issue of obstruction had been used to fuel allegations of partisanship and manipulation of the process. With the release of the report, it was likely to be focus of questions from Congress and the public. While the review of this question (according to the memo) began before Barr’s arrival, he wanted a clear and dispositive record of how this decision was made – and who made it. That certainly does anticipate public questions but it was also a responsible thing to do. He asked the OLC to render a formal opinion on the issue – just as the Obama Administration did in such important and public controversies.  Barr was creating a record of the conclusions of staff counsel on an issue of great national importance.  I still do not see why such a request is untoward or unusual.

Clearly there is more to this memo so we might find something truly incriminating or embarrassing, but the record of the OLC review is not one of them. Indeed, if Barr had not requested such a letter, the same pundits would now be questioning what was concluded and whether Barr imposed his own previously stated view in the matter. The letter created a record of how the conclusion was reached and who reached that conclusion.

The controversy of Barr’s summary largely focused on a couple lines where he said that the underlying facts from by Mueller would not satisfy the elements of the crime of obstruction. It turns out that staff had made that conclusion as did some of us from existing and controlling case law. Moreover, Barr stated that the reason for the delay in the release was the removal of any grand jury material as required by federal law.

The released portions does not contradict Barr’s claim that he could not simply release a two-volume, 450-page report. One can fairly criticize aspects of that summary but the delay of the release of the report (and need for a summary) falls more squarely on Mueller. Past hearings established that Barr and Rosenstein told Mueller that they wanted his staff to flag grand jury material because Barr wanted to release the redacted report rather than a summary.  Mueller appears to have simply ignored that instruction from his superiors. As a result, a full review had to be performed with Mueller’s staff to remove grand jury material, which is mandatory under federal rules.  If Mueller had flagged and redacted the grand jury material, the redacted report could have been released without much delay as Barr preferred.

The memo also undermines the claims raised in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. I testified in that hearing and disagreed with my three co-witnesses (Professors Michael Gerhardt, Pamela Karlan, and Noah Feldman) who insisted that Trump had committed obstruction of justice. They were not alone. Democrats and the media paraded a letter from over 450 prosecutors who declared unequivocally that “Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”  The actual prosecutors at Main Justice found that not only would the allegations not meet the standard for obstruction of justice but that it would still be the case even if Trump was not the President of the United States.  The contrast shows the danger of such gotcha letters. With thousands of professors and prosecutors, it is not particularly difficult to get hundreds of signatories to support one side or another in a controversy. The Justice Department does not prosecute by plebiscite and this is why.

The day before he was effectively fired by Trump, I had lunch with Barr as we have done for many years. He was again being publicly savaged by the President over his refusal to support his electoral fraud claims and take steps against figures like Hunter Biden. Yet, he is still unlikely to be recognized for what he did for the Department during one of its most difficult periods. However, history will likely be kinder to Barr than his critics. As stated in King Lear, Barr remained from the beginning to the end “a man more sinned against than sinning.”

96 thoughts on “Newly Released OLC Memo Shows Staff Lawyers Found No Basis For Obstruction Charges In Mueller Report”

  1. Jonathan: Say what you will in defense of your good friend William Barr I doubt history, as you say, “will likely be kinder to Barr than his critics”. His critics far out number his supporters. Barr’s legacy as AG is marked by many instances in which he inappropriately intervened in high profile cases (Michael Flynn and Roger Stone) to protect close associates of Trump. He acted more as Trump’s personal lawyer rather than the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. Barr misrepresented the Mueller report because he didn’t want to have to charge his employer with obstruction. That’s not just my opinion. Stephen Saltzburg, who worked under Barr and now teaches along with you at GWU says about Barr: “There’s a feeling amongst most of the people I talk to that he politicized the department, that he came across as an attorney general whose job was to represent the president rather than the United States”. When you testified at Barr’s confirmation hearing you claimed Barr would bring “stability” to the DOJ “and protect it from outside interference from either the legislative or executive branches”. As it turns out you and Barr completely mislead the Senate because from day one Barr used the DOJ to carry out Trump’s agenda. Barr only deviated after the 2020 election when he refused to endorse Trump’s lies about massive election fraud. When Trump’s legal challenges to the election results went nowhere and it was clear Trump was not getting a second term Barr decided to resign. He knew he could not expect to continue as AG under a Biden administration. Barr was not “effectively fired by Trump”. That is a rosy interpretation that doesn’t square with the reality–that throughout he tenure Barr was a whole hearted Trump loyalist. In his resignation letter Barr applauds Trump: “I am proud to have played a role in the many successes and unprecedented achievements you have delivered for the American people”. Doesn’t sound like a guy who went off the reservation! You say Barr was a “key stabilizing element in the administration at a moment of great crisis”. In fact, the reverse was true. Under Barr morale in the DOJ sank to new lows. Many career prosecutors resigned in protest because their decisions were undercut by Barr who felt his only loyalty was to Trump. Hundreds of former career prosecutors also vocally complained about Barr’s attempts to politicize the DOJ. Barr had little support either inside or out the department.

    Your hollow defense of your long time friend proves one thing. When it comes to close friends we often overlook their deficiencies, their character flaws, their willingness to use us for their own purposes. Why? Because that reflects poorly on us. But there may also be another interpretation. Maybe you knew and know exactly who Barr was and is and you nevertheless covered up for him and continue to do so. And that, sadly, says more about you then it does about your close friend. There is an old saying that we don’t get to choose our parents, siblings and other relatives but we do get to choose our friends. In the case of Barr I think you did not choose wisely.

    1. Denis, the point of the Turley post was about the Mueller Report stating that there was not enough evidence to say that Trump had obstructed justice. You go on a long ramble about Barr being a bad guy and Turley’s buddy when the subject was obstruction of justice and the Mueller Report. If you have a beef with Mueller you should say so. You won’t because you can’t decide if Mueller is a goat or a hero. Just out of curiosity, were you one of those people who were waiting for Mueller to finally bring the hammer down on Trump? Must have been more than one tear in your beer when he didn’t come through for you.

  2. Where’s the IC/FBI/DOJ investigation into President Biden’s collusion with Russia? First he shuts down our Keystone pipeline on his first day in office. Then our Colonial pipeline gets hacked by a Russian group known as Darkside. Then within 1 week, Biden waives sanctions on the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline. We don’t need a fake pee pee dossier to show our sitting President is functioning as a hand puppet for Putin. When is the House going to subpoena Biden officials to explain how any of this improves our national security?

    1. The FBI opened an investigation into the Trump campaign after Papadopoulos, who was working with the Trump campaign, told a foreign diplomat that Russia was helping the campaign. They didn’t open it on the whim of a JT blog commenter. If you have actual evidence of collusion, submit it to them.

      1. Papadapolous was drunk and the person to whom he mentioned Russia was an Australian diplomat with a first class case of terminal TDS.

      2. You are a shameless liar. That’s not even the “official” lie. Papadopoulos never told anyone that Russia was helping the campaign.

      3. @Anymous
        Wow. can you really lie like that? You may have a future as a sleezebag lawyer.

        What has come out since Papadopoulos took a plea deal… he was set up and innocent.
        Obama’s Administration used the 5 eyes to open the investigation.
        5 years later the truth is still elusive and won’t come out except in dribbles.

        Trump didn’t commit obstruction and the only thing is the hint of obstruction was leaked out in order to keep that story moving.
        Of course the MSM was more than happy to be complicit.

      4. The FBI opened an investigation into the Trump campaign after Papadopoulos,

        This is exactly the “narrative” Except you have to explain the events that put those people together, and exactly how did the conversation happen to be recorded?
        I’ll hang up and wait for your wild supposition surrounding the event. Unless you are saying Popadopoulus is the source of information about the Clinton emails in the hands of wiki leaks, he would need a source of information. After an investigations that started back in May of 2016 the answer of who exactly informed Popadopoulos about the emails. Now years later you can clear that question up also, along with how the booze late night conversation was recorded.

  3. “You can’t see the forest for the trees.”

    – Nicholas Sparks

    The “smoking gun[s]” of demonstrable and irrefutable criminal and treasonous obstruction of the President and the government of the United States are delineated below.

    “We will stop him.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page

    “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

    James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,

    Sally Yates, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell,

    Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

    Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,

    Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

    Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

    Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, et al.

  4. The United States was twice lucky to have an AG as knowledgeable, nonpartisan, and honorable as Mr. Barr – in spite of the relentless and often despicable attacks upon his character.

  5. Unfortunately, history is written by your admittedly deranged colleagues like Pamela Karlan, who explained how she feels compelled to cross the street anytime she sees the word “Trump” on a building. Zero chance people like that pen textbooks that give students a fair accounting of Trump’s presidency.

  6. “He was again being publicly savaged by the President over his refusal to support his electoral fraud claims and take steps against figures like Hunter Biden.”

    I have great admiration and respect for Mr. Barr. And I don’t know exactly what happened at the end.

    But Barr should have been able to see the cheating in the election. “Fraud”, that’s a different thing — but we cannot tolerate cheating of any kind. I wish he’d have stood up against it. As is now becoming clear to even those who did NOT pay attention, the cheating was everywhere. Most importantly, Zuckerberg effectively PURCHASED wins in key localities as Philly, Detroit, Atlanta, and a couple others — those that turned the outcome of the election.

    I doubt there was “fraud” in the sense of extreme allegations about the machines themselves, although we should never be put in the position of making that determination AFTER the election. But there was certainly Zuckerberg money with “strings attached” and if that isn’t illegal it ought to be.

    We should also now be aware that the courts are simply ill-equipped to deal with these challenges, when local officials refuse to permit an open inspection of intricate details required to diagnose fraud and other forms of cheating.

    Barr was wrong in not standing up for that. Even if the legal definitions are weak, he cannot have been so blind as to say effectively, “I didn’t see anything defined as ‘fraud’, therefore, we will install the election thief as president.” No, I cannot be okay with that ever.

    1. “Most importantly, Zuckerberg effectively PURCHASED wins in key localities as Philly, Detroit, Atlanta, and a couple others — those that turned the outcome of the election.”

      Facebook did the same in Trump’s favor in 2016. Are you equally concerned about both?

      1. Anonymous, in 2016 Facebook gave $425,000 to Democrats and $475,000 to Republicans. This means he helped Trump to win with about a whole $50,000. . Boy that must have done a lot to swing the election to Trump. In 2020 Zuckerberg gave $350,000,000 to Democrats. That’s right the number has six zeros. Do you know the difference between $50,000 and $350,000,000. I guess not

        1. If you think that’s all Facebook did, you’re ignorant. Or perhaps you’re just choosing to ignore how it supported the Russian tr0ll farms that influenced voters.

          1. If you think that’s all Facebook did, you’re ignorant
            Facebook sold the Trump campaign their analytics, just like they did for Obama. The granular level slicing and dicing of facebook users. When Obama did it, it proved how smart Obama was, When President Trump did it better, facebooks actions were labeled election interference

        2. “Do you know the difference between $50,000 and $350,000,000. I guess not”

          Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t know the difference.

  7. News: Trumps own DoJ decided that Trump did not commit a crime. End of story nothing more to see.

    They would never have been allowed to state otherwise.

    1. Moly, the Mueller report said Trump did not obstruct justice. The Mueller investigative panel was comprised of 12 Democrats and one Republican, hardly a part of Trumps DOJ.

      1. The Mueller report did not say that at all, and went out of its way to say that it is not exonerating Trump.

        1. Post a link that it has ever been the job or duty or responsibility of any prosecutor to “EXONERATE” anyone or anything they ever investigated. EXONERATING is the opposite of their job. They prosecute or leave people/industry alone and nothing else.

          If the police investigate you for child rape and find nothing, are YOU OK WITH THEM PUBLICLY STATING YOU ARE NOT EXONERATED OF MULTIPLE CHILD RAPES? You OK with billboards with your image stating: NOT EXONERATED OF CHILD RAPE.

          Only in the post-Trump era has it become a thing for the DOJ to exonerate subjects under investigation.

  8. I would like to read about what Judge Jackson had to say about the Mueller Report saying there was no obstruction of justice. Please provide a link. Please don’t forget to provide her party affiliation. Thanks.

  9. Think it was James Madison that warned: Democracy cannot exist with continuous wartime powers and excessive secrecy. American voters can’t self-govern when kept in the dark. Voters always govern better than politicians.

    If anyone serving in the former Bush Administration had loyalty to their Oath of Office (Title 5 US Code & Article VI) shouldn’t they have the ethics to restore America’s model of government instead continuing to destroy our institutions?

    There is not a peep about restoring America’s great reputation when we illegally tortured, illegally blacklisted, illegally kidnapped and illegally violated Ronald Reagan’s Torture Treaty. Oath-sworn officials, like Mueller, Comey and Tenent, could actually redeem themselves by owning up to the Bush years instead of business-as-usual.

    Senator Patrick Leahy even provided a pathway “Truth Commission” so alleged Bush war criminals could avoid prison time and serious penalty for violating their supreme loyalty oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution (a wartime governing charter). 20 years is enough, man-up guys!

    1. Jesus Obama intentionally murdered in cold blood (felony murder) two American citizens without judicial charge, both name Anwar Al-Awlaki, first the father then the child son a few weeks later. Obama committed these two felony murders on foreign soil. Soon thereafter then FBI-Chief Mueller told Obama it’s OK to do the same on American soil.

      Further, Obama had all the required evidence and testimony to convict ex-VP Dick “Satan” Cheney for felony murder and torture of “war on terror” prisoners, which were all also international war crimes. Obama’s DOJ had easy convictions on about a dozen of the highest ranking military and CIA scum of the earth. It’s more than reasonable to presume all or most would have turned on their Crime Master Cheney rather than face the death penalty or life in solitary confinement (for their own security of course.)

      And yet Obama, rather than perform his sworn oath of office to preserve and protect the Constitution, pooped all over it, used it for toilet paper, and said, “Let’s just forget about all this and get on with life” or something similar.

      There’s just no end to the avarice and mendacity. Americans must love it.

  10. The OLC guy in charge was Steven Engel, the hyperpartisan who made the ridiculous argument that White House advisors had “absolute immunity” from testimony (which is even more ridiculous than Clinton lawyers’ attempts to protective function privilege), and who advised against passing the Trump-Zelensky whistleblower complaint to Congress, which is unlawful.
    The DOJ should take a second look at Trump’s incidences of obstruction and decide accordingly.

    1. Peese, in response to your Trump-Zelinsky statement. It concerned the Clinton server. A natural question is why didn’t the FBI look at the server instead of taking Crowdstrikes word for it. It would seem that you would be curios about the contents of the server and why the FBI never looked at it. Then again, you have no curiosity about the Hunter Biden laptop either. The fact remains that the Mueller Report found no obstruction of justice. Your obvious obfuscation is duly noted.

      1. The FBI didn’t take Crowdstrike’s word for it. Crowdstrike made a byte-for-byte copy, and they gave it to the FBI. Maybe you’re confused about where investigators look. They don’t look at the hardware; they look at the drives and memory.

        1. So the FBI is just supposed to trust Crowdstrick. Did they hand over the 30,000 missing emails? Did they actually download ALL of the hard drive? There is no way the FBI will ever know because they didn’t acquire the actual hardware and the didn’t want to.

        2. Crowdstrike made a byte-for-byte copy, and they gave it to the FBI

          The FBI testified under Oath they never looked at the analytics and reached their conclusion using information provided by CrowdStrike

          “…Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee’s server.
          CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry’s admission under oath, in a recently declassified December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new …”

          “CrowdStrike admissions were released just two months after the Justice Department retreated from its its other central claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when it dropped charges against Russian troll farms it said had been trying to get Trump elected.”

  11. An unforgivable ruse was foisted on the American public when Trump was impeached for obstruction of justice. The Democrats claimed that AG Barr sold out to Trump. Now we find out that BEFORE Barr became the AG the Mueller report said there was no basis for an obstruction of justice charge. The insurrection by the Democratic Party began long before January 6th. One of the main leaders of the insurrection was the stonewalling Mr. Mueller. Yet none dare call it treason.

      1. Hey Peese, read the part we’re Mueller refused to complete the redactions of The Grand Jury info from the report so that it could be released to the public. If he had done so we would have known that the Mueller report came to the conclusion that there was no obstruction of justice by Trump. If we would have had this information we would have known that an Impeachment of Trump based on obstruction of justice was a political insurrection perpetuated by the Democratic Party. Without Muellers stonewall there would be no impeachment trial. As I stated before, none dare call it treason.

    1. “Trump was impeached for obstruction of justice.”

      No, he wasn’t. Have you even read the actual articles of impeachment?

      “the Mueller report said there was no basis for an obstruction of justice charge”

      No, it didn’t, and Mueller was also explicitly asked under oath about it:

      NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?
      MUELLER: Correct, not what the report said.
      NADLER: You wrote, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are not able to reach that judgment.” Does that say there was no obstruction?
      MUELLER: No.

      NADLER: Your investigation found “multiple acts by the present that were capable of asserting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.” Is that correct?
      MUELLER: Correct.
      NADLER: Can you explain what that finding means so the American people can understand?
      MUELLER: The finding indicates that the president was not exonerated for the act he allegedly committed.
      NADLER: In fact, you were talking about incidents in which the president sought to use this official power outside of usual channels to exert undue influence over your investigations. Is that right?
      MUELLER: Correct.

      1. The Justice System of the United States never exonerates. They prosecute, or they do not prosecute because EVIDENCE is lacking to charge the crime.
        The line questioning is a not so subtle bit of theater to confuse the ignorant as to the facts, We can see that it worked very well as idiots are still thinking the SC would ever declare an exoneration of the subject.

  12. Basically, this reinforces the position that the Left kept making up false allegations against Donald Trump and Bill Barr for political purposes, and that the media shielded these efforts.

    1. No, Honey, it doesn’t. We haven’t seen the whole report yet. But, just like is buddy, Barr, Turley jumps the gun to try to capture the headlines first. And, disciples like you fall for it. Even after the entire report is released, you won’t believe the bad things about your hero because Hannity will tell you it’s not true. And, like the starry-eyed disciple you are, you’ll believe it, and believe that “media” are lying to you.

      No one needs to “make up false allegations” against your chubby hero. In fact, that’s not what Turley says at all. He says that some of Barr’s staff concluded that there was not enough for obstruction, so no one’s making anything up. But, let’s wait for the entire report. Recently-released documents detail the extent to which Manafort colluded with Russians to help Trump cheat his way into office. We note Turley doesn’t have anything to say about THAT report.

      1. So Natacha tells us to wait for the rest of the report to see the smoking gun. The Democrats kept telling us to wait for the Mueller report to see the smoking gun that would prove Trump guilty. Have you ever lit a fire cracker that only fizzled and didn’t explode. I can hear Natacha exclaiming, “Just wait for the Mueller Report”. She just keeps lighting that firecracker dud in hopes that it might go off in her alternate reality.

      2. Natacha, calling a women honey with your obvious tone is clearly misogynistic.

      3. Natacha, calling someone chubby is fat shaming. Does the hate never stop. Hypocrite is not a hate word.

        1. Weirdly, Natacha didn’t refer to the little dough boy, Nadler, as chubby. Further illustrating your point of her hypocrisy.

  13. “…mandatory under federal rules…” – sort of like torture, kidnapping, false imprisonment, etc. Mueller has never answered for those things that happened under his watch. He should recuse himself.

    Why would anyone think the DOJ is not political if they are selectively enforcing laws against certain people? On today’s news they state that they need clearer evidence in high profile cases. We had that clear evidence for Bush & Cheney officials – they admitted to it.

  14. Did Barr scuttle the memo?

    The left lied. Did Jeff lie?

    When will the left admit the truth? Probably never.

    Does Jeff’s character assassination include that of Barr and Turley together because Turley agreed with Barr?

    Probably, but Jeff chooses adjectives instead of facts when he engages in character assassination.

  15. Yet again we see False/Fake News undone by the facts as they are….and not as the Left wishes them to be.

    Have the Left ever….admitted its culpability in creating, fostering, and perpetrating these attacks upon Good, Honest, Honorable People in the furtherance of their political agenda?

    Will the Media ever be held accountable….or Big Tech and its Fact Finders and Censors?

    Bill Barr did the right thing so many times….and was ravaged by the Left…..he was mistreated by many on Right as well.

    Sadly, today….that comes with being a Man of Principle such as Barr is.

    1. It’s hard for facts to leak out with the media and big tech shutting off the spigots. Nothing can be permitted to disturb the lies of the chosen narratives. Welcome to the Soviet.

  16. Barr was a damn good AG – better than his predecessor (the self-described wing man) in the previous Administration and thus far, appears to be head and shoulders above the current office holder

    1. I don’t think he cares. I am beginning to realize that Professor Turley probably doesn’t write his own blog. He probably farms it out to some of his first-year law students, and you know how poorly educated young people are now. Especially in English.

      1. As a wise old lawyer myself, I am beginning to realize that some people (who call themselves lawyers), are too much like Lawrence Tribe. Politics TRUMPS truth and law.

      2. I doubt Turley farms out his posts. I prefer wise words over impressive writing skills.

      3. Here is a perfect explanation for wise old lawyer. Misnomer: a wrong or inaccurate name or designation. Per Google.

    2. 😄 I speak Turley. If you tell me what has you unable to understand his post, I offer my translation services.

      1. Yes, I find boo boos in nearly every one of Prof. Turley’s posts and it is a little annoying. However, the errors no doubt are not due to ignorance or laziness, but because of speed and lack of time to copyedit and proofread, two skillsets vanishing from journalism along with grammar. The CMS is too busy updating to make sure we know how to write gender-neutral copy instead of focusing on style and grammar. In any case, I would love to see those who are constantly throwing daggers at Prof. Turley turn out such well-reasoned and researched FREE content like he does five days a week.

        1. In any case, I would love to see those who are constantly throwing daggers at Prof. Turley turn out such well-reasoned and researched FREE content like he does five days a week.

          I agree Suze. I view a blog no different than I would entering a room with a bunch of people in it. I see Turley as the host of the room who opens up a topic for discussion. When he writes these posts, he’s essentially standing in front of this group and he’s providing the details for discussion. I view what he writes no different than if he were speaking directly. People react to his writing “errors” as if they are being forced to listen to President Biden speak. Clarity is not an issue with JT’s posts. He is offering this site for free, which means they are getting exactly what they pay for.

          1. I fully understand the objections to my earlier post. Yes, Turley is very busy. Yes, he cranks out a ton of good stuff. Yes, he provides a wonderful service which we should all be thankful for. But would he offer the same sloppy work (spelling and grammar) to a court? Obviously not. I am tempted to say sloppy writing=sloppy thinking, but I will not. The sloppy writing is, quite simply, an indication of the lack of respect he has for the reader. Nothing more/nothing less.

            1. “The sloppy writing is, quite simply, an indication of the lack of respect he has for the reader. Nothing more/nothing less.”

              I don’t see the logic in your statement.

            2. But would he offer the same sloppy work (spelling and grammar) to a court?

              If you’re expecting the same quality of work that JT produces for his professional services, then you should be willing to pay him at his billable rate.

    3. For the love of God stop acting like a spoilt child asking for what shall never be. Author your own blog with better grammar edits. See if anyone gives a hoot.

Comments are closed.