Bill Barr could be the most heinous of Donald Trump's henchmen



[ad_1]

People in the media and politics deplore the cynicism of our time, claiming that people vote for a liar like Donald Trump because they believe that all politicians lie and that it's just more colorful at this time. topic. This era produces men and women of such mistrust that it will be a miracle if the next generation believes that whoever is in politics is even capable of acting in the national interest. It is possible that Robert Mueller is the last of his kind in the GOP and I am not quite sure of him either. It will be necessary to see what will happen to know if Mueller has fired too many punches, but for the moment, we only have the right arrow of the Republicans left.

You certainly can not say as much about his friend William Barr, the new Attorney General. He has proved to be the most important supporter in this role since John Mitchell, Richard Nixon's Attorney General, who spent 19 months in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. Even though I had suspicions that Barr had spent too much time in the right-sided swamps, according to the notorious unsolicited memo that he had sent to the White House and his comments to the media , as most people I hoped would be one of those old-school "institutionalist" types who would examine the evidence contained in the Mueller report and who would also be appalled by this violent and violent president. abuser of the law that the whole world has been since its publication.

It turns out that we were not cynical enough. Not far away. Rather than acting as an independent advocate for the law and serving the people, Barr proves to be the most servile of Trump's henchmen. He is not even as independent as the many men in the administration who did not follow Trump's orders, but still remained. Barr seems to see himself as the president's legal advisor consigliere, helping him not to get caught for his crimes. The president has actually found his new Roy Cohn, Trump's notorious mentor and his personal attorney, who has finally been struck off the market for flagrant and unethical conduct.

From the four-page "Barr Letter" and his senseless conclusion that Trump did not stop justice from attending the pre-publication press conference at which Barr attempted to turn the report in favor of the President, the Attorney General took steps to limit the damages. Over the past week, as Trump said he would fight all applications and subpoenas, Barr is now experiencing interference between the Department of Justice and Congress. He refuses to appear before the Judiciary Committee of the House unless President Jerry Nadler, DN.Y., states his plan so that part of the session be moderated by a committee lawyer and that a part of the hearing takes place behind closed doors. Apparently, Barr does not like the idea that legal staff can closely monitor the conduct of an investigation. He prefers the five minute disconnected poll format that never ends, which is a sad statement from the US Attorney General.

If Barr can not deal with a committee lawyer, maybe he is not really fit to be the highest federal law enforcement official. Judicial Committee lawyers interviewed in camera many other participants in the investigation of Russia, including former FBI director James Comey. The only difference with Barr is that it will be a public hearing, which one would expect the most transparent government in history that describes itself as the most transparent his story is happy to make arrangements.

Barr has been around long enough to remember all the times congressional committees have asked a lawyer to interview witnesses, including cabinet members. This is what happened most famous during the Watergate hearings when lawyers such as Sam Dash and Richard Ben-Veniste became national figures, holding the feet of the president's men to the feet in the fire. Arthur Liman, senior advisor of the Senate Iran-Contra Committee, conducted the interrogations in this investigation. And since only a few months ago, the Republicans hired an outside lawyer to interview Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during the confirmation hearings before Brett Kavanaugh, it's totally absurd that Barr is disgusted.

Nadler refused to change his plans, patiently explaining that witnesses are not allowed to dictate procedure to congressional committees, and that the Attorney General is not allowed to dictate to the legislature. (The Trump administration remains very confused about the separation of powers in general.) Nadler says he will issue a subpoena if Barr refuses to show up. We are talking about holding hearings with an empty chair, which would be very ridiculous and unproductive.

Robert Costa of the Washington Post reported on MSNBC on Monday that Republican sources had told him that Democrats were "political" and did not have the right to hold hearings that are imputation investigations except their name. I think we know how to solve this problem, is not it?

Barr's scandalous behavior and the White House's attempts to block all forms of control push Democrats to dismiss, whether they want it or not. Representative Ted Lieu, D-Calif., A member of the Democratic House Democracy Leadership Team and member of the Judiciary Committee, told Washington Post's Greg Sargent, "If we can not gather facts we will have to use the other tools at our disposal and ensure that our oversight responsibilities are respected. "

"If it turns out that we can not investigate because the White House is not complying with everything Congress is asking for, then I think the caucus would support an article of accusation aimed at to obstruct Congress to maximize our position in the courts. " Sargent points out that Democrats have already said that fact-gathering and accountability are their mission at the moment ", but if Trump will not allow thatthey may threaten an impeachment investigation in response, and rightly find that Trump forces them there. "

The third article of dismissal against Richard Nixon was to challenge the Congressional summonses and controls. Trump may not let Congress choose to do that again, if only to defend his own constitutional prerogatives. For a president whose approval rate hovers around 40% during his entire term, it is a risky strategy.

[ad_2]

Source link