Posted on 05/03/2019 7:08:07 PM PDT by TaxPayer2000
I originally thought this was too stupid to write about. But stupid is like the plague inside the Beltway one person catches it and next thing you know theres an outbreak at MSNBC and the speaker of the House is showing symptoms while her delirious minions tote ceramic chickens around Capitol Hill.
So I give you: the Bill Barr perjury allegation.
We are all entitled to our own opinions. But are we entitled to our own facts? Daniel Patrick Moynihans bon mot says no, but Washington makes you wonder. Like when spleen-venting about the supposedly outrageous, unbelievable, disgraceful invocation of the word spy to describe episodes of government spying is instantly followed by a New York Times story about how the spying er, I mean, court-authorized electronic surveillance coupled with the tasking of spies er, undercover agents green-lighted by a foreign spy er, intelligence service was more widespread than previously known.
If I were a cynic, Id think people were trying to get out in front of some embarrassing revelations on the horizon. I might even be tempted to speculate that progressives were trotting out their Destroy Ken Starr template for Barr deployment (which, I suppose, means that 20 years from now well be reading about what a straight-arrow Barr was compared to whomever Democrats are savaging at that point).
The claim that Barr gave false testimony is frivolous. That is why, at least initially, Democrats and their media echo chamber soft-pedaled it with such dishonorable exceptions as Mazie Horono, the Hawaii Democrat who, somehow, is a United States senator. Its tough to make the perjury argument without any false or even inaccurate statements though my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano did give it the old college try. As recounted by The Hill, he twisted himself into a pretzel, observing try to follow this that the attorney general probably misled Congress and thus hes got a problem . . . although this purported dissembling didnt really seem to be, you know, an actual lie so . . . maybe its not a problem after all. Or something.
I assume that in his black-robe days, Judge Nap would have known better. When meritless perjury cases are thrown out of court, judges are often at pains to explain that the questioner who elicited the purportedly false testimony bears the burden of clarity; the terms of the question dictate the evaluation of the answer. In this instance, Barrs April 9 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee was true and accurate; if a misimpression set in after, it is because the relevant questioning by Representative Charlie Crist (D., Fla.) has been ignored or distorted.
Moreover, because perjury is a serious felony allegation, judges and legal analysts never rely on a general, selectively couched description of the testimony much less on the likes of Speaker Nancy Pelosis because-I-said-so refrain that Barr lied to Congress and thats a crime. The testimony must be examined, with emphasis on the words that were used (the questions as well as the responses), and anything we can glean about the witnesss demeanor (stingy? dodgy? forthcoming?).
The mindless, no-need-to-check-the-record allegation against Barr goes like this: The AG testified on April 9 that he had no idea why Special Counsel Mueller was upset over the way Barrs March 24 letter described Muellers report; but, in fact, Barr knew exactly why Mueller was upset because he had received the latters March 27 letter complaining about Barrs missive.
Now, here is the exchange on which the perjury allegation is based, with my italics highlighting key portions:
CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsels teamare frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter . . . that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the reports findings. Do you know what theyre referencing with that?
BARR: No, I dont. I think I think . . . I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but, in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once. So I was not interested in a summary of the report. . . . I felt that I should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use Special Counsel Muellers own language in doing that.
When we look at the actual words of this exchange, Barrs testimony is clearly accurate. And I dont mean accurate in the hyper-technical, Clintonesque depends on what the definition of is is sense. I mean straightforward, unguarded, and evincing a willingness to volunteer information beyond what the question sought.
Crist did not ask a general question about Muellers reaction to Barrs letter; he asked a specific question about the reaction of Muellers team to the Barr letters description of the reports findings. Regarding the March 24 letters rendering of this bottom line namely, Russia meddled, Trump did not collude, and Mueller failed to resolve the obstruction question Barr said he did not know what Muellers staff was complaining about.
Barr has known Mueller for nearly 30 years; when Mueller was the Criminal Division chief in the Bush 41 Justice Department, he reported to Barr, who was attorney general. It should come as no surprise, then, that Barr was not getting his information from Muellers staff; he was getting it from Mueller directly. Nor should it come as any surprise that, before releasing his March 24 letter to the public, Barr gave Mueller an opportunity to review it; nor that Mueller declined that opportunity given that he knows Barr well, and knew Barr would not misrepresent the report (especially given that the report would soon be public).
Three days after Barr announced the reports conclusions, Mueller sent his letter, undoubtedly written by his staff. Mueller could simply have called Barr on the phone, as he has done a million times; but the staffs partisan Democrats wanted a letter, which makes for much better leak material. (The letter was, in fact, strategically leaked to the Washington Post Tuesday night, right before Barrs Wednesday morning Senate testimony.) The day after receiving Muellers March 27 letter, Barr called Mueller and pointedly asked whether he was claiming that Barrs March 24 letter articulating Muellers findings was inaccurate. Mueller responded that he was making no such claim he was, instead, irritated by the press coverage of Barrs letter. Mueller suggested the publication of additional information from the report, including the reports own executive summaries, to explain more about why he decided not to resolve the obstruction issue. But he did not claim Barr had misrepresented his findings. (See Barrs Senate testimony, starting at 39-minute mark.)
Again, Barrs contact was with Mueller, not Muellers team. His exchanges with Mueller gave Barr no basis to know about any objection to his description of the reports findings from Mueller or anyone else. The fact that Muellers staff was leaking like a sieve to the Times, the Washington Post, and NBC News does not mean they were sharing with the attorney general what the Times described as their simmering frustrations.
That is what Barr said in answer to Crists question about the reports findings. But to avoid the misimpression that he was parsing words deceptively, Barr volunteered his perception that Muellers staff wanted more information from the report to be publicized. That was consistent with what can be inferred from Barrs phone call with Mueller on March 28. And it was not news: Crists questions were based on the aforementioned press accounts of leaks from Muellers staffers. They were irked at the bad press they were receiving over Muellers abdication on the question whether there was a prosecutable obstruction case, and they had groused that there was much more to their report than Barrs letter conveyed. Of course, Barr never disputed this; as he repeatedly explained, he undertook to render the conclusions, not summarize the entire 448-page report.
Barr decided that his way of making disclosure the findings followed three weeks later by the full report was superior to the proposal of Muellers staff that their own summaries be released. You can disagree with Barr on that, but thats not grounds for a perjury claim. And it raises a point Barr made in his Senate testimony: The regulations do not require any disclosure of the special counsels report (which is supposed to be a confidential Justice Department document, as is typical of Justice Department deliberations over whether to charge or decline to charge). The decision of what, if anything, to disclose, and how that should be done, is exclusively the attorney generals, not the special counsels. Muellers job was to make a prosecutorial judgment to charge or decline to charge obstruction. Mueller failed to do that. Since Mueller didnt do his own job, isnt it a bit presumptuous of his staff (through press leaks) to tell Barr how to do his?
Could what happened here be more obvious? Mueller received fawning press for two years on the expectation that he would slay Trump. Then, on March 24, Democrats and the media learned not only that there was no collusion case (which was no surprise) but that Mueller had been derelict, failing to render a judgment on the only question he was arguably needed to resolve: Was there enough evidence to charge obstruction? Journalists proceeded to turn on their erstwhile hero. This sent him reeling, and it brought to full boil the anger of Mueller staffers, who wanted to charge Trump with obstruction based on the creative (i.e., wayward) theory they had been pursuing namely, that a president can be indicted for obstruction based on the exercise of his constitutional prerogatives if prosecutors (including prosecutors who are active supporters of the presidents political opposition) decide he had corrupt intent. The staffers put their pique in a letter that could be leaked, and Mueller was sufficiently irked by the bad press that he signed it. And now Democrats are using the letter as the launch-pad for The Big Lie that Barr lied, calculating that if they say it enough times, and their media collaborators uncritically broadcast these declarations, no one will notice that they never actually refer to the transcript of what they claim is the false testimony.
Democrats are unnerved. Attorney General Barr is pursuing an inquiry into the Obama administrations decision to conduct a foreign counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. The time is now, they figure, to reprise the Ken Starr treatment: the ad hominem withering of an accomplished, highly capable official in this instance, one who is daring to press questions that would have been answered two years ago if an incumbent Republican administration had spied on er, monitored a Democratic presidential campaign.
p
Barr has exceeded my expectations. He’s ultimately more intelligent than all of the Rats combined.
Bump that!!
The media / Dem narrative remains the same, regardless of the fact they were exposed as lying day in and day out for more than two years. Had they been acting in good faith, they would be outraged at Hillary and the DNC leadership at the time for foisting this fraud upon them. But they carry on. Those uncovering the wrong doing and trying to put a stop to it are cast as those who are corrupt, and the corrupt are cast as those fighting against the corruption. Nothing has changed. They will never stop.
Barr will be facing not only the media and political pressure from the outside but also from those on the inside - look for tales of Barr’s so-called “corrupt practices” to start leaking to the press with increasing calls for him to resign and even be indicted.
One only has to know that, with democrats, their lies come easy, and if they’re pointing the finger at anybody and calling him or her a liar, you can be certain that they’re 100% projecting. Accusing others of what they do.
Anytime Nancy Pelosi accuses anybody of lying, it’s 100% certain that she is lying at that very moment of the accusation. The moment she accused Barr of lying, she knew that she was lying.
Thanks for the ping :-)
McCarthy was on Hannity’s radio show today. McCarthy believes that Hillary’s deleted emails would prove the extent to which she used her position as Secretary of State to generate income for the Clinton Foundation. That’s why she first tried to conceal the emails, then securely deleted them.
The Dems are evil and desperate.
All their carefully constructed lies got blown out of the water. So now they are reaching for more lies and evil, trying to get something to stick.
I look for all of that to happen ... and fall flat on its face.
3 May: National Review: FBI Officials Testimony Raises New Questions about Surveillance of Trump Campaign
By Eric Felten
Deputy assistant director Jonathan Moffas testimony, which has been obtained exclusively by National Review, suggests there was more going on than has yet been admitted.
The deputy assistant director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jonathan Moffa, was involved with the RussiaTrump investigation from the start. He was asked, in a closed-door Capitol Hill interview on August 24, 2018, to describe his role: I was the section chief over counterintelligence analysis during the period of the election, Moffa told lawmakers and staff. And as a result, I had analysts who reported to me who supported the full range of the FBIs counterintelligence investigations and counterespionage investigations during that period. So in a sense, if theres a Russian-election-related investigation underway in the division at that point, personnel reporting to me are a part of it.
Moffas congressional interview was private, and no transcript has been released. But National Review has obtained a copy. The interview transcript reveals that the FBIs use of Confidential Human Sources and other counterintelligence assets was far more extensive than has previously been acknowledged...READ ALL
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/fbi-official-testimony-surveillance-trump-campaign/
Confidential Human Source = SPY?
Any chance Barr recuses himself under pressure?
“You’re about to enter a
World of Pain!”
Parallels this Coming Tsunami.
McCarthy has evolved. I can remember his indignance at the thought anyone would call the DOJ or FBI corrupt. (and his ‘lil buddy Jim Comey.)
We the American people plead guilty to extreme Contempt of Congress.
Mueller’s “staff” basically boils down to Andrew Weissmann. He’s probably the one who drafted the letter. As for the letter, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mueller didn’t really even want to send it, but relented. I’ve had a sense that Mueller’s staff has been frustrated with Mueller for a while now. They don’t think he’s aggressive enough. I’d bet ten bucks that Weissman drafted the letter and then Weissmann leaked the letter when he saw the potential to trap Barr in a “lie”. This was Weissmann freelancing, going around Mueller. The leak set off a clown storm of Barr hatred by the Democrats that Mueller found embarrassing, which is why Mueller is now pushing to get in front of Nadler’s committee to clean up Weissmann’s mess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.