Cleaner Barr hard at work

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...trump-administration-attorney-general/619298/
Inside William Barr’s Breakup With Trump
In the final months of the administration, the doggedly loyal attorney general finally had enough.

Barr told me that Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell had been urging him to speak out since mid-November. Publicly, McConnell had said nothing to criticize Trump’s allegations, but he told Barr that Trump’s claims were damaging to the country and to the Republican Party. Trump’s refusal to concede was complicating McConnell’s efforts to ensure that the GOP won the two runoff elections in Georgia scheduled for January 5.

To McConnell, the road to maintaining control of the Senate was simple: Republicans needed to make the argument that with Biden soon to be in the White House, it was crucial that they have a majority in the Senate to check his power. But McConnell also believed that if he openly declared Biden the winner, Trump would be enraged and likely act to sabotage the Republican Senate campaigns in Georgia. Barr related his conversations with McConnell to me. McConnell confirms the account.

“Look, we need the president in Georgia,” McConnell told Barr, “and so we cannot be frontally attacking him right now. But you’re in a better position to inject some reality into this situation. You are really the only one who can do it.”

“I understand that,” Barr said. “And I’m going to do it at the appropriate time.”

On another call, McConnell again pleaded with Barr to come out and shoot down the talk of widespread fraud.

“Bill, I look around, and you are the only person who can do it,” McConnell told him.
 
https://thehill.com/policy/national...l-trump-and-biden-efforts-on-reporter-records

Unsealed documents detail Trump and Biden efforts on reporter records

Newly unsealed court records show the Trump Justice Department fought to secretly obtain the records of journalists up until former Attorney General Bill Barr’s last days in office, while a judge who ordered the records published called the Biden administration's attempts to keep them sealed “puzzling.”

The Dec. 22 request for records of three journalists from The Washington Post was part of a string of leaked investigations initiated under the Trump administration. The investigations included seeking records from reporters from two additional outlets, two Democratic lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee, and even former White House counsel Don McGahn.


The files offer new details about the DOJ investigation, including how late into Barr’s tenure records were pursued, and how the agency suspected Congressional staff may be the source of information.

The articles targeted by investigators were referenced only by their dates, but likely include stories that Jared Kushner had discussed using Russian facilities for backchannel communications with the Kremlin and another stating that former Attorney General Jeff Session had discussed campaign matters with then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.

The filings also show the Biden administration was fighting as late as June, even after news broke they had seized records from Post reporters, to keep its initial application sealed, arguing it contains “non-public investigative and witness information.”

But a Tuesday order from magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui said the government has an obligation to release the information now that the leak investigation has closed without any charges.

“Let there be no mistake: the government has a duty to 'mak[e] public appropriately redacted documents’ after an investigation is closed,” Faruqui wrote, noting that it was the government’s responsibility to redact the documents in order to facilitate the release.

“The government’s anti-redaxer stance is puzzling. … The ‘administrative burden of doing its job is no escape hatch from completing this task,” he said.

He went on to reference two different Harrison Ford movies.

“A sealed matter is not generally, as the government persists in imagining, ‘nailed into a nondescript crate, stored deep in a sprawling, uncataloged warehouse,’” Faruqui wrote, referencing a case that quoted "Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark."

“Rather, it is merely frozen in carbonite, awaiting its eventual thawing,” he said, citing "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back."

In the days following news that DOJ had obtained records from multiple outlets, the department said it “will not seek compulsory legal process in leak investigations to obtain source information from members of the news media doing their jobs.”

Advocates however, have pushed the department to seek legislation to codify the policy.
 
William "two tier justice" Barr


upload_2021-7-20_18-28-53.png

upload_2021-7-20_18-30-27.png


upload_2021-7-20_18-31-37.png

upload_2021-7-20_18-32-7.png



upload_2021-7-20_18-33-10.png

upload_2021-7-20_18-34-10.png


upload_2021-7-20_18-35-12.png


upload_2021-7-20_18-36-1.png

upload_2021-7-20_18-36-26.png

upload_2021-7-20_18-36-56.png
 
https://thehill.com/policy/national...l-trump-and-biden-efforts-on-reporter-records

Unsealed documents detail Trump and Biden efforts on reporter records

Newly unsealed court records show the Trump Justice Department fought to secretly obtain the records of journalists up until former Attorney General Bill Barr’s last days in office, while a judge who ordered the records published called the Biden administration's attempts to keep them sealed “puzzling.”

The Dec. 22 request for records of three journalists from The Washington Post was part of a string of leaked investigations initiated under the Trump administration. The investigations included seeking records from reporters from two additional outlets, two Democratic lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee, and even former White House counsel Don McGahn.


The files offer new details about the DOJ investigation, including how late into Barr’s tenure records were pursued, and how the agency suspected Congressional staff may be the source of information.

The articles targeted by investigators were referenced only by their dates, but likely include stories that Jared Kushner had discussed using Russian facilities for backchannel communications with the Kremlin and another stating that former Attorney General Jeff Session had discussed campaign matters with then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.

The filings also show the Biden administration was fighting as late as June, even after news broke they had seized records from Post reporters, to keep its initial application sealed, arguing it contains “non-public investigative and witness information.”

But a Tuesday order from magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui said the government has an obligation to release the information now that the leak investigation has closed without any charges.

“Let there be no mistake: the government has a duty to 'mak[e] public appropriately redacted documents’ after an investigation is closed,” Faruqui wrote, noting that it was the government’s responsibility to redact the documents in order to facilitate the release.

“The government’s anti-redaxer stance is puzzling. … The ‘administrative burden of doing its job is no escape hatch from completing this task,” he said.

He went on to reference two different Harrison Ford movies.

“A sealed matter is not generally, as the government persists in imagining, ‘nailed into a nondescript crate, stored deep in a sprawling, uncataloged warehouse,’” Faruqui wrote, referencing a case that quoted "Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark."

“Rather, it is merely frozen in carbonite, awaiting its eventual thawing,” he said, citing "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back."

In the days following news that DOJ had obtained records from multiple outlets, the department said it “will not seek compulsory legal process in leak investigations to obtain source information from members of the news media doing their jobs.”

Advocates however, have pushed the department to seek legislation to codify the policy.
Obama set the precedent.

So it is now quite normal for President's to spy on journalist.

https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-admin-spied-fox-news-reporter-james-rosen-134204299.html

Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen: Report

https://theweek.com/articles/464430/why-did-obama-administration-spy-associated-press

Why did the Obama administration spy on the Associated Press?
The Justice Department collected two months' worth of reporters' phone records

 
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

DOJ tells Supreme Court that subpoenas for Trump's finances are unconstitutional
The Department of Justice is arguing in filings to the Supreme Court that the multiple subpoenas for President Trump's financial records are unconstitutional.

The solicitor general's office is siding with the president in his appeal of lower court rulings upholding subpoenas issued by House committees and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

The Justice Department argued that the Constitution prohibits local law enforcement from investigating the president and that Congress must overcome high hurdles when seeking information from him.

"These cases involve the first attempts by congressional committees to demand the personal records of a sitting President of the United States," the Justice Department said in one of the filings, submitted Tuesday. "That use of their limited and implied investigatory powers poses a serious risk of harassing the President and distracting him from his constitutional duties."

The administration made a similar argument against the Manhattan DA's subpoena in a filing submitted Monday.

"State grand-jury subpoenas for a sitting President’s personal records pose serious risks to the independent functioning of the Office of the President," the department wrote. "State prosecutors could use such subpoenas to harass the President in retaliation for the President’s official policies. Such subpoenas could also subject the President to significant burdens, threatening to divert the President’s time and energy from his singularly important public duties."

In April of last year, the House Oversight and Reform Committee issued a subpoena for the president's personal financial records to his accounting firm, Mazars USA, and the House Intelligence and House Financial Services committees issued wide-ranging subpoenas for personal and business records to Deutsche Bank and Capital One.

The committees cited investigations into Russian interference in U.S. elections and money laundering.

That same month, Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan district attorney, issued a subpoena to Mazars for the tax returns and other financial records.

The D.C. and 2nd Circuit courts of appeals ruled last year that Trump's accounting firm and bank would have to comply with the subpoenas. Trump's personal legal team appealed the rulings, arguing that the president has broad immunity to subpoenas and even law enforcement investigation.

In the cases over the House subpoenas, the Justice Department argued that the committees failed to identify legitimate legislative needs to justify the demands for the highly personal information.

"Together, those documents encompass a constellation of transactions that would permit the committees to reconstruct in detail the President’s financial history with those institutions—including fund transfers, deposits, withdrawals, investments, loans, mortgages, and lines of credits," the Justice Department wrote.

"To be sure, congressional committees ordinarily have considerable latitude about which private transactions and events to examine," the department's filing added. "But committees investigating far-reaching public problems, such as money laundering, do not properly exercise that discretion by making the President the primary target of their inquiries."

Both cases will be argued before the Supreme Court on March 31.


get fucked, fat fuck

 
get fucked, fat fuck


"The American people deserve to know the facts of his troubling conflicts of interest and undermining of our security and democracy as president," Pelosi, the top Democrat in Congress, said in a statement.
 
Mueller prosecutor reacts to 'shocking' unredacted Barr memo on Trump obstruction
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/mueller-prosecutor-barr-memo-trump-obstruction

A top prosecutor for special counsel Robert Mueller called a Justice Department memo supporting Attorney General William Barr's decision not to prosecute former President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation a "shocking" document.

Andrew Weissmann, a former Justice Department official and FBI general counsel who was known as Mueller's "pitbull," offered his analysis on Wednesday after the left-leaning government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, secured the release of the unredacted memo in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. He drew attention to one "astounding" passage during an appearance on MSNBC after discussing the backstory of Barr's controversial handling of Mueller's report.

That passage appears to be: "Although the Special Counsel recognized the unfairness of levying an accusation against the President without bringing criminal charges, the Report's failure to take a position on the matters described therein might be read to imply such an accusation if the confidential report were released to the public. Therefore, we recommend that you examine the Report to determine whether prosecution would be appropriate given the evidence recounted in the Special Counsel's Report, the underlying law, and traditional principles of federal prosecution." In fact, that passage was already revealed in a redacted version of the memo released last year. The legal and factual analysis sections beneath it remained redacted until Wednesday.

"Bill Barr, we now know clearly from his memo, did not send it back to Mueller, who reported to him, because he knew exactly what the answer would be because it says in black and white that this memo could be read to conclude that the president committed obstruction," Weissmann said.


Mueller, in his report, said he could not establish a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. He also outlined 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice, including a desire by Trump to fire Mueller, but did not reach any conclusions on them. The special counsel said he “determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes” but that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Before releasing Mueller's report in April 2019, Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to establish Trump committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Justice Department officials had argued the nine-page Office of Legal Counsel memo, dated March 24, 2019, was redacted to protect internal discussions about making a decision about whether to prosecute, but a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with a lower-court judge who found Barr had already concluded Trump would not be charged with a crime.

Weissmann, who played an instrumental role in winning convictions against former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Rick Gates during the Russia investigation, later lamented how he believed the special counsel "could have done more." Since the special counsel investigation, Weissmann has periodically appeared on TV to comment on other Trump-related investigations.

He told MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace there was a "dead wrong" legal point made in the memo, among other problems.

"They say that the president essentially didn’t commit obstruction because there’s no precedent for finding that somebody commits obstruction unless they’re also guilty of the underlying crime for which they obstructed. That is legally wrong," Weissmann said.

"The final point is the memo really gets the Mueller report wrong because they seem to think that we found that there was no evidence of the underlying crime, meaning conspiracy with the Russians," he added. "That’s not what our report said. It said that there’s evidence. It’s just that we didn’t think there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. So the sort of upshot, Nicolle is, I can understand why the department has fought long and hard and not to have this see the light of day and it’s quite a shocking document."

The Russia investigation, which Trump derided as a "witch hunt," is now under review by special counsel John Durham. Trump thanked CREW for successfully suing to release the memo, highlighting a number of passages that he said indicated there was not sufficient evidence to charge him, and then alluded to the recent FBI raid of his Florida residence in a separate matter.

"CREW is devastated by these findings, that they worked so hard to 'expose,' but may now move on to the even more ridiculous Witch Hunt that has already caused a great Mar-a-Lago Red Wave with the voters of our Nation!" Trump said in a statement.

(Article includes document in a scribd window)
 
Back
Top