I’m not puzzled by the Trump Administration’s siccing its “Justice” Department on the Affordable Care Act. It makes perfect sense that Donald Trump is more interested in repealing a popular law nicknamed for the black man who insulted him than in protecting millions of Americans from losing health insurance. Donald Trump is that petty.
I am puzzled by the legal principle that would allow the nation’s top lawyer to fight in court to overturn one of the nation’s laws. The Attorney General’s principal duty to to “represent the United States in legal matters.” The defendant in the lawsuit in question is the United States. A.G. Barr’s statement for the plaintiffs in this case would be like if you were arrested for murder, you hired a lawyer, and your lawyer stood up in court and urged the court to find you guilty.
The Executive Branch appears to be misreading the Constitution. The Executive Branch is supposed to execute federal laws, as in carry them out, not execute them as in put them to death.
Of course, using federal resources to overturn a federal law in court and leave millions of Americans without health insurance may not be all bad. Maybe South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg, who is a huge fan of all things Trump (see also here, here, here, here….), will take a cue from AG Barr, abrogate his statutory duty to appear for the state and defend its laws, and tell the court that that guy suing the state over its impending ban on out-of-state contributions to ballot question committees is right: SDCL 12-27-18.2 unconstitutionally abridges First Amendment rights and should be repealed in its entirety.
Drumpf claims once the ACA is gone wingnuts will be known as the party of health care.
Barr wasn’t hired to defend law, he was hired to defend trump, big difference. Barr is not new to these shenanigans either, dude follows a road map that he used with Old Man Bush the senior. Same poop, different day.
“Back in 1992, the last time Bill Barr was U.S. attorney general, iconic New York Times writer William Safire referred to him as “Coverup-General Barr” because of his role in burying evidence of then-President George H.W. Bush’s involvement in “Iraqgate” and “Iron-Contra.”
General Barr has struck again — this time, in similar fashion, burying Mueller’s report and cherry-picking fragments of sentences from it to justify Trump’s behavior. In his letter, he notes that Robert Mueller “leaves it to the attorney general to decide whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” Salon March 26, 2019
In South Dakota, the trumpian attorney general is like a clean up dude at a convenience store, taking orders and stocking shelves. Waiting for someone to drop a twenty on the floor for some walking around money. Seriously, when I see a picture of this bozo, I want to ask him how fresh the dogs are on the turner. trumpian republicans in South Dakota know one thing though, if they get caught in something like another EB5, they better hope this dope has some serious backup, because this knucklehead will screw it up.
It’s so republican of them, to ensure that more people suffer and more people die. That’s what the GOP is “Grand” about, right?
A few years ago, Republicans agreed that the Attorney General had an obligation to defend the nation’s laws in court:
Rep. Smith was referring to the Obama Administration’s pivot away from defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
All this shows the GOP’s long-term movement to move the governance to Courts. You do not need a majority of citizens if you have moved the courts to a conservative stance. By nominating and promoting conservative justices, the GOP may no not worry about what pesky voters want; they can now legislate through judicial activism.
Focusing on the AG’s is the distraction, the issue is the judges – the one who are being lined up to strike down anything not in the GOP playbook.
Note: An Attorney General is not referred to as “General So-and-So.” “General” in this sense is an adjective, as in he’s the “general attorney” for the state. It is not a military rank. There is no Attorney Colonel or Attorney Admiral. This nonsense started during the Bush II administration with referring to John Ashcroft as “General Ashcroft” to make him sound more impressive and tickle the power-worshipping lizard brain in authoritarian conservatives.
Thanks Chris S. for the reminder of Ashcroft and how both you and o bring into the conversation all the players and how we have given the court governance. Notice all the players from this cluster f***.
“A top Justice Department official thought President Bush’s no-warrant wiretapping program was so questionable that he refused for a time to reauthorize it, leading to a standoff with White House officials at the bedside of the ailing attorney general, a Senate panel was told Tuesday.
Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he refused to recertify the program because Attorney General John Ashcroft had reservations about its legality just before falling ill with pancreatitis in March 2004.
The White House, Comey said, recertified the program without the Justice Department’s signoff, allowing it to operate for about three weeks without concurrence on whether it was legal. Comey, Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and other Justice Department officials at one point considered resigning, Comey said.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gonzales-pushed-ailing-ashcroft-on-spying/
It is of little wonder then, the complete corruption of Bill Barr and his 4 page report saying there was no there there for trump. We are not a country of law and order, we are a country that bends the rules of law and order to suit the corruption.
AG Barr (short for embarrassment) is pro endless executive power and anti-Roe v Wade.
While the AG is appointed to defend U.S. laws, he or she is ethically prohibited from defending a law that he or she concludes does not have any non-frivolous arguments that support the law because it is obviously unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law.
If there are any non-frivolous arguments that support the authority of the government to enforce the law, then the AG (or any lawyer for that matter) would normally have the ethical duty to make the best, in his or her judgment, non-frivolous argument or arguments defending law on behalf of his client, which is the USA, not the President or the Republican majority. It matters not whether the AG believes the law to be a bad policy decision or disagrees with it for any other reason.
That said, it seems quite a challenge to find a credible argument that Barr’s choice in this situation is ethically appropriate. While attacking the law is a political tool often used by Republicans, any argument that there are no non-frivolous defenses of the law seems a stretch.
Let’s see: an Attorney General that won’t do his job, a preznit that can’t and a Congress that is unwilling to do theirs. Hmmmm, sound like a problem?
Buckobear’s one sentence synopsis seems just about right, except I’d change the word “Congress” to “Senate.” Sound okay, Buckobear?
McCTurtle is doing his job- he is preventing the release of the Mueller report. One might get the idea the report doesn’t exonerate the un-exoneratable one as the AG has declared.
bcb, as a former or acting lawyer, what is the legal definition of collusion in layman’s terms, if you would be so kind as to enlighten a fool from iowa?
It appears to me, on the surface, all them campaign officials and family members having meetings with Russian agents has to have some legal terminology. Junior met agents with the express purpose of getting dirt on HRC during the campaign. What am I missing?
Sally Yates was fired by Drumpf for refusing to defend total muslim ban on immigration which a number of courts declared unconstitutional.
To this administration, the whole purpose of the DOJ is to protect anything DJT wants. Period.
And the Senate GOP will go along with this 150%.
We are screwed, folks. We are well and truly screwed.
mfi, to the best of my knowledge “collusion:” is not a legal term, thus it wouldn’t have a legal definition in either technical or layman’s terms.
The closest legal term is “conspiracy” and it is defined rather broadly in the law as an agreement, express or implied, with another person or persons to commit a crime.
In most cases (excluding most federal drug conspiracies) the required elements of legal conspiracy include proof of the agreement along with proof of an overt act in furtherance of the object (intended crime) of the conspiracy.
Thus, in the cases you mention if “getting dirt” on HRC constituted a criminal act and a grand jury found that there was credible evidence of an agreement to get this dirt along with some overt act aimed at getting the dirt, then it could have found probable cause for an indictment charging a conspiracy.
Incidently, a grand jury is what our Constitution has established to protect someone from an improper prosecution. Once a prosecutor decides to prosecute an alleged crime, he or she must seek a grand jury indictment by presenting evidence (usually only inculpatory evidence as there is no requirement to let a grand jury hear any exculpatory evidence) to support the request. And I believe the grand jury can subpoena any additional evidence it desires.
In this case, according to Barr’s letter, it appears Mueller did not seek any further indictments for conspiracy or obstruction. Barr claimed that for some unexplained reason Mueller deferred on the obstruction question even though the evidence did not exonerate Trump, and Barr stated, in effect, that he would not seek an indictment.
Absent a grand jury indictment, Trump cannot not be charged with the crime of obstruction. I saw no reference to grand jury findings in AG Barr’s letter, nor any reference to either inculpatory or exculpatory evidence presented by Mueller to the grand jury.
Impeachment proceedings seem to be a different procedure in which the House takes the place of the grand jury with all the power that a grand jury would have to subpoena witnesses, documents and other evidence, including presumably, all evidence gathered by Mueller.
The above is my understanding of the nature of proceedings. I invite anyone with more knowledge than I to or offer corrections or different views.
Thanks a bunch, bcb. Mueller’s grand jury is still up and running. Might be sour grapes or maybe just my personal dislike for all things wingnutty, but it seems the criminal bar gets lowered for Dem Presidents and then jacked sky high so no right wing scuzz will ever get what they deserve.
bear
I was surprised to learn this evening from the CNN website that Mueller’s grand jury is still seated and that former presidential advisor Hope Hicks is the next to be indicted.
Also, how Mueller handed off the investigation to Barr was confusing to me. As you might recall, the Ken Starr 450 page investigation of a consensual adult blowjob involving Clinton was handed down to congress and was immediately made public with all the salacious details intact. The attorney general was not involved in the process, that I recall.
Trump has said he wants the Mueller report made public, but this is same guy that has promised to release his tax returns and lied about it, so there is no reason to believe him on this. Trump can hide behind McConnell and Graham’s adamant refusal to let Americans see what they paid for.
Roger, it appears that the federal regulations required Special Counsel to report to the AG, See 28 C.F.R. 600.8(b) and (c), and the AG to report to Congress 28 C.F.R. 600.9.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2016-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2016-title28-vol2-part600.pdf
I am not sure if these regs were in effect during the Clinton case and am not very familiar with what exactly happened in that case.
Starr was chArged with investigating Whitewater only.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/whitewater.htm?noredirect=on
This is a longer, fascinating read. I have not finished it yet.
Obama’s attorney general didn’t defend the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Remember that one?
I think special cousel law implemented after ken starr differed, and now requires the report go to the USAG. Of course in there blowjob impeachment it is likely the real purpose of that report was to inflict maximum political damage because the white water investigation that spiraled out of control; in-fact as a “death spiral” [(C) mike rounds, john thune :)]
In my continuing battle with deactivated autocorrect, someone other than me decided their is spelled there. It took another 5 minutes just to close the bracket above, after thune. Sigh
Leslie- Starr abused the independent counsel act (by design) so even Dems voted to take it off the books and wingnut pols could abuse the laws all they wanted. Wingnuts complained Dems used it to harass wingnut pols.
I had someone tell me that Barr had the right, nay, the duty, to act on his belief of a law’s unconstitutionality. Allow me to share with you the definition of the United States Attorney General’s job description according to justice.gov:
“The mission of the Office of the Attorney General is to supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals Service, which are all within the Department of Justice.
The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:
Represent the United States in legal matters.
Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.”
https://www.justice.gov/jmd/organization-mission-and-functions-manual-attorney-general?fbclid=IwAR3zecYOyNJMHRD5XBFeQZPWXPArRlKcOUqgn36t0ZjBlmhVRhktJA90zhQ
Nowhere does it say that he gets to act upon his belief as to what is or is not unconstitutional. Decisions about the constitutionality of a law is SCOTUS’ job. So it is AG Barr’s job to arrange for legal representation of the United States in any lawsuit against it, even if it is a lawsuit against a law that most Republicans want abolished.
mfi and Roger, I had another thought about Barr’s report and conclusions about Mueller’s report in addition to the “probable cause” grand jury discussion.
Prosecutors also have to make a judgment about the chances of succeeding at trial where the standard for a conviction is raised to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Whether the proof meets that standard is normally a question for the finder of fact, typically a jury in criminal cases. The exception to that rule is where the evidence in favor of conviction is so sparse that no reasonable jury (or finder of fact) could find that it meets the stringent reasonable doubt threshold. In such case either the trial judge or an appellant court must direct a verdict of acquittal.
Barr’s letter stated
The only rational that would support such a conclusion is to apply the test that a trial judge or appellant court would apply to determine whether the evidence satisfies the constitutionally required proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Interestingly, that test is described by virtually all federal and state courts as:
Appellate Reversal for Insufficient Evidence In Criminal Cases: The Interaction of the Proof and the Jury Charge, 16 Am. J. Crim. L. 161, at 163 (1988).
https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=facscholar
This standard of review is especially interesting since Barr’s report stated that the evidence developed from Mueller’s investigation did not exonerate Trump because there was evidence supporting a finding of criminal obstruction.
Typically courts reviewing whether there is sufficient evidence usually rely upon all of the the prosecution’s evidence, whether or not it is disputed or contradicted by other evidence. But they will only consider undisputed or uncontradicted excupatory defense evidence. They will not weigh the credibility of any evidence except in extraordinarily narrow circumstances (e.g. if a jury found that the sun rose in the west). Under this standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, Barr’s conclusion seems seems even more obviously political rather than legally sound.
Thanks so much BCB. I feel like you give me solid ground to stand on as I try to understand what is going on.
I think a reasonable following of Barr’s trail to his current position, coupled with your explanation, leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is a great deal the president and GOP are desperate to keep hidden in the Mueller Report.
My feeling is that the report will come out. For the sake of the success of the USA as a functional democratic nation, it must be prior to November, 2020.
I would also say that if Frantic Flaccid Fool knew absolutely nothing of what all his criminal staff, pals, employees and cohorts were doing, (and I don’t believe that for one picosecond), then he is the stupidest, densest, most ignorant ass ever. Clearly he is unfit to be president.
Clinton’s AG appointed Robert Fiske to oversee whitewater probe because Ind Counsel statute ran out. Statute was later renewed and Starr was appointed by both North Carolina Senators Helms and Faircloth and the third was a wingnut judge named David Sentelle. Those three decided Fiske wasn’t a good enough wingnut and didn’t pursue Clinton hard enough to suit them.
Starr was on the job for most of 5 years. Part time at first because his main job was protecting big tobacco from law suits in court. He quit later to become dean at Stanford Law and then unresigned to be Clinton’s nemesis again.
Thx MFI, this is oldand forgotten history, but important.
I have not and will never forget the hatchet job on Clinton perpetrated by out of control right wing nut jobs.
I have not and will not forget there isn’t a crime a wingnut could commit that would motivate wingnuts in congress to file charges and impeach that wingnut.
Mandan, North Dakota…so it begins with our neighbor. When we are armed to the teeth, we tend to shoot them out.
“MANDAN, N.D. (AP) — Four people were found dead Monday in what police called a “multiple homicide” at a North Dakota property-management business.
The bodies of three men and a woman were discovered inside RJR Maintenance and Management in Mandan, a city of about 22,000 just across the Missouri River west of Bismarck, Police Chief Jason Ziegler said. The victims weren’t immediately identified and police didn’t say how they died.”