Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
AG William Barr: Justice Warrior
William Barr is undermining the actions and goals of the Progressives, and he knows exactly what he’s doing—and I hope he is loving every minute of it. He knew that accepting the job of Attorney General would be even more demanding than his stint as AG under President George H.W. Bush. Even a Justice Department official under Barr wondered why Barr would take the job:
The first reaction I had was, ‘Why in the world would Bill do this?’ said Timothy Flanigan, a top Justice Department official under Mr. Barr. ‘He’s doing this out of a sense of duty and patriotism. He probably sees this as, he really is the one person on the horizon who can step in with immediate credibility to the department and begin to restore the internal and external confidence.’
This observation contradicts the assumptions that opponents to Trump made: that Barr’s unsolicited 20-page memo he sent to President Trump regarding Robert Mueller’s investigation was a way to secure the AG job. Given the attacks that Trump underwent prior to his inviting Barr to be AG, William Barr knew that the Progressives would come after him, no matter what he did.
They haven’t disappointed.
William Barr has not only exceeded conservatives expectations of him, but he has surpassed them. He is an honest and fearless man, transparent about his support not just of President Trump but of the role of the Executive in our federal government. I’d like to describe what a boon his selection has been not just to this President, or to the role of Attorney General, but also to the citizens of the United States.
AG Barr was determined to protect the Executive and the Constitution by following through on the intent of the Founders. In his speech at the Federalist Society in 2019, he directly addressed the undermining of the President’s role by the Legislature and the Judiciary:
The first is the notion that politics in a free republic is all about the Legislative and Judicial branches protecting liberty by imposing restrictions on the Executive. The premise is that the greatest danger of government becoming oppressive arises from the prospect of Executive excess. So, there is a knee-jerk tendency to see the Legislative and Judicial branches as the good guys protecting society from a rapacious would-be autocrat.
The second contemporary way of thinking that operates against the Executive is a notion that the Constitution does not sharply allocate powers among the three branches, but rather that the branches, especially the political branches, ‘share’ powers. The idea at work here is that, because two branches both have a role to play in a particular area, we should see them as sharing power in that area and, it is not such a big deal if one branch expands its role within that sphere at the expense of the other.
AG Barr’s commitment to the Executive role was well known before he gave this speech. The media and the Left used his commitment to accuse him of being the President’s lackey. One media type called him the President’s stooge. Yet he is determined to push back on the efforts to impinge on Executive branch powers.
AG Barr emphasizes the need for religion and morality in this country. In his speech at Notre Dame, Barr emphasized the role of religion and its importance to this country:
Why is religion a public good? Because, says Barr, it ‘trains people to want what is good.’ It helps to frame a society’s moral culture and instills moral discipline. No secular creed has emerged that can do what religion does, he says. And by casting religion out, we are dismantling the foundation of our public morality.
‘What we call ‘values’ today are nothing more than mere sentimentality, drawing on the vapor trails of Christianity,’ says the AG.
Finally, he exhorts lawyers to fight for religious liberty in the public square. He concludes with:
‘I can assure you that as long as I am Attorney General, the Department of Justice will be at the forefront of this effort, ready to fight for the most cherished of all our American liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.’
Progressives are outraged at AG Barr’s support of religion and insist that his efforts are a violation of the separation of church and state.
AG Barr illustrates the efforts by the media and the Left to undermine this country. In the same Federalist Society speech, the opposition was named:
Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called ‘The Resistance,’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, ‘resistance’ is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the ‘loyal opposition,’ as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government. [italics are mine]
These actions by the Left were clearly meant to destroy not only Trump, but to damage the power of the Presidency and to destroy the country, as part of the Progressive agenda, and Barr did not mince words in attacking their efforts.
AG Barr offers objective clarification on the implications of the IG Report. The media upon release of the report chose to spin the results as a way to support and justify the efforts of the FBI. Barr was not going to let the public be misled about the conclusions that were drawn:
The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration. In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source. The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory. While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.
The reasons I find AG Barr’s statements so admirable include, but are not limited to, these observations:
- He does not worry about how others will react to his words; he makes comments that are accurate and isn’t concerned about offending anyone.
- He tackles topics that people avoid, such as religion, morality, misconduct in operations, the importance of the Executive’s role, and doesn’t couch his opinion in vague allusions.
- He is not afraid to push back when people do question his choice of words, such as his labeling FBI activities as “spying.”
- He doesn’t hesitate to speak up when he feels that the public may need clarification of important decisions that are related to the DOJ.
Finally, Eric Holder, former Attorney General under Barack Obama, couldn’t resist offering his critique of AG Barr. He began by writing:
As a former U.S. attorney general, I am reluctant to publicly criticize my successors. I respect the office and understand just how tough the job can be.
But recently, Attorney General William P. Barr has made a series of public statements and taken actions that are so plainly ideological, so nakedly partisan and so deeply inappropriate for America’s chief law enforcement official that they demand a response from someone who held the same office.
But he showed his true colors in this closing remark:
The American people deserve an attorney general who serves their interests, leads the Justice Department with integrity and can be entrusted to pursue the facts and the law, even — and especially — when they are politically inconvenient and inconsistent with the personal interests of the president who appointed him. William Barr has proved he is incapable of serving as such an attorney general. He is unfit to lead the Justice Department.
That, from Eric Holder, who couldn’t recognize the irony in his writing and how he betrayed his role as Attorney General as well as the American people.
This country is blessed to have Attorney General William Barr fighting for us and for this country through this unprecedented time. May he be strengthened by his commitment to truth and justice.
My thanks to @jessemcvay and his post for inspiring this one.
Published in Politics
I think Barr has a little Trump in him. He sees his country being changed into something unrecognizable and wants to return it to normalcy, regardless of the personal consequences. I wish we had more on our side like him. I get tired of all the handwringers more concerned about Trump’s tweets than the rhetoric coming from the Democrat camp.
Heck, I wish we had more Democrats who want a return to normalcy, a normalcy which means they have to make sound arguments for change instead of ramming it down people’s throats, backed up by activist judges.
Personally, I believe some Democrat voters figured this out in 2016, and more will in 2020 . . .
What a contrast to the Bill Kristol crowd.
I think you are spot-on here, @stad. Underneath some of his reactions, I detect his disdain, even amusement, for what people say about him and Trump. The advantage he has over Trump is his composure and his ability to not take it personally. What a guy!
I think Trump doesn’t personally care what people say about him. However, he cares about what his voters think, so he attacks the MSM and others who lie about him, his policies, or who go after his family. Barr probably doesn’t respond to attacks because although he doesn’t care like Trump, he’s not an elected official.
I think he does take some of it personally. But we don’t need to argue about it. ;-)
Thanks for the attribution. Very gracious.
Sharyl Attkisson’s article on AG Barr and his 24 points is must read …
https://www.theepochtimes.com/william-barr-has-suddenly-become-chatty-and-hes-provided-quite-an-information-dump_3171471.html
Thanks for the link. Great insight into what to expect next from Barr/Durham and when.
Thanks so much, @columbo! This provides an excellent collection of the facts, and to see it all in one place is especially damning! I still can’t help wondering if the FISA judges, or any one of them, knew what was going on.
I was just thinking that although many of us are impatient to get the results of the Durham investigation, Barr has repeatedly said that these things take time. They want all their t’s crossed and i’s dotted to be sure that any indictments stick. Then we can look at the rush to impeachment. Of course, we know the Democrats weren’t concerned with being thorough or fair, were they?
Part of that impatience is born of sad experience: Would the Democrats have won the House if Mueller had released his report by September 2018? Of what value will Durham’s findings be in December 2020 if a Democrat wins the White House?
Whatever Durham comes up with, keep in mind that very few people are likely going to jail and certainly not in a time frame relevant to November 2020. What we really need is for there to be a good understanding available to the American people about who did what to whom from December 2015-April 2019. I say “available” because I know that there will be many people who will not accept reality no matter what it is. But there needs to be enough detail so that (assuming Trump is re-elected) effective action can be taken to deal with the misbehavior and put some spine in some Republicans for the unpleasant task of civic hygiene.
I suppose we could make a distinction between not caring about personal attacks such as “Orange Man Bad” or “He’s crazy”, but he does care about attacks on reputation on things like “I can make a better deal” or “He lied about the phone call”.
Even so, those last two relate to the job he’s doing, which is important to his supporters.
Or knows now. Where are these guys? Does judicial temperment mean they can’t go public with comments? Leftist judges do. Why haven’t we heard from them? Have they been interviewed?
I agree. And the Repubs need to do everything they can to be sure that detail gets out accurately, since the Dems will try to spin it to their liking. Then again, if they do, I suspect Barr and Durham will set them straight!
Here’s what I said in a comment on @jessemcvay‘s post:
‘Barr’s position with respect to justice and ‘rule of law’ is synonymous with Trump’s for governing the country, namely a view that ‘there is something terribly wrong and somebody has to do something to fix it’’.
And this I get from an answer Trump gave a reporter back in 2016 when asked why he was running for POTUS. That was just about when I went all in for Trump.
I hope that Barr can find what Lawfare people have done that is illegal, it must be there given the kind of people who are there.
I would have loved to sit in on their initial discussions about the job. I suspect that Barr (in his direct style) told Trump that he wanted to take on this fight and they would work in concert to get the work done. Thanks, @bobthompson.
Yes. But recognize Trump’s role is to move the politics back to an appropriate principled path for America and Barr’s is to rid the Justice Department and the Intelligence Agencies of what probably is criminal abuse of investigative and law enforcement activities. The two things are connected and I thing Lawfare is an intersection point.
I’d not seen that term before so I looked it up. If anyone is unfamiliar with it–
LawfareLawfare is a form of war consisting of the use of the legal system against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, tying up their time or winning a public relations victory. The term is a portmanteau of the words law and warfare. Love it.
I think the Attorney General is the only possible way to address this problem, that is why it was so critical for the progressives to neutralize Jeff Sessions and appoint Robert Mueller. The villains allowed William Barr to be confirmed and that was a grave mistake for them. The villains are not done yet.
Actually, he’s been a disgrace since the Clinton administration. Confirmation by the Senate in 2009 was an early sign of just how un-serious modern Progressives had become.
Yeah, right. Ugh.
I think it is short a “, not”
Yes to all. And. Then there are the “Easter eggs,” the hidden treasures we only stumble across, like the recent initiative to reform the fundamental law underpinning the grotesque expansion of the administrative state into a de facto, unconstitutional, fourth branch of government. That will require legislation, but the Barr DOJ is pushing back inside the executive branch and in court against the outrageous grants of power from other branches to unaccountable bureaucrats.
Have any of the Never Trump-types criticized Bill Barr yet?
It took Mitch McConnell about two months to get him confirmed. It should have been with an immediate voice vote essentially as he had already been confirmed once. Only three Democrats supported his nomination in 2018. In 1991, he was approved unanimously — in a voice vote.
Just a quick search brought up this:https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1110189369137213442. I suspect if I spent a little more time there would be plenty of others. You don’t defend something about Trump without drawing fire from vocal NTs.
The things Barr and Durham are working on have very little connection to anything Trump.