Attorney General Barr Opens Criminal Investigation of his DOJ Concerning its Russia Investigation Remember, William Barr was not the Attorney General when the Russian Investigation ended. Does he have nothing to lose or everything?
BY Jeff Koopersmith, Editor Emeritus
WASHINGTON DC – MONDAY 28 OCTOBER 2019 — The question about timing and goal is rampant in Washington today. Let be begin by adding that Attorney General William Barr had a most outstanding reputation from right to left and up and down throughout his career. In fact, most insiders under Capitol Dome wondered, at that time, why Barr not only took the job that Trump offered after barbecuing former Senator Jeff Sessions. Barr also engaged in erstwhile fertilization of his chance to be through nearly suppliant means, not only with his personal writing to the President but also through various other conduits sure to alert Trump that Bill Barr was eager and obtainable.
Nothing is criminally wrong with Barr’s keen and available posture just after the A.G. position came vacant. It is what occurred very early after he became the most powerful law enforcement official on Earth. He almost immediately began what seems a never-ending battle to questionably defend the President no matter what the issue, many respected lawyers whispered. I must agree in part, yet thought it was at least possible that Barr too eagerly accepted the Attorney Generalship so as to outrun Trump by playing Trump’s own game more quickly. This opinion seemed to be more acceptable, though just as devious a plan of action.
This week it seems that the General will begin investigating his own Department and its employees today and prior to seeing if any engaged in what he views as potential “spying” or a Witch Hunt even more shocking than that which Trump constantly drums up almost every time he speaks. I stand by my own extraordinary bordering opinion, but somehow, think the murmurers under the Dome – Democrat, and Republican were correct.
Barr is also going to make his investigation of himself and prior associates a Big Magilla by sanctifying a Grand Jury to listen to his version of the facts even if he is not, in person, giving them. This development leaves Trump crowing like a 65-pound cockerel. A Grand Jury does not suffer from allowing instant defenses to whatever abuses by whoever that the Department of Justice may attack. However, in ironic fairness, Barr’s unexplainable thinking is a clean appeal that more aggressive Republicans might make; That dejected President Trump does not have the ability to defend himself before what they believe are his accusers.
These include whistleblowers, or to defend himself during so-called “Secret Meetings” or “Star Chambers” touted by right-wing Congressmen now agape and frightened at Trumps’ more likely official charge that the President has bribed or extorted the President of Ukraine for more than $400 million the United States allocated to Ukraine to defend against Russian incursions into Ukraine.
First, the behind-closed-door meetings that are taking testimony from key people in the Ukraine Affair are not only Democrats. While the Chairman is a Democrat, the Republicans also have many seats in all these Committees. So, what is the purpose of following tween-like Rep. Gaetz in a colossally silly “Storming” the locked door meeting last week, only to make it look more idiotic later by eating pizza lunches in the Hall after being kicked out of the room?
If the President and his lawyer were permitted to sit in these meetings, how then would the Chairs of committees investigating other alleged misdeeds in addition to the Russian tomfoolery already well-presented by The Special Counsel earlier this year.
Would witnesses testify give nothing less than honest answers about what appears to be the Crime of All History committed by a President of the United States?
Should his alleged mischief testified to, under oath, by more than 30 witnesses present or involved during this hijinks be muffled?
After all, even the Special Counsel in the prior Russian Affair could not or would not suggest the President should be found guilty of anything at the close of his own investigative mission, save for a few hints at obstruction of justice which many Americans have already forgotten.
The New York Times reported last week that that Justice Department currently reviewing an ongoing investigation regarding the role that President Trump or his Campaign team was somehow involved in – now-called the “Russia Investigation” which was, up until today, an Administrative Review of interest to Attorney General Bill Barr after said Special Counsel review was closed.
The Attorney General now will open a Criminal Investigation regarding how the investigation re Russia providing help to the Trump campaign over the internet and elsewise during the Trump vs. Clinton race for the White House in 2016.
The original look at that situation did find that Russians or Russia herself, via her government, meddled with the American Presidential election, and many believe that other evidence may show that the Trump Campaign, in fact, may have asked for such help, or even paid for it by using funds from the Trump Campaign or provided by Mr. Trump himself — although there is little or no proof that t this time. Yet several people close to Trump Campaign and the President are now in prison for what are said to be unrelated crimes exposed upon the Special Counsel’s investigation, indictment, and trials.
Some 250 trips to Russia or close by, between Trump Campaign executives and Russians, have been at least reported between 2014 and 2016 to underscore this belief, according to sources. That such activity was definitely going on and approved by the campaign -with or without the President’s knowledge?
While the White House, and the President, personally, have challenged the findings of the original investigation conducted by the Special Counsel the contemporary activity by several House of Representatives Committees’ is now deeply involved in several other investigations surrounding a potential move by the House of Representatives to Impeach the President, which should fail a Senate vote to proceed, or magically pass with what would become a type of trial aimed at removing President Trump from office.
The President, during the past two weeks, has ferociously attacked Democrat-led work on such projects as a “Hoax,” and other negative labels since the investigations now ongoing are not yet voted upon by the Full House leading to would be an official Impeachment.
Right now wide focus is on a suspicion of Extortion or Blackmail of the President of Ukraine, and are being held largely in Committees that have subpoenaed several very highly placed members of the Trump Administration and others having knowledge of an alleged move by the President to withhold more than $400 million or more in military and other aid to Ukraine.
The proof would be that President Trump or his underlings, with his knowledge, forced the President of Ukraine to agree to launch investigations of the current leader for the Democrat nomination for President in 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden.
These investigations, to have been by Ukraine, would have included Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who Trump alleges used the Vice Presidents’ powerful shadow to obtain illicit gains which have really only been sprinkle-described and involve supposed financial grabs by Hunter Biden as an officer or Director of a Ukraine Corporation with millions in investments as well as Hunter’s $600 thousand-dollar a year, or more, salary – again from the same Ukraine corporation. (President Trump has also indicated that the same may have occurred in China)
The evidence that such may be true lies in several contacts, some by President Trump himself, made to the leadership of the Ukraine government and other high Ukrainian officials.
It appears that it is true that the $400 million in Congressionally approved funds for military and other use mostly against Russian incursion, was withheld.
Thus, the question is whether this was done under promises made by President Trump, more than one Administration Official, and the President’s private attorney Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York City.
Giuliani was allegedly pushing a quid pro quo – that nearly a half-billion dollars would not appear in the Ukraine Treasury until the new Ukraine President (and professional comedian) would blatantly begin an investigation of Joe Biden and his Issue – for alleged crimes.
These Congressional hearings at which highly placed officials and others are heard. THe are closed to the public as they involve not only potential wrongdoing by the Trump White House, but also United States’ relations with Russia and its allies.
This closed-door practice is absolutely standard when such testimony by people of interest to Congress are heard and questioned in sometimes very long meetings, which could endanger national security.
Nevertheless, the Republicans – as word leaches from under the locked and guarded doors of the hearing rooms about some parts of the interviews and testimony from witnesses both written and oral. The tapes and transcriptions of these hearings have only been released in part thus far, yet also accompanied by the printed introductory remarks made by the men and women of interest made as opening remarks at the start of each hearing interview.
However, the idea that such is unusual, sly, crafty, or “shitty,” as described by Trump supporters, is ridiculous. The formal Impeachment process has not even begun yet, and may never commence.
The Electoral College – under the Constitution – did have the legal right to name Donald Trump for a variety of reasons, none of which have been shared publicly.
The Electoral College was embedded in the Constitution and other federal laws to make sure that scallywags and incompetents could not become the U.S. President only by votes alone, and thus, the election is weighed in a variety of methods by the Electoral College.
This is known comically among Ivy League graduates as “The masses are asses rule.”
The White House had labeled the work as a waste of time and a method to deny President Trump his rightful Presidency, by election – which is guaranteed under the Constitution and although the President received millions fewer votes than former Secretary of State Clinton.
President George W. Bush, in 2000, was, perchance. seemingly behind in votes in his race against former Vice President Al Gore, yet Bush also won the Presidency then by a decision of the Supreme Court based on various issues involving votes counted in Florida which the Democrats and Al Gore sued about, but which the Supreme Court ruled disallowing a third vote count – thus throwing the Presidency to Mr. Bush. SEE BELOW (1)
(1) When the election returns were tallied on 7 November, Bush had won 29 states, including Florida. The closeness of the Florida outcome led to a recount. The initial recount also went to Bush, but the outcome was tied up in lower courts for a month until eventually reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. On 9 December, in the controversial Bush v. Gore ruling, the Court reversed a Florida Supreme Court decision that had ordered a third count, and stopped an ordered statewide hand recount based on the argument that the use of different standards among Florida’s counties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The machine recount showed that Bush had won the Florida vote by a margin of 537 votes out of six million cast. Although he had received 543,895 fewer individual nationwide votes than Gore, Bush won the election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266 (Gore’s statewide victories had electoral votes tallying 267; however, one of Gore’s pledged electors abstained, rendering the official tally at 266). Bush was the first person to win an American presidential election with fewer popular votes than another candidate since Benjamin Harrison in 1888.
So, this is where matters stand as of today. There are no conclusions to offer as yet.
However, I can say that circumstances are so absurd today that the President’s lawyers are now telling a Federal Appeals Court that the President “could not be indicted or arrested while in office” – even for shooting dead someone on New York City’s Fifth Avenue, in front of Trump Tower.