Criminal Justice

Bill Barr Knew He Would Be a Hatchet Man for Trump

Barr's big complaint is that the president is so overt with the sleazy pressure.

|

Let's take a moment to spare some pity for Bill Barr. Being the U.S. Attorney General can be a tough gig. It's a job held at the pleasure of the president, though also attached to a largely unrealistic expectation that the officeholder will act independently. Historically, it's been a hatchet-man position, doing dirty work through the institutions of the ever-expanding Justice Department on behalf of White House paranoia and prejudices. It's gotta be hard enough to maintain your self-respect in a position like that without your boss sending you instructions in front of the world via social media.

Only spare a little pity, though. Barr—a loyalist to the president, as anybody in that powerful cabinet position must be—stepped into this situation with his eyes open.

Now, however, Barr complains that President Donald Trump's off-the-cuff pronouncements and tweets "make it impossible for me to do my job." He told ABC News last week that "it's time [for Trump] to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases."

Barr's latest complaint comes after the department went against federal prosecutors' recommendation of a stiff 87 to 108 months in prison for Trump friend and adviser Roger Stone, who was convicted for obstructing a congressional investigation, lying to a congressional committee, and witness tampering.

In and of itself, the sentencing reduction was perfectly justifiable. "A prison sentence of seven to nine years is disproportionate given the nature and consequences of Stone's crimes," as Reason's Jacob Sullum noted. "I can see why people thought this was an excessive sentence," chimed in CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Yet Trump's very public bitching and moaning about the original recommendation complicates the plot.

"This is a horrible and very unfair situation," the president tweeted, in what looks like a campaign of overt arm-twisting on behalf of a crony. "The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!"

Just hours later, the Justice Department moved to recommend a lesser sentence for Stone, giving every impression of scurrying forth to do the president's bidding. The four prosecutors on the case promptly quit, with one entirely leaving the Justice Department.

For the record, Barr said that President Trump "has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case."

"This doesn't mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!" the president responded, in what looks like an effort to further bend his beleaguered top cop over a barrel.

Presidents have frequently deployed their attorneys general for sleazy effect; Trump just does it more publicly.

Thomas Watt Gregory, President Woodrow Wilson's first attorney general, oversaw oppressive attempts to suppress anti-war sentiment and political dissent. He approved the creation of the pro-Wilson American Protective League to spy on and brutalize Americans who disagreed with the Wilson administration. To make sure there was no doubt about who was behind the snooping and beating, Gregory authorized the group to advertise itself as "Organized with the Approval and Operating under the Direction of the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Investigation."

Homer Cummings, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first attorney general, authored a court-packing plan that would have allowed the president to stuff the Supreme Court with allies who would approve his blatantly unconstitutional economic legislation.

John Mitchell, who served as attorney general under President Richard Nixon, went to prison for his role in the burglary of the Democratic Party's national headquarters at the Watergate Hotel—but not before he had his own wife kidnapped and drugged to keep the secret. That might have been a bit much even for some of the other creatures who aspire to high office; Mitchell's successors, Richard G. Kleindienst and Elliot Richardson, resigned rather than obey the increasingly erratic Nixon's orders.

Barr finds his job rendered "impossible" by Trump's tweets and has (so we're told) been complaining about them for "weeks." But just what did he think was going to happen when he took a hatchet-man job working for a guy who is completely incapable of handing off the hatchet without first publicly brandishing it and threatening to use it against passersby?

Barr can't claim he was unaware of what to expect from the job—this is his second shot as America's top prosecutor, after serving as attorney general under President George H. W. Bush from 1991-1993. Before that, he put in years as an assistant attorney general, as a legal policy adviser for the Reagan White House and, while attending grad school and law school, at the CIA.

In 1992, Barr was accused of helping to conceal evidence of illegal arms sales to Iran. "Coverup-General" was columnist William Safire's nickname for Barr as a result.

A babe in the government woods Barr is not.

Ironically, in light of the current controversy, one highlight of Barr's first stint as attorney general was the release of a report calling for building and filling more prisons. The report argued that "we are incarcerating too few criminals, and the public is suffering as a result." (Stone must be grateful that Barr apparently mellowed with time.)

Barr not only knew the ins and outs of the attorney general job, he knew what to expect of his boss. Long before Trump brought him onto the team, Barr defended the president's conduct in office, including a high-profile endorsement of the firing of Sally Yates and similar support given to the president's loud calls for investigating his defeated 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.

"There is nothing inherently wrong about a president calling for an investigation," Barr said in 2017.

If Barr had no problem with a president fingering who he wants the Justice Department to roughly handle, he can't be surprised that the same president might publicly name those he wants gently treated.

Barr took the job knowing that, like his predecessors, he would be a hatchet man. Apparently, his big complaint is that he'd like the unfortunate nature of his role to be a little less overt.

Advertisement

NEXT: Is Bloomberg vs. Sanders (vs. Trump) the 2020 Nightmare Scenario?

Criminal Justice Trump Administration William Barr Attorney General Donald Trump Department of Justice Corruption Law enforcement

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

265 responses to “Bill Barr Knew He Would Be a Hatchet Man for Trump

  1. “Homer Cummings, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first attorney general, authored a court-packing plan that would have allowed the president to stuff the Supreme Court with allies who would approve his blatantly unconstitutional economic legislation.”

    Since Congress has the power to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court, there was nothing illegal about developing a proposal to do so. Whether it was “unwise” is another matter. And, since the “old” Supreme Court basically accepted all of the New Deal legislation after axing the NRA and the AAA, one can say, as so many did, that FDR lost the battle but won the war. If “Reason” still wants to claim that Social Security, etc. is wicked, well, you’re welcome to your stupidity.

    1. There will be plenty here to defend their stupidity, just wait.

      And yes, the fascists will cry about this article, believe it.

      1. I’ll cry when and if Trump loses his reelection bid in November, but how sensitive do you think I am to cry over another TDS Reason opinion piece. Tucille was probably wearing a blue serge suit when he posted this.

        I’m no fascist, but that won’t keep you from calling me one.

        1. I’ll bet you’ll cry if a Dem AG declared his belief in Unitary Executive powers for a Dem president.

          But you love Barr’s Unitary Executive Theory, for Republican presidents only of course.

          1. “I have a pen and a phone” doesn’t sound so awesome when it’s not your party running the show, is it?

            1. Regardless of party or affiliation, Barr is right to be upset, because these little things must always be handled very delicately. For example, here at NYU we took all the necessary steps to make sure that certain illegal “parodies” were dealt with properly by the authorities, but we were very careful never to make even the slightest public statement about the matter. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

              https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          2. “I’ll bet you’ll cry if a Dem AG declared his belief in Unitary Executive powers for a Dem president.”

            We had it for years with Obama and his wingman AG.

            1. No, we didn’t.

              And if you actually do believe that and think it was wrong, you answer shouldn’t be to support the same thing in a Republican president, it should be to restore American principles.

          3. Article II, first sentence:
            “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the
            United States of America.”

            I don’t know any other way to interpret that, other than the President is the ultimate source of all the executive power of the Federal Government. You can probably phrase it a couple of different ways, “The Buck Stops Here”, Unitary Executive, etc. but it all means the same thing.

      2. “There will be plenty here to defend their stupidity, just wait.”

        And look there; you got here first to defend YOUR stupidity!

      3. Yes, all of us screaming for deregulation, massive reduction in the size and scope of government, and government control of our lives are ‘fascists’.

        Alan, you do understand what words have definitions, right? Or are you really this fucking stupid? Giving you a chance to explain yourself here.

      4. ITT, lying Jeffy claims that Hillary Clinton has been executed!!!

        I shit you not!

        1. And he wonders why we call him psychotic…

        2. God you are such a tiresome troll. Just fuck off already. You contribute nothing of value here.

          1. You contribute nothing of value anywhere

          2. Pedo Jeffy, everyone here hates you and every one of your socks. Just leave. You won’t be missed.

    2. Wait. Alan, are you saying that SS is not wicked?

      1. It’s overtly a pyramid scheme, just the good kind of pyramid scheme.

        1. Yep, the problem pyramid schemes run into as that eventually you run out of new suckers willing to buy in. Social Security solves that problem by just forcing people into it at gunpoint.

      2. Wicked? Nosirree chap. They’re just giving tickets.

    3. SS is an illegal Ponzi scheme, unless the government is running it.

      No shout out to Janet Reno as worst AG ever? Did she have to do more than burn 61 innocent people alive to make your list?

      A truly asinine article, trumpeted by Anal Vanneman, as he often does.

    4. The Leftist press gets upset with Trump no matter what he does or does not do…or says or does not say.

      The PROBLEM is that NO president in history has been attacked by an almost complete plurality of Leftist dominated Media that is a virtual rubber stamp for the opposing party.

      Leftist Media is FURIOUS because they no longer control 50-80% of the Country. Trump reacts AGAINST them and Deep State because if he allows it, they will come after US next.

      Trump is in THEIR way. Their real goal is to gut the Constitution and take away our guns.

      Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

  2. Talk about burying the lead.

    The DoJ changed the recommendations because those oh so brave prosecutors LIED internally as to what sentencing recommendation they were going present to the court.

    1. Where is the evidence that the prosecutors lied?

        1. Your link quotes an anonymous DOJ official. Interesting that you’ll accept at face value quotes from anonymous unnamed sources when those sources confirm your biases.

          1. We are much more likely to give an unnamed official some latitude when it comes to undermining the Lefties and their continuous stream of lies.

            We all notice that nobody, INCLUDING YOU, have denied that the claims are accurate.

            Difference is that Propagandists like unreason cite anonymous sources AND the claims are lies.

            1. We are much more likely to give an unnamed official some latitude when it comes to undermining the Lefties and their continuous stream of lies.

              This explains the whole Q-Anon phenomenon right here.

            2. “We are much more likely to give an unnamed official some latitude when it comes to undermining the Lefties and their continuous stream of lies.”

              This, right here, is where you admit you are a partisan tribalist who is uninterested in the truth. I mean, we all knew that, but it is interesting that you admit it. Why should anyone take you seriously, if you are openly prone to believing lies if they are lies you like?

              1. Tell me MORE about how Russia interfered in the election on behalf of Trump.

                1. That’s not some anonymously sourced statement it’s the official version straight from Trump administration officials.

                  1. The lack of any evidence shows how deep it went.

                2. Uh, the REPUBLICAN SENATE confirmed Russia interfered to help Trump.

                  They actually support Trump, yet they still found this. That would an ironclad confirmation for a rational person, but yet still so many RWers refuse to believe it.

                  What exactly would settle this question in your mind? Nothing apparently, you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what.

                  1. If Russia can turn an entire election on $150,000 worth of ad buys on Facebook, maybe they should be running the government rather than the “dedicated public servants” the REEEEEEsistance is always going on about.

                    1. The retard above me ignores the hacking, which this very article we are commenting on reports on. It’s almost like this retard is willfully ignorant.

                    2. Didn’t I tell you Reasonites that I will be spending $150,000 worth of ads on FB to turn Election 2020?

                    3. The retard DOL ignores that the hacking claims came from an organization that blatantly lied to get FISA warrants.

                  2. It is interesting to me that people are still refuting this.

                    It doesn’t mean that he is not the elected president and there is no way to tell if it had any effect at all.

                    The Russians interfered in the election.

                    1. Define “interfere”
                      Then list all the countries meeting that definition

                    2. The Russians attempted to interfere in the election with the intention of causing strife and division, which they accomplished beyond their wildest dreams, thanks to the useful idiots on the left.

                  3. No the Senate did not say Russia helped Trump. If you could think on your own you would know that Russia spent MILLIONs on the last election through the ‘sea of change foundation”. The ‘sea of change foundation” is a clearing house for leftist money. They donated the many Russian millions to leftist environmental and political organizations , who ALL gave it to the Democrats. THIS was the real interference in our last 3 or 4 election. You can count on it being a big player in our next election as well, but your influencers will not tell you about it, so to you it will not exist.

                    Trump so loves the Russians that he killed a company of Russian mercs in Syria. He loves Russia so much he sent the javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine that Obama refused to send. The Ukrainians “gave” them directly to the Russians, which made them love Tump more. Yes, even though Russia’s economy is based on oil exports, and Trump has brought down the price of oil, hurting Russia badly, they still love him. Even though Trump did not promise more flexibility after he was re-elected as Obama did, Russia loves Trump, or so you influencers have told you repeatedly.

                    What exactly would settle this question in your mind? Nothing apparently, you are going to believe what you are told no matter what. No independent thought for you, stick with your influencers as they have you dialed in.

              2. Hey look it’s a neutral Mikey sock puppet come to defend another neutral Mikey sock puppet.

                1. I attacked unreason for the Propagandists that they are, so of course the sock trolls are ordered to SWARM!

            3. So in short you just believe what you want to believe no matter the source, no matter how strong or weak that source is.

              Anyone who is honest can neither confirm or deny that claim. We don’t know for sure either way.

              1. Poor new sock troll.

                It’s coders didn’t add a good read program or how skeptical news sourcing works.

          2. Note I said I know you weren’t being genuine.

            1. And you’re not being intellectually honest.

              Some article in the NYT quotes an anonymous unnamed official saying mean things about Trump and you will be the first person to yell FAKE NEWS.

              But some anonymous unnamed official quoted in Fox News saying things that satiate your biases? Well then it’s totally legit!

              How about, in either case, some skepticism is warranted? Is that too much to ask?

              1. “Some article in the NYT quotes an anonymous unnamed official saying mean things about Trump and you will be the first person to yell FAKE NEWS.”

                Given their track record of accuracy the last three years, it makes sense.

                Here, a sentence recommendation that everyone says was insane is being explained.

                Again, you’re not genuine. I decided to give you a chance to surprise me and, as expected, you did not.

                1. He’s a liar that can’t stop.

              2. You’ve been wanking for the last three years over the unimpeachability and veracity of unnamed sources when it came to the Mueller/Russia farce and the coup impeachment plotters, but now you’re going to declaim them?
                And you’re calling other people intellectually dishonest?

                Fuck you, you lying, mendacious, demagogic sack-of-shit.

                1. That is all nonsense, but I guess it makes you feel better to vent and virtue signal to your fellow tribesfolk with your righteous screed.

                  1. Nah, they’re just calling you out for what you are.

                    It’s not virtue signaling to make an accurate observation that you didn’t even try to dispute.

                    1. Blah blah blah. It’s all nonsense, you know it is all nonsense, but it doesn’t stop you from signaling your virtue at opposing the right people and constructing strawmen and caricatures of those with whom you disagree.

                    2. “Blah blah blah. It’s all nonsense”

                      Correct, everything you post is nonsense. And dishonest.

                    3. Chemleft just can’t stop fucking lying. To do so would mean his entire sack of rhetorical tricks would disappear.

              3. “you’re not being intellectually honest.”

                Says…..

                jeffy.

                LOL

        2. +10000

      1. I don’t know if they lied, but what they were doing is obvious. From the WAPO link in this article

        But it was also within the guidelines, which makes the reversal from DOJ all the more unusual — and suspicious. And just hours after the announcement Tuesday, all four career prosecutors on the case moved to withdraw from the case. Aaron Zelinsky abruptly withdrew from the case and resigned as a special assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, while keeping his other job in the Justice Department. Adam Jed and Michael Marando sought to withdraw from the case. And a fourth prosecutor, Jonathan Kravis, resigned from the government entirely.

        They made an absurdly harsh recommendation that relied upon ridiculous interpretations of the facts to remain in the guidelines. They did this knowing they were losing their jobs and leaving the case. So, they dropped this knowing that Barr would have to overturn it and that various partisan hacks would then claim that Barr was going easy on Stone.

        1. Martha Stewart got 5 months plus 2 years supervised release for very similar charges.

          Somewhere around 1 year in custody seems to be the norm.

          The raid on Roger Stone’s house illustrated how this sham prosecution was going to go.

        2. So it was a conspiracy among the prosecutors to frame Barr. Is that the story you’re going with?

          Do you believe in Q-Anon too?

          1. What color is the sky in the alternate universe you reside in?

            1. We could ask you the same. In John’s version of events, which is totally unsupported by any reporting, mind you, the prosecutors decided they were all going to quit DOJ before Barr weighed in, so they decided to throw a hail mary in their sentencing recommendation because…Well, John never gets to because, because it makes no fucking sense.

              1. Explain the logic of the sentence recommendation in comparison to similar crimes.

                1. Oops, forgot. Looking at how similar convictions are treated is excusing fascism. Gotta remember that with you, sparkles.

                2. Not the issue. The issue is the president and attorney general inserting themselves into criminal trials of the president’s so-called friends.

                  But I’ll play your stupid game anyway, because it’s an easy one to answer. The sentence is within Federal sentencing guidelines, stone committed some of the crimes while he was under indictment showing a pattern of criminality and lack of contrition.

                  1. “ot the issue. The issue is the president and attorney general inserting themselves into criminal trials of the president’s so-called friends.”

                    Yup, if FEDERAL prosecutors lie to the AG about their recommendations, it is up to the AG to just say “Well, can’t do a thing about it”.

                    “But I’ll play your stupid game anyway, because it’s an easy one to answer. The sentence is within Federal sentencing guidelines, stone committed some of the crimes while he was under indictment showing a pattern of criminality and lack of contrition.”

                    It requires the prosecutors to lie to “fit” inside the guidelines.

                    Can you name how many first-time non-violent offenders get sentences like this? I mean, Clapper got zero days. McCabe got zero days. Clinton got zero days.

                  2. There is no “inserting”; There’s a chain of command. Barr is higher up than the prosecutors, the President is higher up than Barr.

                    Tuccille’s complaint here is that Barr did the right thing, and that he may have done the right thing because Trump pressured him to do so. Where Barr is legally entitled to do the right thing, and Trump legally entitled to order him to do it, never mind “pressure”.

  3. It would be so much easier to be Eric Holder, Obama’s self-described “wing man”, who could be a political agent of the presidency without any criticism, and with effusive praise from a forever sycophantic media.

    1. When Barr gives weapons to the cartel, and said cartel murders Americans, I’ll be concerned.

      1. But when Barr decides that presidents are above the law, you don’t care. Because….Mexicans? A non black man as president? I’m not sure.

        1. “But when Barr decides that presidents are above the law, you don’t care.”

          Is that strawman heavy?

          1. Fascinating to me how the uber-libs like DOL trot out the racially tinged comment. I mean for a progressive, you’d think they would have progressed past making irrelevant arguments using race as some kind of cudgel.

            1. Race and claims of racism are their go-to complaint. In fact, when they cry racism you can be pretty sure they have no legitimate argument.

        2. I’m unaware of Barr saying Trump could no wrong. Can you link to this?

          1. No, he can’t, because he’s a dishonest pos.

          2. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/bill-barrs-dangerous-pursuit-executive-power/592951/

            It’s Barr’s position since the 70’s that president is unchecked. He does not believe in checks and balances or co equal branches of government. You’re going to have to read a bit. Sometimes the real world is more complex than a blurb.
            You’re a blind partisan though, so I don’t expect you to comprehend it.

            1. I want evidence, not an op-ed piece. You linked to an op-ed piece.

              1. Like I said.

        3. He did not decide that.

          Democratic leaders said that when they excused Bill Clinton’s perjury.

        4. Well, lucky he didn’t do that. After ah, it is perfectly legitimate for the president to intervene in prosecutions. Not that he actually did that.

  4. Trump was calling a spade a spade.

    The DOJ’s behavior has been an argument for ending the civil service system and returning to something more like the “spoils system.” The notion of a nonpartisan career civil service isn’t just a mirage, it’s a self-serving lie.

    In a morally just country those slimebag “career lawyers would’ve been arrested months ago. If you are a friend of the President, the Justice Department “career lawyers” will do all they can to find venue in the District of Columbia where they know a rabid population of Democrat jurors will do all they can to send you to Big Sandy.
    If you doubt me, you haven’t heard of Tomeka Hart, the nasty partisan jury foreman in Roger Stone’s trial who should have never been on the jury in the first place.

    The Scales of Justice come in two versions, one for Democrats and one for Trump.

    1. ending the civil service system and returning to something more like the “spoils system.”

      This is a ridiculous idea. Can we at least agree that if there is going to be a bureaucracy, that it should be run neutrally and professionally?

      1. It IS NOT, though.

        The new system has failed. We have career bureaucrats who are every inch as bad as the spoils system but are utterly untouchable.

        1. So returning to the spoils system would only make things worse, then, no?

          Do we even share the goal of having a bureaucracy that is professionally run (not by loyalist hacks) and is neutral in application?

          1. “So returning to the spoils system would only make things worse, then, no?”

            No. It would not be worse. Bare minimum, SOMEBODY would be responsible for the nonsense. Now? Nobody is responsible. And the problem is infinitely worse.

            “Do we even share the goal of having a bureaucracy that is professionally run (not by loyalist hacks) and is neutral in application?”

            I would love rides on unicorns but, like your goal of an impartial and professional bureaucracy, it is not one borne of reality.

            1. You do realize the reason why the spoils system was ended in the first place? Not only was government bent to serve the will of the party in power, it was just poorly run. Loyalist cronies ran things, who only used their positions to get rich, and their actual jobs didn’t get done. And that was when the government was 1/100th the size it is today. Having a spoils system today would be an immense graft-generating machine. This is what you advocate?

              You want to entirely throw out a flawed system because it has occasionally done some mean things towards Trump. This is frankly an irrational and unreasonable response.

              1. Yeah, because it’s a model of integrity and efficiency now. No one uses the current system to enrich themselves; “K-Street” is just a meme and Congressmen get rich while in office all on their own talent at knowing the right investments to make at all times.

                That you don’t see the irony of defending a bureaucratic state that’s accountable to no one but themselves, while decrying the authoritarianism of centralized power, is hardly a surprise.

                1. Yeah, because it’s a model of integrity and efficiency now.

                  No one is arguing this position. That is a strawman.

                  1. “No one is arguing this position. That is a strawman.”

                    YOU just argued that the poor performance of the government in the spolls system was a negative and why we should keep the current terrible system.

                    1. We should have a professional and neutral bureaucracy to administer the functions of government.

                      To the extent that the status quo deviates from this ideal, then the status quo should be reformed.

                    2. We should have a professional and neutral bureaucracy to administer the functions of government.

                      With staffing pulled from which objective and highly competent segment of the population?

                      It’s not the West Wing. People who gravitate to politics and government as a career are just as vile and self-interested as people in any other career. Possibly more, since it’s harder to make big money honestly in politics (but much easier to do if you’re corrupt).

                    3. ALL government jobs should have term limits, except elected positions. DOJ maybe 10 years, then get a real job. The problem is that governmet parasites think they are entitled to their positions.

                  2. No one was arguing for the “thumbs-up/thumbs-down” method of justice either, but you certainly had no problem pretending that to be the case.

                    To bad your example actually undercut your argument.

              2. “You do realize the reason why the spoils system was ended in the first place? Not only was government bent to serve the will of the party in power, it was just poorly run.”

                As opposed to the excellent performance today?

                “You want to entirely throw out a flawed system because it has occasionally done some mean things towards Trump.”

                Yes, Trump is the only person the bureaucracy has decided to utterly fuck over. Hey, where does Flynn go to get his rep back? How about Carter Page? How does he get HIS rep back?

                1. The thing you’re pretending you don’t see is that the civil service system is a perpetual spoils system run by and for the DNC.
                  At least with a genuine spoils system it represents the will of the people, rather than the interminable, anti-democratic shadow government that you’re covering for.

                  1. At least with a genuine spoils system it represents the will of the people

                    Oh no it doesn’t. It represents the will of the cronies in charge. Again read up on when the US had an actual spoils system. It was a graft machine and nothing more. Politicians expressly used it to reward their allies. It had nothing to do with qualifications or merit. The result is a scheme where the cronies get rich and the functions of government just don’t get done.

                    1. And yet it was more accountable, because those civil servants didn’t have lifetime tenure and could be fired with each new administration.

                      Now it’s a protected class filled with mostly partisan leftists who will support any candidate who will increase the bureaucracy’s power and funding and undermine (through any means at their disposal) any candidate who tries to pump the brakes on the enrichment of bureaucrats.

                      Do you think it’s a coincidence that Washington D.C. became one of the richest parts of the country during the Bush and Obama years when all policy was about adding to the federal bureaucracy?

                    2. Term limit the parasites!!!

          2. Neutral just like this worthless bag of camel jizz. Keep up this kind of “neutrality” and one day Jeff and the corrupt bureaucrats are going to get the bullet in the face that they so richly deserve.

          3. No, a return to the Spoils system would be better. Why? Much more frequent turnover.

            1. No, the spoils system was far more corrupt than today’s DOJ. Nevertheless, there should be frequent turnover – just place time limits on all their government careers. 10 years in Civ Service then out you go.

        2. Bureaucrats have been that way since 1776. Sometimes more than others.

          America keeps this in check via various methods laid out in the US Constitution. One such method is unelected government workers being accountable to elected officials.

      2. Can we at least agree that if there is going to be a bureaucracy, that it should be run neutrally and professionally?

        “Can we at least agree that if there is going to be a massive welfare state, it should provide benefits for anyone who happens to come here, not just citizens?”

        1. Umm wut?

          1. Huh?

      3. “ Can we at least agree that if there is going to be a bureaucracy, that it should be run neutrally and professionally?”

        Yes! And we elect the president to be a check on that, and Trump determined that the bureaucracy was not run professionally and neutrally.

        What’s your problem again?

        1. Trump explicitly ran on draining the swamp. He should fire anyone and everyone he can in all departments.

      4. “… it should be run neutrally and professionally..”

        It’s blatantly not.

        Yet you persist.

        Fuck off cytotoxic.

    2. Funny, the lie of non partisan civil servants was doing fairly well, up until this conman took the presidency.

      1. Yup, no complaints about bureaucratic overreach and ineptitude ever were made before 2017. Not once.

        1. No one suggested going back to a spoils system would be better before this president, certainly.

          I know nuance, even very apparent difference that falls short of full on categorical black/white differences are difficult for you Trumpies to comprehend, though.

          1. You not reading such requests does not mean they did not exist.

  5. So a bunch of hack justice department people recommend a outrageous sentence for Roger Stone because they hate his politics and association with the President. And it is Trump who is sleazy for standing up to it?

    There is nothing sleazy about Trump criticizing DOJ. They work for him. Reason seems to think that DOJ is some kind of special organization that is above answering to the President and the public that the President represents. Reason has allowed its hatred for Trump and desire to fit in with the rest of the beltway media to support outright authoritarian positions.

    1. The dispensation of justice should not be up to the president’s whim.

      1. Who is in charge of the DoJ?

        Note — not the AG.

      2. It is. And if it isn’t, then whose whim is it up to? You are arguing that DOJ should not be accountable to elected officials. And while they may tingle your little authoritarian soul, it should offend anyone who cares about liberty or elected government.

        1. unreason and Lefties dont want bureaucrats accountable to people that are not on Team Blue.

          #Resist

        2. So the Roman Empire model of “justice” then – justice flows from the will of the Emperor. And you call ME an authoritarian? This is ridiculous.

          1. Hey dumbshit, if you crack open a book on Roman history, you might come across the inconvenient fact that the Roman empire came about as a result of a corrupt, decadent, and unaccountable bureaucracy, particularly in the Senate.

            1. So therefore, let’s do Emperors?

              1. Stop scaremongering about tyranny while defending a corrupt bureaucracy, you hypocrite.

                1. I’m not defending a corrupt bureaucracy. I’m defending the idea of a neutral professional bureaucracy. To the extent that the current bureaucracy does not meet this ideal, it should be reformed.

                  Plenty of people here, however, are willing to throw the entire thing out even if it leads to a less just, less functioning, and more corrupt outcome, because Trump.

                  This is the opposite side of TDS. People advocating for demonstrably worse outcomes all out of a defense of the Orange Babboon.

                  1. “less just, less functioning, and more corrupt outcome”

                    It’s at max injustice, disfunction, and corruption now

                    1. It’s at max injustice, disfunction, and corruption now

                      Oh no it’s not.

                      Just look at how other countries’ bureaucracies are run. They tend to be far worse than our own.

                      It could get a whole lot worse. A spoils system would guarantee it gets a whole lot worse.

                      But because the current system is mean to Trump, you imagine this is the worst it could possibly get. Hilarious.

                    2. Chemjeff is funny trying to advocate that less laws and less bureaucrats would be worse….somehow.

                    3. I like how not once in this thread does Jeff ask for a reduction of bureaucracy or an accountability for such. He just wishes for an all powerful unicorn.

                      Jeff. This is why you’re a retarded sophist.

                    4. I hate jeff as much as the next guy, but he is right. The spoils system was much worse than today. However, he is wrong that today’s system is tolerable and not a slimepit of corruption. Trump should throw out as many people as he can – he was elected explicitly to do so. And the entire system should be term limited so there are fewer entrenched criminals.

                  2. I’m not defending a corrupt bureaucracy.

                    Bullshit, that’s exactly what you’re doing with your false dilemmas.

                    1. No, I am defending the ideal of a neutral, professional bureaucracy. Which is not the status quo, but could be reformed into one, in my opinion.
                      A spoils system certainly would not be.

                    2. No, I am defending the ideal of a neutral, professional bureaucracy. Which is not the status quo, but could be reformed into one, in my opinion.

                      So you’re defending something that doesn’t actually exist, in fear of something that hasn’t happened yet. Good job.

                  3. Yes, you are.

                    1. Liar.

                    2. Jeff might want to consider refuting this in a thread where he isn’t arguing for a permanent, unaccountable ruling mandarin caste

              2. The president’s authority is to stop prosecutions. He can’t maliciously prosecute people. And he has to answer for it at the next election.

                That’s one of the many ways how the head of the executive branch is not like an emperor. Get it?

                1. Of course he does not get it.

                  1. And if he did, he would lie anyway.

          2. “So the Roman Empire model…”

            Aaaand this is the point where De-neutral-espressojeffy cyto-the-toxic Canadian starts body slamming strawmen.

            1. Interesting. So not a single one of you are going to take issue with John’s agreement with the claim that the dispensation of justice should be up to the president’s whim.

              1. Your psychotic fantasies are not real

              2. The President is the chief executive of the United States. He is accountable to the electorate. If people are dissatisfied with his prosecutorial discretion, they can vote accordingly.

                Only a worthless idiot fuck like you would choose to die on a hill disputing something so fundamental.

                Idiot. This is why people abuse you, fuck wad.

              3. The dispensation of justice should not be up to the president’s whim.

                Except for the pardon power, it is not up to the president’s whim. But he should not be completely silent either. All the DOJ are under his command and he should weed out the most partisan hacks by just firing them or assigning them to posts in Nome, AK.

        3. Here is John’s model of “justice”:

          1. Funny how in that same movie Commodus points out that the Senators are more than happy to live in decadence on the backs of the poor while advocating for a Republic that would increase their own power.

          2. The difference is that Trump can only give a thumbs up.

        4. Shorter John: “The president is the law!”

            1. Yup. I’m sure he would have been just as copacetic with the black man putting his thumb on criminal trials of his friends. (Too bad so few Obama appointees and associates were criminals so we never had an apples to apples comparison.)

              1. Well, having a DoJ that refuses to prosecute crimes does insure none of your associates are criminals. Sure, they destroy evidence regularly. If the AG…you know, Obama’s wingman…decides to do nothing, I guess they aren’t ACTUALLY criminals.

            2. Why are you replying to your own sock puppet. It’s not like everyone here doesn’t know you’re both the same idiot poster.

              1. It is hilarious watching him do it. Especially when he fucks up.

                1. Hihn too.

      3. The dispensation of justice is up to the courts, which are independent of the executive branch.

        The president can’t prosecute people without cause, but he has the authority to stop otherwise legitimate prosecutions.

      4. STFU, imbecile

      5. Rewrite that pesky constitution, then.

    2. Perhaps if Stone was an illegal then Reason might be more concerned.

    3. Remember John, the Lefties in the government are still hoping to flip Roger Stone to make up dirt on Trump.

      Above norm stiff sentences can do that. 84 months is a bit of a stretch in prison.

    4. And John, if this is so above board and totally normal, then why are federal judges collectively freaking out over this? You know, the branch who’s primary job is dispensing equal justice and upholding our constitutional integrity?

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/17/roger-stone-sentence-judges-worried-political-interference/4788155002/

      1. Collectively revealing who they really are.

        Collectively indeed.

        1. That they are really concerned that this president is threatening the foundation of our legal system and constitutional system? Yeah, they are.

          Nice attempt to paint them as commies because they are part of an association, or you just don’t understand what collectively means. Either way: dumb-ass.

          1. Why no President has EVER criticized any part of the legal system before.

            1. The President is the executive, all Federal law enforcement power is vested in that office.

              Yet somehow him not deferring to his underlings is a ‘threat’ to the foundation of ‘our’ (it’s not yours, jeffy, you POS Canadian liar) legal system.

              Utter horseshit.

    5. “Reason seems to think that DOJ is some kind of special organization that is above answering to the President and the public that the President represents.”

      This is at the heart of everything they’ve been saying. But they do not have the balls to come out and say it. Libertarians my ass.

      Either the Justice department is accountable to the people, or it is not. It it is accountable then, per the Constitution, it is within the purview of the Executive.

  6. Yet Trump’s very public bitching and moaning about the original recommendation complicates the plot.

    Another reason Trump is the best President in US History (thanks to Democrats).

    Some people think bureaucrats are NOT corrupt and dont need a President, who was partly elected to root out corruption, to push the Executive Branch to do their fucking jobs.

    REMEMBER Folks… Trump was partly elected to battle corruption and Stone’s sentencing was above norms for federal sentencing of non-violent lying crimes.

    Martha Stewart got 5 months in jail and 2 years supervised release for charges of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators.

  7. Barr has been portrayed as a person supporting a strong presidency. This seems obvious based on his actions in the Reagan and Bush Administrations. There is nothing wrong with the belief the President should be a relatively strong player in our government. The real question is how far do you take that belief and at what point do you say that the President has too much power? I wonder if Barr knows what the limit is and at what point he would say this is too much?

    1. When the president demands that the AG do something illegal and unconstitutional?

      Demanding that the AG make sure federal sentencing is fair for a political target is far from that.

      1. I think the standard is well before requests for illegal and unconstitutional. When the President asks you to do something illegal it time to past time to say “no” and time to take action against the President.

        1. Holder didn’t.

        2. Loretta Lynch didn’t.

    2. Since Trump can simply pardon Stone, it seems bizarre to suggest that there is something illegitimate about intervening to give him a lighter sentence (and he didn’t even intervene he just tweeted his opinion).

      1. There is a reason presidents were given a pardon. That is their one opportunity to intervene in criminal prosecutions legitimate. And after someone is pardoned, they can no longer use their 5th amendment, which is the real reason Trump will not pardon Stone.

        1. Yeah, and Mueller’s was going to find that (cooked-up) evidence (by an FBI that blatantly lied on its FISA request) until that meanie Barr told him to stop.

          1. Try to stay on topic there, nutball.

            1. Try not to be a drama queen, bitch.

        2. Hey fucknut… presidents are free to direct their branch. Do you not remember who JFKs AG was for fucks sake? Or even holder? How many times as the FBI let the Clinton’s off? You’re fucking ignorant pedo Jeff.

        3. No, that is not “the one opportunity”. As you are learning, they can intervene at many different stages of the process.

          As for your conspiracy theories, that’s just dumb.

  8. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here..>>> Click it here  

  9. Yes, Barr understands that Trump is his boss and that he has to implement legal directives by his boss.

    What’s the problem?

    1. Trump gives the thumbs up! Citizen Roger Stone is spared!
      Trump gives the thumbs down! Citizen Hillary Clinton is executed!

      1. Funny, McCabe isn’t being prosecuted and Trump would prefer that and justice demands it. Explain why Stone deserve 7-9 years while McCabe doesn’t warrant a single day.

        1. All you Trumpies can ever do is point to some other injustice. You can never argue the merits of what Trump does by itself, because Trump’s actions have no merits for America. Try to defend Trump, for once, without invoking Hillary, Obama, etc.

          1. No, it’s been thoroughly covered.

          2. Oh, so comparison of criminal prosecutions of the well connected and the not well connected are not germane now? Got it.

            “Treat every case as if it was in a vacuum” seems like an idiot’s logic…but then I saw who proposed it.

          3. “Explain why Stone deserve 7-9 years while McCabe doesn’t warrant a single day.”

            Answer the question you Canadian loser.

            1. He won’t.

          4. “All you Trumpies can ever do is point to some other injustice….”

            TDS victims never let facts get in the way of their whining.

          5. Lol. His comment was in response to Little Jeffy bringing up Hillary all on his own.

            Damn you’re dumb.

            1. Pedo Jeffy and Libor are both Cytotoxic.

              1. Makes sense, they’re both dumb and dishonest.

          6. In the absence of one iota of actual lawbreaking by Trump, we whole-brained people are forced to attempt to identify comparable situations involving other presidents etc., in order to figure out why half-brained morons feel justified in claiming that Trump is breaking the law. Alas, all we find are double standards and accusations of “whataboutism!”. The silver lining is the sunlight shining on a corrupt bureaucracy. I can’t wait for those idiot judges “investigating” the Stone case to get the spotlight they deserve.

      2. When was Citizen Hillary executed? Did they finally shut up that murderous, lying psychopath? Oh, right, they didn’t.

        Trump can only give the thumbs up; that is, he has the legitimate power stop prosecutions, but he can’t legitimately start prosecutions without cause. In fact, he can simply pardon Stone if he wants to.

        1. he can’t legitimately start prosecutions without cause.

          Then what was up with the whole Giuliani/Ukraine/Biden corruption deal? I thought Trump was trying to prosecute Biden for corruption, that is why he sent his “personal envoy” Giuliani over to Ukraine.

          1. You ask questions as if they are genuine inquiries. Hilarious.

            1. In this case, no. Because the whole claim that Trump sent Giuliani to Ukraine to “investigate corruption” was a crock of shit and everyone knows it.

              1. You’re really butthurt that not everyone trusts the mandarins you worship

          2. He wanted the Ukraine to reopen an investigation.

          3. “Then what was up with the whole Giuliani/Ukraine/Biden corruption deal? I thought Trump was trying to prosecute Biden for corruption, that is why he sent his “personal envoy” Giuliani over to Ukraine.”

            Most people would be dizzy from spinning that much.

            1. When you live dishonesty, it’s easy.

          4. I’ll answer that troll….

            1. There has been no prosecution of Biden. No attempted prosecution of Biden.

            2. There was a bounty of evidence to predicate an actual investigation. Biden publicly bragged that he personally intervened to get a Ukrainian official fired. Biden’s son is not only known to have a highly paid job for Burisma that he is unqualified for, he personally acknowledges such, and acknowledges that the sole reason for this is the identity and power of his father. That’s more than probable cause for an investigation.

            Remember, the DOJ claims that one of their own informants who had been working with them to make a case against a couple of Russian crooks deciding to volunteer with the Trump campaign as an advisor is reason to open a counter-terrorism investigation and begin wire-tapping Trump campaign members. Their own IG has determined that this is a sufficient articulable predicate for the investigation.

            If that ludicrous fig leaf is enough to justify spying on a presidential campaign, I’d say that publicly admitting that you have a multimillion dollar payoff to a relative is plenty of predicate. Hell, you have the bribe and the action, the only thing missing is the direct link where Biden says “I told them to fire him because my son said so”.

        2. “Murderous”

          Oh, no. It’s retarded.

          1. Yes. Yes you are.

      3. You need a swift kick in the teeth.

      4. Holy shit! I didn’t hear Hillary was executed?!

        Oh wait, it’s Little Jeffy making up shit again.

      5. 4 years for lying about a legal action and you are upset about it. Youd do well in a banana republic.

  10. Barr has made a career of helping Republican criminals cover-up their crimes and escape justice.

    The Iran-Contra pardons, Mueller investigation cover-up, and the Roger Stone, Mike Flynn sentencing are just continuations of Barr’s long established pattern of protecting criminals.

    1. Fuckin’ LOL at crufus defending an investigation and process convictions based on actual, documented lies from government bureaucrats.

  11. Serious question: What difference does it make what *anyone* other than the sentencing judge “recommends”?

  12. Hey! You left out Eric “Due Process is not Judicial Process” Holder!

    At least, and for a change, you noted that Stone’s suggested sentence was excessive, but you left out how excessive it was, in light of his age. Death is a bit much for most crimes, let alone process crimes.

    Also, and I know this is a hard one to swallow, but Trump is right. This man was being persecuted for being a Trump crony in a bullshit investigation about a nonexistent crime. All the bad acts attached to Mueller’s investigation are actual or potential process crimes, with the exception of Manafort’s unrelated tax and lobbying violations, since there was no actual collusion and, in Stone’s case, he lied about something he didn’t do, to make himself seem important. However, since Yates was part of the fake FISA process, firing her was entirely justified.

    Finally, were Trump to want to ACTUALLY interfere, he could just pardon all these guys.

    1. Multiple felony convictions for his actions in which he attempted to obscure the truth from the public in a matter concerning the duty and integrity of elected officials…no 7 years seems light to me.

      You guys are hilarious though. You want to lock up Mexican toddlers indefinitely for the civil infraction of crossing an imaginary line, but someone fucking with the foundation of our government gets a big ol’ “meh”.

      Don’t call yourselves patriots.

      1. A guy “lied” about a non-criminal event. Yup, he should be executed.

        1. Mind you, ONLY civilians should be sentenced and executed for not being forthright with the FBI or the government. FBI agents and government officials, in the interest of judgment, should be held to FAR lower standards and, instead, should be given TV gigs for misleading investigators under oath and lying to Congress, also under oath.

          JUSTICE DEMANDS IT!!!

        2. Hey, you forgot that unpaid parking ticket! Lock ’em up!

        3. 7 felonies, including witness tampering. Wtf are you talking about that is non-criminal? 1 year for each count seems reasonable to me.

          Why do you guys want to protect people who lie to cover for politicians and their rich friends? Bootlickers, the lot of you.

          1. “7 felonies, including witness tampering. Wtf are you talking about that is non-criminal? ”

            What, prosecutors overcharged a person and a biased jury found him guilty? Stunning. Hmm, how many Klansmen were found not guilty in the Democratic South? I guess those were actual valid decisions.

            The rest of your post was mindless gibberish. Per usual.

            1. It’s all democrat injustice.

      2. “”You want to lock up Mexican toddlers indefinitely for the civil infraction of crossing an imaginary line,””

        No one here has ever fucking said that. You are making shit up again.

  13. JD Tuccille was always going to be a hatchet man for the Stalinist Proggies, he just didn’t have to be so blatant about it with this headline

    1. That mortgage isn’t going to pay itself!

      1. I usually like Tucille’s stuff, but lately he’s been posting some shit pieces. The “mortgage” angle makes sense.

        1. It’s not like there are a whole lot of good paying jobs in Cornville.

          There are some in Cottonwood and Flagstaff, but those require both talent and effort.

  14. Our system of government almost assures we are going to have an “amateur” as president. And Trump certainly fits that description, if he was an insider he never would have been elected.

    Not being a ‘pro’ he doesn’t get that he’s the only one in the country that doesn’t get to express his opinion on what Roger Stone’s sentence should be. Sounds wierd, but there it is.

    1. He can express his opinion. Nothing says he can’t.

      1. You realize that this article and the entire “controversy” surrounding this issue are people who are actually saying that he can’t, don’t you?

        1. Indeed. I had a similar discussion today. With my aunt, while I took her to a doctors appointment. She’s extreme authoritarian left, and like all the D’s except Bernie. She swallows any and all bullshit said about every republican that MSNBC and the like feed her. Much like an infant’s pablum.

          She believes Trump shouldn’t be allowed to say anything at all. But then, she also thinks it was ok for Obama to try and end the coal industry because coal is ‘killing people’. Completely certain that he can legally do that. Yet completely unable to articulate where the Executive derives the power to do so.

          Of course Trump isn’t allowed t do or say anything and is automatically guilty of even the flimsiest of allegations. Yet no democrat is ever guilty of any impropriety or crime, ever.

          She’s also a news junkie, yet had never heard of the Nick Sandmann story, Operation Chokepoint, and believes that Bloomberg never tried to lock up infant’s formula when he was mayor of NYC. Even though it was widely reported by even WaPo, NYT, and CNN. Incidentally, she believes Bloomberg would be a great president. And will be putting one a Mini Mike campaign sign in her yard this week.

          This is the sort of person who believes all this bullshit about Trump.

          1. This is what you call an “average human being”.

            Which is kinda scary.

            It isn’t a left or right phenomenon as much as a human one. We believe what we want to believe. It is how we are built.

            1. She’s really in thrall to the DNC. And remarkably ignorant about civics as she holds graduate degrees and was a university professor and librarian in CA. Plus they actually taught civics way back when she went to school.

  15. Tucille and Reason are woefully out of touch. I guess this is likely to happen when you live in a bubble, be it on K Street or in the Arizona desert.

    What the right side of the public now wants from Barr is punitive action against the sedition plotters: Comey, Brennan, McCabe, Strozk, et al. The rest is nothing but noise.

  16. I agree with both AG Barr and President Trump. The reality is that the recommend sentence was excessive and more than likely politically motivated. AG Barr stepping in is completely appropriate. AG Barr is also correct that President Trump’s tweets is not helping AG Barr in his duties.

    I agree with President Trump that the recommended sentence is excessive and probably politically motivated. I also agree that there appears to be a double standard where Democrats and Liberals are granted much more leeway than Republicans, Conservatives or Libertarians.

    I firmly believe that President Trump has a right to tweet and understand why he uses twitter to reach out directly to the nation. Unfortunately the traditional methods of using the media has broken as the vast majority of media is so completely biased and deranged in their opposition to President Trump. They would be against puppies if President Trump praised puppies.

    Now I do however feel that President Trump should be more deliberate and precise with his tweets. At times I feel that he reacts rather than being proactive. President Trump could tone down the negative aspect and perhaps increasing the number of positive tweets.

    Understand that I didn’t vote for President Trump and don’t plan on voting for him this time either, but the constant negative bias of the media and the nitpicking of the Democrats is doing far more to destroy the fabric of the nation than anything that President Trump has done.

    1. Who the f**k are you going to vote for, then? Typing words in pseudo-opposition to slaver Democrats is, well, kinda impotent. Don’t be a poseur. Pull that lever, baby!

  17. If McCabe were facing years in Federal lockup I’d be inclined to hear Tuccille out.

    That the disparity is so vast, and his indifference to that so blatant he is much more easily dismissed as a hack.

    POTUS is chief law enforcement officer of the Federal government it is entirely proper for him to provide guidance to his underlings, especially when the appearance of political bias is already strongly present.

  18. Loretta Lynch (Obama’s 2nd AG) wasn’t a hatchet man. She was a human shield.

    1. Indeed.

  19. “Multiple felony convictions for his actions in which he attempted to obscure the truth from the public in a matter concerning the duty and integrity of elected officials…no 7 years seems light to me.“

    The KGB called and said they got your cover letter, but update your resume.

  20. Presidents have frequently deployed their attorneys general for sleazy effect; Trump just does it more publicly.

    It’s not for sleazy effect, it’s for cheap thrills. Trump not only has a very smart brain but a very big dick and what’s the point of having a very big dick if you can’t wave it around and slap people in the face with it? Trump likes his sycophants and his ass-kissers to be very public with their sycophancy and their ass-kissing, the only way he can feel like a big man is if he’s humiliating and bullying everybody else. He’s a very petty, thin-skinned, shallow and insecure little man with an inferiority complex. I’m sure Barr will find that out shortly when Trump fires his ass with a tweet calling him a dumb failed loser nobody likes and that Trump has known all along just what a dumb failed loser nobody likes Barr has always been. And no explanation for why Trump hired him in the first place.

    1. …and the fruitcakes around here will applaud the brilliance of the firing and disavow Barr as a commie deep-stater.

    2. Wow, you are so hot for Trump, even I’m blushing!

  21. Barr’s big complaint is that the president is so overt with the sleazy pressure.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    “Hey, Donny, if you just met with me over lunch to ‘discuss things’ I could do the stuff you want done. When you blast it out over Twitter then I am forced to officially disavow it. Get with the program.”

  22. I get a kick out of TDS stricken anti Trumpers accuse anyone else of cultish behavior. The disease affects the part of the brain that process cognitive dissonance, I suppose.

    The government LIED to investigate Trump. They knew the dossier was fake, and used it as a basis to obtain warrants anyways. They knew the surveillance on Carter Page was completely illegal. They listened in on every conversation between Flynn and the Russians and knew no crimes against the nation ever occurred, but they treated him like a traitor.

    Now if the government lied to file ridiculous charges against me, I wouldn’t let them continue try to play by their own rules and introduce whatever evidence and witnesses they cooked up in their busted little scheme. I would call into question any charges against my friends and colleagues, especially if the sentencing is unduly harsh. I would even dare suggest they’re trying to punish them for being associated with me or trying to coerce a confession like they tried to do with Omar Mateen’s wife.

    But I’m not chemjeff, who apparently defer to the government for the sake of not appearing “imperial”. It’s so nonsensical. This guy says “Um why do you guys trust anon sources that expose FBI misdeeds when you didn’t trust whistleblowers on Trump” Gee, because one of them admitted to lying and have no credibility.

    1. The only TDS around here are the people who want to bring back the fucking SPOILS system, a completely discredited monstrosity, because the bureaucracy did some mean things to Trump. Have these people lost their ever-fucking minds?

      Here is just one of many reasons why the spoils system is a bad idea:

      https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/a-temptation-to-dishonesty-patronage-and-the-corruption-of-the-party-system-1828-83/

      It’s not some hypothetical that a spoils system would lead to corruption and graft. We know exactly that it will, because that’s what it did in the past. And given the size of government now vs. then, the graft would be orders of magnitude more immense.

      And yet people here are advocating for it. It is bonkers.

      1. Uh…. what do you mean by “would lead to?”

        1. Jeff’s a staunch advocate of a permanent mandarin ruling caste, unaccountable to any but their own

  23. It really doesn’t matter what the sentence is for this trial because due to the bias of the jury forman, the verdict should be tossed and it should be retried.

  24. Well, at least so far, Barr’s been a hatchet-man for all the right reasons.

    1. When we start seeing the traitors behind the Russia hoax getting indicted, I’ll give him credit.
      So far he’s only minimally done his job

  25. By 2014 virtually all the DOJ staffers were democratic party doners and funders. Barr is their regardless of Trump. Barr is just wanting to somehow do his part to save the remaining integrity of the American justice system by trying to balance the lopsided scales of justice. – made lopsided by Obama having stacked the deck with Democrats across the board in all Federal management structures.
    Barr knows that any serous inquiry will have Democrat appointees like Lois Lernher all pleading the fifth -= and he will make them do it. And the DNC knows he will make them do it.

  26. One of the many good things about Orange Man is the way he reveals the phony baloney plastic banana hypocrisy of professional “Libertarians” such as work for the likes of “Reason.”

    Trump is the most libertarian President since Calvin Coolidge, and yet they are deranged in their minds with hate for him. WTF is up with that?

    Oh, I get it. Open Borders and Free Trade are more important than actual, you know, “liberty.”

  27. If Barr thinks the Stone sentence recommendation by DOJ was too harsh, he has the authority to intervene. If he wants to investigate use of the FBI and DOJ by Trump’s opponents to surveil and attack Trump because he thinks that such actions are wrong, he has the authority to do that. If Trump wants to speak out about what he thinks is an unfair prosecution, he can do that. He is the chief law enforcement officer in the government. If Dems and Repubs are warring publicly about misuse of criminal investigations and prosecutions for political purposes, that is great! The public needs to see the underbelly of their government, to learn that government power is being abused and will always be abused.
    Tuccille can’t really be defending the integrity of the office of the AG, or the integrity of the DOJ. Surely he knows that such integrity does not exist. If Barr attacks unfair prosecutions, more power to him, even if he is defending Trump loyalists in the process. We need more exposure of the evils of power.

  28. I’m not sure how Trump or Republicans can claim “double standards” or bias since they run the government. For the first two years they had control of the Presidency, the Senate AND the House! If during that time, Hillary was not investigated, one can only assume it’s because there was no case.

    I don’t get this victim complex from the party and President who has all the power. Worried about double standards? Then f’ing DO SOMETHING. Don’t bitch and whine. It’s pathetic.

    1. Uh, you know you are replying to an editorial that is arguing that doing anything about it is corruption, right?

  29. Barr is a boot licking basset hound. He submitted his resume that said as much ahead of time and lied his ass off to the Senate during his confirmation process.

    He’s a lying, corrupt piece of shit.

    1. He just happens to be the lying, corrupt lawyer in chief.

      Exactly what I would expect.

    2. I was hoping he would be more of a pit viper. I want to see democrat apparatchiks and deep state weasels prosecuted by the hundreds.

  30. So reason doesn’t mind the end result, but doesn’t like how unseemly it appears? What a bunch of old ladies.

    What did Stone do wrong again? Lied to government and encouraged others to lie to the government? Shouldn’t we be encouraging this sort of behavior?

  31. When was a head of the DOJ not a partisan hack? Seriously..maybe Ike’s admin?

    1. Chuckle. Bill Rodgers? He was Nixon’s hatchet man and spent half his time as Ike’s AG laying the groundwork for Nixon’s presidency. Partisan hack extraordinaire.

  32. Hey, JD!

    So, since you’ve got this all figured out as to how it proves just how corrupt Trump and his cronies are…. let’s find something out. What would you do?

    Ok, you just won the presidency. Your predecessor set up a phony investigation to spy on your campaign and set you up for impeachment. They used the FBI, CIA and DOJ against you. Not only do you know that everything they are saying is a lie, you’ve proven it by allowing people who have clearly pledged to destroy your presidency free reign to spend millions and interview anyone they like. despite their best efforts, they were unable to come up with any evidence that you or your campaign did anything wrong whatsoever.

    In the course of that investigation, they used all the power of the government to set up incidental people around you for process crimes so they could be squeezed into lying about you. These people are going to jail under very dubious circumstances. They’ve been bankrupted by the DOJ. This was all a strategy to derail your presidency.

    The people who did this are still around. Some of them are still employed in your administration. They are still in a position to harm you.

    What do you do?

    Do you do what JD Tuccille implies in his many articles and just turtle up and let them win? Do you just go ahead and resign?

    How exactly do you handle it? Think about that one honestly. Not some cartoon you have in your head where Trump is an evil villain. You are really the president. A human. And you know what these folks have done. And you know why they did it. They aren’t just “dedicated servants”. They lied to get warrants to spy on a political campaign, and then spent 2.5 years lying in the press, telling anyone who would listen that they had all sorts of secret intel from the Kremlin that proved that your campaign was working with the Russians to steal the election.

    Now, What does JD do? Just leave them all in their jobs? Let them listen in on all of your phone calls? Hang out in your meetings?

    Let’s hear the honest story of how JD Tuccille would run things under these conditions. Instead of a bunch of sniping about how you wouldn’t do it. What exactly would you do?

    1. I don’t know about him but pretty much everything I would do is in the libertarian party platform.

      Will it ever happen? Not a snowballs chance in hell.

      1. This is as pointless a comment as possible.

        Cyto makes a compelling case and you feel the need to jump in and shit on it.

        What the fuck is wrong with you?

        1. Worse, Trump actually took the super-accomodating route. After paying for a $30+ million investigation and literally thousands of hours of interviews with hundreds of people… He did nothing.

          No reprisals. No counter-witch hunts.

          He left people involved in their jobs all over the administration. Nobody hunted down all the people who received classified information from the Obama white house to be strategically leaked to the press after the inauguration (NYT, March 3, 2017). It appears he assumed that they would just do their jobs to the best of their ability.

          And what happened? A group of them were working with democrats on capital hill to find a pretext for impeachment. They had access to privileged conversations, classified meetings… all of it. And they were running to the DNC operatives who were trying to destroy Trump, looking for ways to help “the resistance”.

          So again, JD…… what would you do? How do you handle that?

          It seems pretty clear that there is nobody who knows how they could possibly handle that situation. Even the “pox on both houses” folks (like me) have no clue what would possibly work. But unfortunately there are a bunch of “neither team” people who have lost the ability to see clearly. So when they are confronted with this question, they simply resort to “Orange Man bad” as an analytic touchstone. It is lazy and it is stupid, but it is all anyone seems to have any more.

          This is why I’m framing the question this way. Because people are not thinking…. at least, they are not thinking about what is actually happening. They are thinking about “how exactly is this bad for Trump?” So reframe the question. What would you do if it was you. Not if you were Trump. But if you were in this position. With people subverting your office – and folks in the media saying that even pointing out that it is happening is super-evil and evidence that you should be removed from office.

          How do you deal with that world? And not “Oh, well I wouldn’t have sent out a rudely worded tweet”. No, give it some real thought. You are sworn in to office with an outgoing administration who have openly plotted to thwart the peaceful transfer of power. They spend the first 2.5 years of your presidency trying to undermine your office with a pack of lies that the press and the democrats in congress gleefully repeat as fact.

          Now you’ve let them have a mile of rope and they’ve used it to hang themselves. But still they persist in subverting your office.

          What do you do?

          Not “what did Trump do that you think is super-evil and mega-stupid”. What would you do?

          Step 2 to that exercise: After you decide what you would do and you mentally run through how your brilliant plan would play out….. What would JD Tuccille write about you? How would he analyze it? Remember – everything you do is a-priori evil, banal and stupid.

          Very few people are actually self aware. Lets see if any of the dozens of editors at Reason are self-aware enough to undertake this exercise.

  33. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here..>>> Click it here  

  34. Hi….
    I’m Elena gillbert.Let’s take a moment to spare some pity for Bill Barr. Being the U.S. Attorney General can be a tough gig. It’s a job held at the pleasure of the president, though also attached to a largely unrealistic expectation that the officeholder will act independently. Historically, it’s been a hatchet-man position, doing dirty work through the institutions of the ever-expanding Justice Department on behalf of White House paranoia and prejudices. It’s gotta be hard enough to maintain your self-respect in a position like that without your boss sending you instructions…
    you can also read more…click here https://penzu.com/public/2a95eb40

  35. I earned $7000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 6 to 9 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online ………..

    Here :Detail of work

  36. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online …… Read more  

  37. Home based job to make every month more than $19k by doing very easy work on laptop or Mobile just in part time. Last month i have received $16822 from this job by giving this 4 hrs maximum a day online. Very easy work to do and earning from this are just crazy. Everybody can now makes more cash online by joining this job from the website given below….. Read more

Comments are closed.