William Barr

A Federal Judge Says William Barr's Spin on the Mueller Report Makes the Attorney General Untrustworthy

Were the Justice Department's redactions influenced by Barr's desire to exonerate the president?

|

A federal judge yesterday criticized Attorney General William Barr's "misleading public statements" about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, a George W. Bush appointee, said Barr's "lack of candor" makes it impossible to trust his claim that the redactions in the publicly released version of the March 2019 report were legally justified. Walton concluded that he needs to review the unredacted report before ruling on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by BuzzFeed and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which want to see the full report.

Walton's assessment of Barr's credibility echoes complaints by the president's critics that the attorney general, by trying to shape the public's impression of Mueller's findings, acted like Trump's personal lawyer rather than the federal government's chief law enforcement official. Like Barr's intervention in the sentencing of Roger Stone, his damage control in connection with the Mueller report seems to contradict his self-portrayal as a straight shooter committed to the rule of law above all.

"The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report," Walton wrote in his opinion. "The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr's statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary."

If so, Walton said, it is plausible to suggest that the Justice Department's redactions may have been influenced by Barr's pro-Trump spin. "These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr's lack of candor specifically," he wrote, "call into question Attorney General Barr's credibility and in turn, the Department's representation" that the redacted information "is protected from disclosure by its claimed FOIA exemptions."

In Walton's view, "Attorney General Barr's representation that the Mueller Report would be 'subject only to those redactions required by law or by compelling law enforcement, national security, or personal privacy interests' cannot be credited without the Court's independent verification in light of Attorney General Barr's conduct and misleading public statements about the findings in the Mueller Report." He added that "it would be disingenuous for the Court to conclude that the redactions of the Mueller Report pursuant to the FOIA are not tainted by Attorney General Barr's actions and representations."

Walton questioned Barr's decision to publicly summarize Mueller's conclusions on March 24, 2019, nearly a month before the redacted report was published. In a four-page letter to Congress that was made available to the public, Barr said "the Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election," which included social media activity and hacking of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman. And although Mueller pointedly chose not to say whether Trump had illegally obstructed the Russia investigation, Barr concluded that "the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

As Walton noted, Mueller himself objected to Barr's summary of the report. "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions," Mueller said in a March 27 letter to Barr. "We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

While Mueller did not specify the nature of that "public confusion," Walton cited several ways in which Barr's summary was misleading. "Attorney General Barr distorted the findings in the Mueller Report," he wrote.

Specifically, Barr did not mention that Mueller "identified multiple contacts—'links,' in the words of the Appointment Order—between Trump [c]ampaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government." Nor did he note that Mueller's conclusions about "coordination" were based on a narrow definition of the term, drawn from conspiracy law, requiring "an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump [c]ampaign and the Russian government on election interference," as opposed to merely "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." While Mueller's definition was appropriate in determining whether campaign officials had done anything illegal, Barr's general denial that the campaign "coordinated" with Russia may have left the mistaken impression that there were no contacts or that Russia's assistance was unwelcome.

Walton also noted that Barr "failed to disclose to the American public" that Mueller did not reach a conclusion regarding obstruction because he accepted the Office of Legal Counsel's position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Yet Mueller strongly implied that the evidence of obstruction was more substantial than the evidence of an illegal conspiracy with Russia.

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," the report said. "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Walton also expressed concern about Barr's remarks at a press conference on April 18, 2019, the day the redacted report was finally published. Barr not only reiterated what he had said in his letter to Congress but emphasized that Trump "was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks." The White House nevertheless "fully cooperated" with Mueller's investigation, Barr said, and Trump "took no act" that "in fact deprived" Mueller of relevant documents and witnesses. The "evidence of non-corrupt motives," he said, "weighs heavily against any allegation that the president had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation."

In short, Walton suggests, Barr tried to persuade the public that Trump did nothing wrong and in fact was commendably patient and cooperative given the circumstances. According to the Mueller report, Trump "told advisors that he wanted an Attorney General who would protect him." In this case, Barr surely did not disappoint his boss.

Advertisement

NEXT: 1619 Project Fact-Checker Says The New York Times Ignored Her Objections

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.

  1. This Bush appointee must be a super secret member of the commie Illuminati jew deep state!

    1. ^^ when you forget how retarded the Mueller and Comey talking point turned out

      1. You are disconnected from reality. Badly.

        1. The walls are closing in!!!!1!

          1. …I’ve said, never.

            1. Are we pretending the Bush dynasty isn’t the epitome of the swamp just because (R) because that would be pretty fucking dumb

    2. Haha. You’re still losing.

      1. We’re all losing. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

        1. My 401 k says otherwise.

          1. Thanks, Obama!

            1. Yeah, he depressed the market so I could buy cheap!

              I love that you admit that lololo

              1. No, he didn’t. The stock market did extremely well under Obama. Better than it is doing under Trump. Bush 2 depressed the market.

                https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president

                Stop embarrassing yourself. Or don’t. Whatever.

                1. The stock market that went up under obama largely on energy exploration contracts that obama reduced on federal landm

                  1. I have fucking RAKED in money on mineral rights Obama tried to make worthless. Jeff is upset because history will forever show Obama’s economy sucked.

                2. Aww you’re upset because your chocojesus had a shit economy ahahahhaahah

                  “The stock market”

                  Who said anything about the stock market fuckboy?

                  Ahahahahahaha

                  1. Real estate, precious metals, all asset classes appreciated. The point still stands. And you would have done a lot better in stocks or real estate, if I’m to infer that you ste a gold bug.

                    It’s like trying to hold a conversation with a hyper 6 year old.

          2. He sells low and buys high.

            1. Jesse, you and lc are the ones who chose to announce your stock buying and adjusting others to do the same just previous to huge dips. Don’t get mad that I noticed.

        2. No I’m doing great.

          1. then spend some time with cute huren klagenfurt girls and have fun

    3. Just where in the constitution does it say judges have iterated responsibility for National Security. If it such an issue the legislature should pass a bipartisan legislation suitable for overriding a veto. But hey! Who cares about the constitution in our government? Democrats , Republicans, Gremlins or Mickey Mouse. We’re screwed the government has thrown away the rulebook.

    4. “This Bush appointee”

      The same Bush that Trump’s been calling a globalist warmonger and statist swamp-dweller for the past 15 years?
      Oh yeah, they’re best buds.

    5. Yes, the Trump team had contacts with Russians. This is not news for anyone who was paying attention at the time. There were several unsuccessful attempts by Russians to entrap campaign members, most notably the meeting at Trump Tower that ended after 15 minutes. But there was no evidence that anyone colluded with them. (On the other hand, have we forgotten that Clinton’s campaign released Russian lies about “Golden Showers?”)

      As for Obstruction… If people were paying attention, they would also know that before Barr released his letter, he met with Mueller and asked him for the reason the report did not draw a conclusion on obstruction–and, specifically, if it was because of the position that a sitting president could not be indicted. Mueller told Barr that not indicting a sitting president was NOT the reason no conclusion was drawn. Mueller told Barr he did not feel it was the investigation’s place to make the legal determination. (The meeting and what was said was all documented.)

      So, Barr made the determination. Of course, we know what happened afterward. Mueller did a complete about face–either because he disagreed with Barr’s determination, or because he intended to undercut Barr all along. With the careful wording of what had been written and what was said in the meeting with Barr, I suspect the latter. I think he deliberately set Barr up.

      So, now, here we are again. Really, will this never end??

      1. “There were several unsuccessful attempts by Russians to entrap campaign members, most notably the meeting at Trump Tower that ended after 15 minutes. ”

        Technically, that was an attempt by Fusion GPS to entrap campaign members; The Russian lawyer, Natalia Vladimirovna Veselnitskaya, met with Fusion GPS founder Glenn R. Simpson both immediately before AND after the meeting.

        1. Thanks for that added info. So much has happened since then, I did not remember all of the details.

      2. It’s amazing how Trumpist morons gaslight themselves.

        1. Bacchys,
          It’s amazing how many leftists believe it is okay to respond to anything they disagree with by calling names and using put-downs rather than putting forth a reasoned argument supported by facts.

  2. Specifically, Barr did not mention that Mueller “identified multiple contacts—’links,’ in the words of the Appointment Order—between Trump [c]ampaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.”

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  3. As Walton noted, Mueller himself objected to Barr’s summary of the report. “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller said in a March 27 letter to Barr.

    Imagine being so deranged by TDS that you could watch Mueller’s testimony and write the above.

    1. The question becomes how could Mueller object to any characterization of the report seeing as it’s pretty clear from his testimony that he didn’t even read the damn thing, let alone write it.

      1. Yes, it’s 100% clear that Mueller was nothing more than a figurehead. If Sullum was acting in good faith he would at least concede that.

        1. Clearly. This is the Weismann report. Period.

      2. The only thing clear from his testimony is that he was aware that “I don’t recall” is a pretty effective defense against perjury charges when you’re determined not to give an honest answer to an embarrassing question.

        1. Worked for Hillary.

  4. We have a mob fixer in the office of AG. Plain and simple.

    1. Readily apparent to non-cultists around the country.

      1. Did you just agree with a new sock of yours Pedo Jeffy?

        1. You know that if you called me a pedo to my face, I would rearrange your face. So don’t do it here. I know the temptation is great, what with you being so powerless irl.

          Coward.

          1. Time and place, tough guy. Shitlord would put your fat ass right through your mom’s sofa bed, and then steal your weed and Nintendo Switch.

            1. Come to the Seattle area anytime, I’ll show you some real hospitality.

              1. Regular light soy antifa guy over here.

                1. He seems to think peddling his mom like that will get us on his side

                2. You talk tough, but what have you ever done? As far as I can tell, you’re a fat white boy who can’t even get laid.

                  1. This is by far the funniest shit I’ve read in the comments. This douche just outed himself as a fat virgin via projection.

              2. Damn dude, this isn’t Backpage, stop trying to sell your jailbait no one is interested.

              3. Come to the Seattle area
                Portland, huh.
                Lol, it should have been obvious…

              4. PJ. You’re not in Seattle. We all. Know you live in Toronto, as you are a Canadian. And don’t threaten me. It makes you look more pathetic than you already are.

                Oh, and you are still absolutely a child rape enthusiast. By your own admission.

          2. Fuck off pedo jeffy

          3. Lol. Your limp wrists would break.

          4. Good, good. Let the hate flow through you.

          5. “if you called me a pedo to my face, I would rearrange your face”

            Scary shit, everyone.
            ChemJeff, prominent pedophile and internet tough guy.

            https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/say-that-to-my-face-not-online

      2. So you’ve gone back to full retard. Jeff?

        1. Jeff only has one setting.

          1. He tried pulling a neutral mikey for 2 days.

            1. Just respond to him with baby talk, like he did when he got embarrassed.

        2. Still stinging from all that bad market timing advice you and LC were spouting?

          1. Awww widdle baby gonna cwy? Cwy widdle baby!!!

          2. Umm what dumbfuck? O dont time markets because of the average loss associated with market timings. God you’re dumb.

            I also am not panicking like a coward piece of shit such as yourself does. Regular investments go in every few weeks.

    2. Below are some of the stellar legal minds that proceeded him. The one thing they all have in common: raging assholes. In my brief life, that seems like the main qualification for getting the job.

      Jeff Sessions
      Loretta Lynch
      Eric Holder
      Michael Mukasey
      Alberto Gonzales
      John Ashcroft

      1. Forgot Janet Reno.

    3. Haha. You’re still losing.

      1. This is the level of depth of Trump supporters’ thinking.

        1. You really don’t need to cry so much jeff. We get it. Your butt hurts.

      2. Who is losing?

        Who has been losing for more than a half-century?

        Who is positioned to continue to lose the culture war as America’s electorate improves throughout the foreseeable future?

        It is the side that favors reason, progress, science, tolerance, education, modernity, and inclusivity?

        Or is it the side that favors superstition, backwardness, dogma, intolerance, ignorance, insularity, and pining for good old days that never existed?

        Is it the side that relies on our strongest universities and reason-based education?

        Or is it the side that operates hundreds of fourth-tier, censorship-shackled, science-suppressing schools and favors backwater religious education and homeschooling?

        Is it the side that operates our strongest cities and modern, progressive communities inhabited by educated, skilled, accomplished citizens?

        Or is it the side that lords over our can’t-keep-up backwaters and the depleted human residue that remains in our rural and southern stretches after generations of bright flight have removed the smart, ambitious young people?

        Is school prayer coming back to our better schools? Is gay marriage to be eliminated? Is creationism moving back into science classrooms? Is Obamacare going to be repealed (or, instead, is universal health care inevitable)? Are Social Security, Medicare, and similar programs to be dismantled? Is abortion going to be criminalized?

        Are the desolate portions of Ohio, Alabama, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and West Virginia going to overtake the cities and suburbs of California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and other successful states?

        Are Wheaton, Hillsdale, Regent, Ouachita Baptist, Liberty, Patrick Henry, Oral Roberts, and the like going to overtake Berkeley, Columbia, Harvard, Wellesley, Carnegie Mellon, and Yale?

        In short, is our liberal-libertarian mainstream going to continue to shape American progress against conservatives’ works and wishes, or is the tide of the culture war to be reversed, bringing a wave of backwardness to wash away American progress?

        Open wider, clingers.

        1. “Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
          March.6.2020 at 5:11 pm
          Who is losing?”

          You see. Your giant wall of “protest too much” proves it.

          1. Hey now. Leave Kirkland alone or you’ll upset sparky.

            1. He does love him.

              1. Does sarc know? It would break his heart, and then sarc would have a third broken organ to go with his liver and… You know…

          2. Yet you can’t refute a single point.

            1. Awww widdle baby gonna cwy? Cwy widdle baby!!!

              1. He does cry more than everyone else on this site. Combined.

                1. Open wider, clinger.

                  Or not.

                  Either way, you will swallow the consequences of losing the culture war and being a stale bigot.

                  Just hope your betters are courteous in triumph.

                  1. Says the real bigot.

            2. He’s not making any actual points retard.

              1. Jeff didnt actually read the comment. Like he didnt the memo.

                1. TDS has caused 2 different lefties to defend Kirkland on consecutive days. The disease must be getting worse!

            3. PJ had a point? Is that his claim? Other than saying Barr is a big dodo head, I mean.

              He should stick to moderating his NAMBLA board.

            4. I refuted many of his points

        2. “”Who is losing?””

          Warren and Sanders to name a couple.

        3. Suicide … is … always … an … option.

        4. I hope it is certainly not your side who is winning.

          You claim that your side is tolerant but you call others names like “depleted human residue.”

          You claim that you are on the side of science, but not a single scientist, although many have tried, has ever been able to prove macro evolution, or gotten one species to evolve into another. Micro evolution, yes–adaption of species, but show me the proof of macro evolution. Monkeys evolved into humans? Then why is the DNA of pigs closer to humans than the DNA of monkeys? Do you have a scientific answer for us? No? Yet your side has eliminated the “theory” in “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” and imposed those teachings to the exclusion of all other possibilities. And you call this enlightened? Can we not believe in both science and God? I believe we can. No one using proper scientific procedure would correlate a big bang to mean that it is impossible for God to exist. The two do not have to be exclusive.

          I believe true enlightenment and tolerance means having an open mind and respect for others. Qualities that you have shown you do not possess.

          As for the strong cities of California and New York, you mean the ones led by the left wing government that are over run by violence, the homeless, and excrement covering the sidewalks? You are proud of this? I lived in a city in Washington state overrun by homeless people, although not to the extent of San Francisco. It was the very people you belittle, the right-wing church people, who were out there in droves, every single day, helping in every way they could. I can name names of people who were homeless for years who are now living productive lives because of our help.

          I have comforted women who have secretly been racked with guilt for years because they believed it when society told them it was alright to kill their unborn child. This is why Susan B. Anthony, our most famous suffragette, said abortion was a crime against women.

          You are entitled to your views. But you are not entitled to feel smug, superior, or belittle others who believe differently.

          The true tragedy of this age is the indoctrination of our young people. When I asked my daughter-in-law why she chose to be a Democrat, I hoped it was because she knew what the party stood for and agreed with them. Anything but the answer she gave me. She said she was a Democrat because, in her field (Social Work), that is what she was taught. Sad.

          In my day, we were taught to think and reason for ourselves. Teachers shared their viewpoints, then asked us to share ours. We had to research and defend our positions. Everything was fair when I was in high school. Politics, religion, science. I used science, archeology, and history to back up my arguments.

          Before I retired from teaching college (at a secular, non-religious college), I expected my students to do the same. But what seems to happen now is that college professors simply want to indoctrinate them with their own beliefs. When they lost the 2016 election, did they encourage students to respect the office of the presidency, even if they didn’t respect the man? Did they teach them about democracy and how they could work towards a different outcome in four years? No, the universities you named, that you are so proud of, instead set up “cry rooms.”

          Those same universities encouraged their students to shout down and not allow anyone to speak who had an opposing viewpoint to their own. Educated, respected people brought in as guest speakers were called “fascists” and shouted down so they couldn’t even speak–just because someone thought they knew what they were going to say. Sadly, the students were so uneducated they didn’t even understand that not listening to, or considering, an opposing point of view is the very definition of fascist behavior. If this is enlightenment, then God save us all.

          You call yourself “Reverend” but your words belie your calling. I assume you consider yourself a part of the “smart, ambitious young people” you talked about? Can you share what you have achieved so far in your own life? I can tell you what you have not achieved. Respect for others or the wisdom of age. Hopefully, that will come with maturity.

        5. LOL. The hicklib barfed up all of his tropes in one post.

  5. TDS has affected so many people that things like this just vanish from my thoughts like water off a duck’s back. The implication is that no other Attorney General in the history of the nation has been as blatantly partisan as Barr, which frankly seems pretty damn unlikely. Yeh, whataboutism, but whataboutrump too.

    1. “The implication is that no other Attorney General in the history of the nation has been as blatantly partisan as Barr, which frankly seems pretty damn unlikely.”

      I didn’t take that as an implication. The only implication from this judge is that Barr has been purposefully misleading, so his redactions cannot be trusted. Which seems completely true.

      1. The implication is that the judge doesn’t trust Barr, though he can’t identify anything strictly false that Barr said.

        “While Mueller’s definition was appropriate in determining whether campaign officials had done anything illegal, Barr’s general denial that the campaign “coordinated” with Russia may have left the mistaken impression that there were no contacts or that Russia’s assistance was unwelcome.”

        IOW, Barr’s denial was entirely accurate, but the judge didn’t like the impression it left.

        We’re getting a lot of, “That was a lie, because while it was strictly speaking true, I don’t like what it implies.” in the media. Now we’re getting it in the judiciary, too.

        1. Well said.

          Walton is clearly operating with palpable bias and should recuse himself.

        2. IOW Barr’s denial was not entirely accurate. As opined by both this Judge and by the author of the report.

          1. “Not entirely accurate” seems like a not entirely accurate way to say “not false.” Barr didn’t make any false assertions of fact but this judge and dorks like you are ready to give the hoax another go around.

            Another nothing burger that will gift Trump an even higher approval rating.

            Thanks.

            1. Hahaha. Ok. It’s all good news, even when it’s bad news.

              This cult is getting creepier and creepier.

              1. You didn’t even read the memorandum. It’s a complete joke and, if you ever pull your hands out of your ass long enough to scroll through it, you will see that Walton spends 23 pages arguing about the meaning of “coordination.”

              2. The thing is, if this mattered, or any of this had gone your way, you wouldn’t be here crying like you are.

                1. ? I’m not crying. I’m pointing out that even R appointed judges see what a hack Barr is.

                  1. “De Oppresso Liber
                    March.6.2020 at 6:06 pm
                    ? I’m not crying”

                    All your crying proves otherwise.

              3. So jeff thinks judges are never wrong. Okay then. Jeff also didnt bother to read the memo as he never reads past the Vix headline giving him the narrative.

          2. The judge is actually saying people are too stupid, such as yourself, to be told the truth. That people who are stupid, such as yourself, dont understand the word coordination.

            1. What an amazing ability. The ability to turn any sentence into one you’d rather hear.

              1. The judgeiterally spends a good part of the memo on the definition and narrative of coordinate. Which you would know if you read it

              2. That’s quite an admission.

        3. Trusting barr has nothing to do with analyzing the FOIA. The judge comments on the summary report and the narrative in his memo, not on the virtue of the requested redactions. Classification falls under the executive as granted by congress. Even using basic Chevron, which binds this judge, the default implementation of redactions under security calls fallacy to the AG.

          This is also completely ignoring that the fucking report is a complete product of the executive and was never legally required to be released by law at all.

          Thia judge is incompetent.

          1. A former FISC judge trying to tank Barr’s credibility just as he digs into the conduct and propriety of the actions of his colleagues? That’s not incompetence; it’s motive. Just another one of those infamous “oopsie-daisies” that seem to cut curiously against the bad orange man every single time.

      2. Jeez buddy try extrapolating a little! Has this judge, or any other judge, ever said anything similar about any other Attorney General? If not, Barr must be the worst. Even worse than Nikki.

        1. Has he been asked to review any other AG’s actions?

          1. Has any other judge?

            I bet every single Attorney General has been judged by judges one time or another.

            1. Or are you saying that Barr is the very first such AG?

            2. Ok? But you are talking about this judge and his opinion. I’m sure other judges have had similar things to say about other AG’s. Holder was held in contempt, for example.

              The judge here was specifically tasked with reviewing a FOIA request regarding Barr’s redactions. He concluded that the redactions would need to be reviewed, since Barr cannot be trusted to act in nonpartisan way. Which is supported by the record.

          2. Weak.

      3. “”The only implication from this judge is that Barr has been purposefully misleading,””

        Let’s say for a moment he was. How big of a deal is purposefully misleading? If it was a big deal, everyone involved with the FISA warrant with Page would be in prison.

        I find it funny that some people think the AG misleading the public is a greater crime than the government misleading a judge on a secret warrant application.

        1. No one is saying greater or lesser. Why do you trumpists always whatabout? Oh, that’s right. Your arguments have no basis in fact, logic, or law. Deflection is all that is left.

          What Barr did was dishonest. That is apparent to anyone outside the cult. Go ahead and acknowledge that, as this GWB-appointed judge has. Then we can talk about non related matters, like FISA warrants.

          1. What did Barr do, exactly?

            1. His job. And that’s just a little more than the swamp will allow.

              1. If protecting the president is his job, what is Rudy’s job?

                1. What is he protecting, be specific.

                  1. The president from public opinion.

                    The point of Barr summarizing the Mueller report so blatantly dishonestly is not lost on the rest of us. The Fox and Breitbart crowd isn’t bright enough to pick up on it, and that’s all the president is interested in keeping on his side, anyhow,

                    1. PJ, you just hate him because he won’t open the border.

                    2. “The point of Barr summarizing the Mueller report so blatantly dishonestly”

                      This isn’t specific, it’s incredibly vague.
                      Do better

                2. Begging for crumbs, and longing for the days back when he was America’s Mayor?

                  1. I wish that was his only job, but sadly he has other taskings.

            2. Read the judges opinion. Why are you asking me?

              1. Because I know you didn’t fucking read it. Parrot.

                1. Sure looks increasingly like you’re right too.

                2. What am I parroting, then?

                  1. A bunch of prog assholes.

                    Which, if not on purpose should give you pause.

              2. Lol. Says the guy who obviously dodnt read it

                1. I did. It says very clearly that Barr cannot be trusted to fulfill the FOIA requests regarding this matter. Unlike you, I’m not trying to parse the ever living fuck out of it until I convince myself that the judge is somehow on my side.

                  1. Can you tell where his tears fell on it while writing it?

                  2. The summary you give is also given by the title of this article.
                    Not exactly proof of reading anything other than the headline

          2. “”No one is saying greater or lesser.””

            People don’t have to say it. You can tell by how they object, or not object.

            Who is the Trumpists you are talking about. I’m not a Trump fan. What part of fact, logic, or law failed in your decision to think I am?

            “”What Barr did was dishonest.””

            Maybe, maybe not. Dishonest would assume he is not being honest about his interpretation. He believes one thing but says another. He may very well be honest in his interpretation but wrong, and liberals who disagree want to play the dishonest card. But lets say he is. I don’t see how he’s more dishonest than any other AG.

            However, you do seem to be more concern with the dishonesty of someone you don’t like while ignoring the dishonest, actual dishonesty that happened in the FISA court. The people applying for the warrant knew they were not being forthright.

            1. Who is talking about FISA? Not me. You interjected that as a “wadabout this!”. It’s simply not relevant.

              1. God damn dude you’re crying at literally every other person I’m this thread lololol

              2. I thought you were talking about dishonesty. You seemed to be concerned with it. But when I point out the dishonesty with FISA, you write it off as wadabout this. Therefore I conclude you are not really that concerned with dishonesty. You are more concerned about the who (Barr), not the what (dishonesty in government).

          3. It’s not “whataboutism” to note that your entire argument is based on fraud.

      4. Well you’re an idiot though.

      5. This Bush-era judge comes out of nowhere to reactivate the Mueller fiasco on the pages of the NYT just in time for Trump’s lawsuit against…the NYT (!)…for lying about Russian collusion. What an amazing coincidence! Nothing to see here, folks.

  6. A federal judge’s spin on AG Barr’s spin on the Mueller report makes a federal judge untrustworthy.

  7. Judge Walton completely overstepped the duties of his position in issuing this atrocious opinion. Determining whether material was properly redacted, in the context of FOIA proceeding, does not require any assessment of credibility. Credibility has nothing to do the propriety of a redaction or whether an exception to FOIA applies.

    Also, one is left to wonder how it is that Judge Walton can in good faith accuse Barr of misrepresenting redacted portions of report … without having had an opportunity to review the redacted materials first.

    It seems that Walton has injected himself into the situation and is openly expressing animosity toward Barr and the DOJ. The DOJ’s first step should be to move for Walton to be recused. This is judicial malfeasance at its finest.

  8. So it looks like the libertarian consensus is that the president and his appointees (R) are not only to be assumed to be above reproach (R), but there probably shouldn’t be any institutional checks to make sure.

    Also the plain English of even the redacted Mueller report completely exonerate Trump, but they’ll have to go on faith because apparently you’re all illiterate.

    1. A 2 year investigation is above reproach to idiots like Tony.

    2. Tony, no one needs more proof that your AIDS infection is in the terminal phases and has rotted your mind.

      Do something else. No one wants you here, and there are plenty of D fellators that you don’t need to waste your final days pissing into the wind.

      1. The progs probably want the unpredicted report so they can beat up on all the people interviewed and questioned who may be loyal to Trump. Which is why some of,the report is redacted. And why reports of this nature always contain redactions.

        This is just the same kind of bullshit that was used to railroad Flynn, Stone, etc., to send the message that working for a trump, or supporting him will have consequences.

        1. They could try not being fucking criminals. You know that juries convicted them?

          1. “They could try not being fucking criminals. You know that juries convicted them?”

            They did, so the feds simply set them up.

            1. Set the juries up?

    3. There can’t be a libertarian consensus that the president and his appointees are not only be be assumed to be above reproach, because if we believe Obama’s administration, then we don’t believe Trump’s administration, or vice versa.

      The libertarian view should be to question the authorities and their actions when it is or appears to be an abuse of power.

      And all the abuse I’ve seen has been from Obama’s administration, starting with accepting Hillary’s dossier without question, not informing Trump that members of his team were suspected of being Russian assets and were under investigation, leaking the existence of that investigation to illegally influence an election, and the harm done to many individual in Trump’s administration all under false pretense. Then the impeachment was an abuse of power, and I’ll bet it continues.

  9. oooh a federal judge has an opinion everyone bow

  10. Judge Walton’s argument in a nutshell:

    “Barr stated, accurately, that Mueller concluded that there was no coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians but he didn’t explain exactly what “coordination” meant, and did not explain that “coordination” is a very loose term, and because he didn’t explain that “coordination,” being a loose term, can be interpreted in a manner that would make Trump look bad, despite the lack of an agreed definition of “coordination,” Barr is a liar. If Barr was honest, he would have recounted all the instances of criminally irrelevant “coordination” cited by Mueller, for the proper “context.” And, because Barr didn’t explain the meaning of “coordination,” the redacted portions of the Mueller report should not have been redacted … I think … um … I feel … wait … in my discretion, that is … I BELIEVE!”

    The entire opinion was a rambling clusterfuck of needless and legally inconsequential bias.

    1. The amazing thing about the leftists attacking Barr is that he’s actually an institutionalist. He shut down the Mueller investigation because he looked at it and realized it was political from the get-go. But he hasn’t actually done anything a real Trump loyalist — or general DOJ skeptic — would. And if they get rid of Barr the next guy is going to burn that motherfucker down, and he’ll only get approved because all the Trump-hating R senators were embarrassed for falling for the Russia BS and pissed about Kavanaugh and impeachment.

        1. Pathetic partisan zombie.

  11. “Were the Justice Department’s redactions influenced by Barr’s desire to exonerate the president?”

    Of course.

    Consigliere Barr has made a career of helping Republican criminals escape justice starting with Iran–Contra affair continuing until the present day.

    1. Cool story bro. You a new sock for one of our resident progtard fags? Or are you just some new progtard fag that wandered in from WaPo?

      1. Is name calling all you have in rebuttal? Why shame yourself?

  12. From reading Reggie Walton’s wiki I learned that West Virginia is so white the HBCU is 75% white.

  13. Sullum labors under the misconception that district court judges are wizened non political actors who strictly apply the law in an unbiased fashion. In reality they have a guaranteed well paying job for life and can never be fired, questioned or overturned on findings of fact. Not surprisingly, a significant percentage are arrogant assholes. Jacob has no problem criticizing local cops but when it comes to the IC and the judiciary he’s a hardcore statist.

  14. “Yet Mueller strongly implied that the evidence of obstruction was more substantial than the evidence of an illegal conspiracy with Russia.”

    wait, what?? I read the report – all 400+ pages. Mueller implied nothing. he stated plainly that there was evidence that COULD lead to a conclusion of obstruction. he also said that there was effectively NO evidence of an illegal conspiracy. he handed it off the Congress. they chose to pursue the Ukraine nonsense instead. please don’t twist his words while reporting how Barr twisted his words …

  15. As the former Presiding Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, I am gravely concerned about Judge Walton’s credibility. How many times did he casually rubber stamp a FISA warrant like he was wiping his ass with the fourth amendment? This is coming from a man who repeatedly states that he is concerned that the public may lose faith in our justice system. The irony to that is so rich that it goes without saying.

  16. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop…… Read more

  17. Maybe if the “judge” and Sullum got the time line right, they could come to a more accurate conclusion about Barr’s credibility.
    FIRST came Barr’s DOJ recommending that the Stone sentence be left up to the judge.
    THEN came the prosecutors’ complete insubordination of making the 7 to 9 year recommendation, which Barr had to rescind.
    THEN came the Trump “tweets”.
    NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
    So, using the real circumstances, as evidence of Barr being Trump’s protector, eviscerates the anti, and NEVER Trumpers’ arguments.

  18. You can rest assured that this judge is Evil. For the last three years ever almost every judge appointed by a Democrat has been out to destroy Trump and America. Barr is trying to set this straight. America is ruled by the so called legal system and to be honest if the US Supreme Court is not honest and willing to take a stand it will lead to America’s demise. It is close to time to think about local militias.Unfortunately most lawyers support the Democrats and it appears none of them believe there is a God.

    1. That’s a weak troll considering the judge was appointed by Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

      1. Maybe if the “judge” and Sullum got the time line right, they could come to a more accurate conclusion about Barr’s credibility.
        FIRST came Barr’s DOJ recommending that the Stone sentence be left up to the judge.
        THEN came the prosecutors’ complete insubordination of making the 7 to 9 year recommendation, which Barr had to rescind.
        THEN came the Trump “tweets”.
        NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
        So, using the real circumstances, as evidence of Barr being Trump’s protector, eviscerates the anti, and NEVER Trumpers’ arguments
        read more

    2. Trump is a false prophet, and God is a superstition.

      1. Tony tips his fedora with a swish.

  19. I am curious what other judicial gems has U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton given us.

    There have to be other gems. You just know it.

  20. An investigation started on lies, violating constitutional rights of those like Carter Page. The only thing that should be done with that Mueller report is stamp a big red X across it and file it away for good as something that should have never happened. Our constitutional rights depend on it.

  21. 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… More Read Here

  22. The lack of critical thinking skills are jarring.

    “identified multiple contacts—’links,’ in the words of the Appointment Order—between Trump [c]ampaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.”

    Contact is not collusion. It has been a publicly known fact for almost four years now that certain individuals were contacted by the Russians.

    We all know what the full report entails (and what this entire process was always about): nothingburgers that will only serve as ammunition for some TDS sufferers to try and damage Trump with. The last thing the AG or our govt should be doing is playing into this farce of an investigation and impeachment by giving them tabloid bullshit for the election.

    I want you to consider the following logical axiom: if the government was covering for Trump and Barr really was lying, why do you think he would do this when it is inevitable that at some point in the future, Democrats will win a Presidential election and have full access to the reports? Or an anti-Trump Republican? Or an independent? Or someone that you can’t just call a Trump slave?

    That’s the most absurd part of this entire process. Everyone who has defended Trump at some point is called a mindless drone. The TDS has blinded you to the point that you can’t even admit that he MIGHT be innocent and that you were a useful idiot to a soft coup.

    1. Look, some dude said “hi” to the Russian guy at a cocktail party. This is some serious shit!

      (no, actually that was one of the big ones. They went for “false statements on “have you been meeting with the Russians” being answered “no” when they learned of “hi” at a cocktail party. They really, really went grasping for straws on this one.)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.