Zappa.com

John Newton Mitchell (September 5, 1913 – November 9, 1988) was the 67th Attorney General of the United States (1969–1972) under President Richard Nixon and a convicted criminal.

After his tenure as U.S. Attorney General, he served as chairman of Nixon's 1972 presidential campaign. Due to multiple crimes he committed in the Watergate affair, Mitchell was sentenced to prison in 1977 and served 19 months.

WILL HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF?

Dave Granlund


Pat Bagley


Christopher Weyant


Steve Sack


Bill Day


Adam Zyglis


Dave Whamond


R. J. Matson

_________________
that's what happens when you don't read you loose your link to higher thinking

great cartoons.

_________________
"bit of nostalgia for the old folks."

_________________
that's what happens when you don't read you loose your link to higher thinking

Barr Could Be Disbarred

Four past presidents of the D.C. Bar Association have signed a letter to the Bar Association's Office of Disciplinary Counsel asking for AG William Barr to be investigated and potentially disbarred. The letter points to four specific actions that the authors allege violate the D.C. Bar's ethical rules, to wit:

His deceitful behavior in absolving the President of the obstruction of justice that Robert Mueller found

Attacking an inspector general's report using half-truths, mischaracterizations, and concealment of facts

Maligning FBI officials who have not been indicted for a crime, making a future fair trial impossible

Ordering an unconstitutional attack on peaceful protesters at Lafayette Square

The summary ends with: "We don't have an attorney general now. We have an additional lawyer for the President."

The letter is 40 pages long and gives a detailed brief for each of the counts of Barr's violating bar association rules. There are 23 signatories in addition to the four past presidents.

letter https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-73b9-d36e-abff-7ffbcec00000

story https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/22/bill-barr-bar-association-probe-377272

Barr Testifies

Dave Granlund


Attorney General William Barr appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, as scheduled. Over the course of five hours, with many slings and arrows hurled in both directions, Barr managed to make one thing crystal clear: He is 100%, absolutely, no doubt about it, in the bag for Donald Trump.

Among the highlights (lowlights?):

Answering a question about his intervention in the sentencing of Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, Barr asserted that "The president's friends don't deserve special breaks, but they also don't deserve to be treated more harshly than other people." Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) asked if Barr had intervened in the sentencing of anyone who is not a Trump friend, and the AG admitted he had not.

He said that the President's re-election bid sometimes comes up at Cabinet meetings, but that he does not see that as a problem, since it doesn't influence policy. Barr also noted that while he's busy not worrying about Trump's re-election this October, he might just release the report from U.S. Attorney John Durham about the Russia investigation (or the "bogus Russiagate scandal," to use the AG's words).

Barr justified his deployment of federal officers to Portland and other cities, declaring that the protesters are "violent rioters and anarchists," are guilty of "an assault on the government of the United States," and are a threat to national security. He did not explain exactly how they threaten national security.

He insisted that America's police departments don't have a racism problem, and defended that point by asserting that he's seen studies showing that "police are less likely to shoot at a black suspect, a little more likely to shoot at a white suspect." He could not cite those studies. Further, he is certainly intelligent enough to recognize the inherent dishonesty of that framing, since white Americans outnumber Black ones by a margin of about 4 to 1.

The AG said that voting by mail is susceptible to large-scale fraud by foreign actors. He could not explain how that fraud might be perpetrated, or provide any evidence for his assertion.

When Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-RI) asked "Is it ever appropriate, sir, for the president to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election?," Barr responded: "It depends what kind of assistance" before later deciding it's probably not appropriate. There is, of course, no type of foreign assistance that is legal for a presidential candidate to receive.

Responding to a question about the lack of sufficient COVID-19 testing, Barr laid the blame at the feet of...Barack Obama, declaring that "the problem of the testing system was a function of President Obama's mishandling of the CDC."

If there is one thing here that is not 100% the Trump party line, we are not seeing what it is. At the same time, Barr presented himself as something of a hero, someone who had no interest in returning to public life, but came out of retirement to "restore a sense of justice" to the Justice Dept., and who thinks he's done a fine and dandy job of doing that. He also argued that he could not possibly be corrupt because he's never used the powers of the department against political foes. "What enemies have I indicted?" he asked. A failure to commit one specific abuse of power (as far as we know) is pretty thin evidence to hang your hat on while presenting yourself as a modern-day Solon.

So, what did the Democrats achieve on Tuesday? Not much. They collected plenty of rock-solid evidence about the kind of AG Barr is, but everyone who is willing to consider that evidence already knew he was a Trump henchman. And what did Barr achieve? Well, he was presumably performing for an audience of one, and that one was undoubtedly delighted by what he heard. As an added bonus, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson now have a week's worth of material for their shows.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/27/barr-faces-democratic-barrage-382916

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/28/barr-pre-election-release-durham-report-385244

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solon

AG William Barr sees himself as Donald Trump's personal lawyer, as opposed to an advocate for the American people. This isn't even particularly in dispute anymore, given how many times Barr has bent legal ethics (and maybe even the law) to protect his boss's back. The AG did pay lip service to the notion that he was still a fair and impartial public servant who was just doing his job, but even that went out the window on Tuesday, when the Dept. of Justice announced that it would be taking over the President's defense in the defamation lawsuit filed against him by E. Jean Carroll, and the services of the private attorneys that had been handling the case would no longer be needed.

The DoJ's justification for this is that when Trump made the allegedly defamatory statements, he was acting in his official capacity as President of the United States. Riiiight. If so, that would mean "E. Jean Carroll is a liar" and "E. Jean Carroll is not Donald Trump's 'type'" are the official policy of the United States government. When Bill Clinton got caught...using cigars in the Oval Office and lying about it, he actually had a stronger case for being defended in his official capacity as president, since the impeachment was politically motivated. But even he hired private counsel (specifically, Robert Bennett, David Kendall, and Mickey Kantor).

The motivation is one or both of two things: (1) Trump is parsimonious enough that he wants the people of the United States to foot his legal bills, or (2) He thinks that facing off against the might and the combined resources of the Dept. of Justice will intimidate Carroll and get her to back down. The long-term problem with each of these is that Trump may not be president when this case goes to trial, and if he's not, the DoJ certainly isn't going to defend him. And the short-term problem is that this is a campaign that's lagging badly in the polls heading into the home stretch. You would think they would want to avoid any damaging headlines that are within their power to avoid. Maybe they know something about politics that we don't know.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/08/trump-defamation-lawsuit-jean-carroll-410504

Pat Bagley

Attorney General Bill Barr unveiled his latest toadyism on Monday. On direct orders from the President, the Justice Department formally declared that the cities of New York, Seattle, and Portland are "anarchy" jurisdictions. "We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance," Barr said in a statement. "It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens."

This is so transparent that it cannot be taken seriously. Ostensibly, it is pretext to withholding federal funds (per Barr's statement) and/or imposing martial law. However, there is zero chance that declaring New York City to be in anarchy, just 'cause, is going to stand up to even a cursory legal challenge. Further, one cannot help but notice that other cities that have had recent violence, namely St. Paul and Kenosha, somehow didn't make the list. Hmmm...what is it that separates Washington/Oregon/New York on one hand and Minnesota/Wisconsin on the other? (Hint: The answer is two words, and rhymes with "wing tates.") If Donald Trump does get reelected, Democrats in Congress may have no choice but to impeach Barr, who continues to abuse the powers of his office six ways to Sunday.