Bill Barr Repeatedly Lied, Under Oath, about Judge Amy Berman Jackson

The judge agreed with me, Congressman.

The judge agreed with me.

The judge agreed with me.

Bill Barr spent a lot of time in yesterday’s hearing claiming the federal officers in Portland have to violently suppress the protests in Portland because the protests are an assault on the Federal courthouse.

He also lied, repeatedly, to cover up the assault on the judiciary he ignored.

In just one exchange with Ted Deutch, Barr claimed at least six times that Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed with his analysis on the Roger Stone sentence.

Barr tried — and ultimately succeeded — in dodging Deutch’s question, which is whether there was ever a time in the history of the Justice Department where DOJ considered threats against a witness and a judge just a technicality.

Deutch: You said enhancements were technically applicable. Mr. Attorney General, can you think of any other cases where the defendant threatened to kill a witness, threatened a judge, lied to a judge, where the Department of Justice claimed that those were mere technicalities? Can you think of even one?

Barr: The judge agreed with our analysis.

Deutch: Can you think of even one? I’m not asking about the judge. I’m asking about what you did to reduce the sentence of Roger Stone?

Barr: [attempts to make an excuse]

Deutch: Mr. Attorney General, he threatened the life of a witness —

Barr: And the witness said he didn’t feel threatened.

Deutch: And you view that as a technicality, Mr. Attorney General. Is there another time

Barr: The witness — can I answer the question? Just a few seconds to answer the question?

Deutch: Sure. I’m asking if there’s another time in all the time in the Justice Department.

Barr: In this case, the judge agreed with our — the judge agreed with our —

Deutch: It’s unfortunate that the appearance is that, as you said earlier, this is exactly what you want. The essence of rule of law is that we have one rule for everybody and we don’t in this case because he’s a friend of the President’s. I yield.

The exchange is interesting for a lot of reasons — Barr’s story on the timeline on replacing Jesse Liu and Timothy Shea’s subsequent interventions in the Stone and Mike Flynn cases does not hold up in the least, though now he’s on the record, under oath, with that story.

As to the part where there is a public record, Barr was wrong on the facts. For example, while Barr claims that Randy Credico said he didn’t feel threatened by Stone after Stone made threats against him, Credico has said he feared what Stone’s thuggish friends might do. And, as Amy Berman Jackson noted in the sentencing hearing, Credico described to the grand jury how he wore a disguise and lived in hiding out of fear.

I note, since the defense has informed me that I can consider this material, that that is not consistent with his grand jury testimony, which was closer in time to the actual threats, at which time he said he was hiding and wearing a disguise and not living at home because he was worried, if not about Trump, about his — about Stone, but about his friends. So, I think his level of concern may have changed over time.

The revised sentencing memo that Barr falsely claimed ABJ agreed with suggested “the Court [] not [] apply the eight-level enhancement for threatening a witness with physical injury.” But ABJ explicitly said the guideline applied, but she said would account for the nature of the threats and Credico’s leniency letter in deciding whether the sentence should apply the full guideline enhancement.

The guideline plainly applies. Even if one considers the threat to the dog to be property damage, that’s covered too. Application Note 5 explains that the guideline includes threats of property loss or damage, quote, Threatened as a means of witness intimidation.

But as the second government’s memorandum appears to be suggesting, as the defense has argued, the vague nature of the threat concerning any physical harm and its actual impact on Mr. Credico can be considered when I determine whether this sentence should fall within the guideline range or not, and they will.

In other words, ABJ said Stone should be punished for the kinds of threats he made about Credico, but that the enhancement itself was too severe.

ABJ similarly argued the opposite of what Barr did with regards to the enhancement for Stone’s obstruction of his prosecution, which the revised sentencing memo claimed, “overlaps to a degree with the offense conduct in this case,” and argued may not have, “actually prejudiced the government at trial.”

ABJ scoffed at DOJ’s erroneous claim that an enhancement designed to address entirely post-indictment actions could overlap — as DOJ claimed — with the pre-indictment actions charged in the indictment.

The supplemental memorandum says: Well, this enhancement overlaps, to a degree, with the offense conduct in this case.

I’m not sure I understand that assertion. As proposed, the guideline is not meant to cover any pre-indictment conduct at all. And, yes, the guideline says it doesn’t apply if obstruction of justice is the charge of conviction; but, that’s not true, say the guidelines, if there is further obstruction during the prosecution.

The government also said in its supplemental memo: It’s unclear to what extent the defendant’s obstructive conduct actually prejudiced the government at trial. But that isn’t the test. Obstruction is an attempt; it doesn’t have to be successful. And the administration of justice is a little bit more than whether they got in the prosecution’s way.

And she laid out, at length, the import of Stone’s threats and lies.

Even after he first denied and then acknowledged personally selecting the crosshairs photo, he sat there telling me: Yes, I’m going to follow any restrictions on talking about the investigation; but, forgetting to mention that he had a book on the subject wending its way to publishers as we spoke. I certainly haven’t seen anything that would attribute that to mere anxiety.

The defense also says his conduct, quote: Didn’t cause significant further obstruction of the prosecution of the case, close quote.


But, certainly, A., threatening or intimidating a juror or a fact-finder in the case; F., providing false information to a judge; and J., not complying with the restraining order. While the orders here are not the ones specifically mentioned in the list, it’s not necessary that there’s an exact fit. The list is supposed to be illustrative.

And given the similarity of the conduct in this case to what’s listed in A., F., and J., I find that the guideline applies. The defendant engaged in threatening and intimidating conduct towards the Court, and later, participants in the National Security and Office of Special Counsel investigations that could and did impede the administration of justice.

I suppose I could say: Oh, I don’t know that I believe that Roger Stone was actually going to hurt me, or that he intended to hurt me. It’s just classic bad judgment.

But, the D.C. Circuit has made it clear that such conduct satisfied the test. They said: To the extent our precedent holds that a §3C1.1 enhancement is only appropriate where the defendant acts with the intent to obstruct justice, a requirement that flows logically from the definition of the word “willful” requires that the defendant consciously act with the purpose of obstructing justice.

However, where the defendant willfully engages in behavior that is inherently obstructive, that is, behavior that a rational person would expect to obstruct justice, this Court has not required a separate finding of the specific intent to obstruct justice.

Here, the defendant willfully engaged in behavior that a rational person would find to be inherently obstructive. It’s important to note that he didn’t just fire off a few intemperate emails. He used the tools of social media to achieve the broadest dissemination possible. It wasn’t accidental. He had a staff that helped him do it.

As the defendant emphasized in emails introduced into evidence in this case, using the new social media is his “sweet spot.” It’s his area of expertise. And even the letters submitted on his behalf by his friends emphasized that incendiary activity is precisely what he is specifically known for. He knew exactly what he was doing. And by choosing Instagram and Twitter as his platforms, he understood that he was multiplying the number of people who would hear his message.

By deliberately stoking public opinion against prosecution and the Court in this matter, he willfully increased the risk that someone else, with even poorer judgment than he has, would act on his behalf. This is intolerable to the administration of justice, and the Court cannot sit idly by, shrug its shoulder and say: Oh, that’s just Roger being Roger, or it wouldn’t have grounds to act the next time someone tries it.

The behavior was designed to disrupt and divert the proceedings, and the impact was compounded by the defendant’s disingenuousness. As the opinion in Henry pointed out in U.S. versus Maccado, 225 F.3d 766, at 772, the D.C. Circuit even upheld a §3C1.1 enhancement for failure to provide a handwriting example because such failure, quote, Clearly has the potential to weaken the government’s case, prolong the pendency of the charges, and encumber the Court’s docket.

And the record didn’t show a lack of such intent. The defendant’s conduct here certainly imposed an undue burden on the Court’s docket and court personnel, as we had to waste considerable time convening hearing after hearing to get the defendant to finally be straight about the facts, to get the defendant to comply with court orders that were clear as day, and to ensure that the public and that people who come and go from this building every day were safe. Therefore, I’m going to add the two levels, and we are now at a Level 27.

Contrary to the government’s claim that Stone’s lies and threats had no effect on the case, ABJ laid out the risks of the threat and the added time she and court personnel had to expend responding to them.

It is true that ABJ ended up around where Barr wanted Stone’s sentence to end up, but as she explicitly said, she got there the same way she would have for any defendant, but deciding that the sentencing guidelines are too severe. If Barr agreed with that then other people would benefit from Barr’s brief concern about prison sentences.

That didn’t happen.

But Barr is not afraid to lie and claim it did, under oath.

79 replies
  1. GKJames says:

    Will anyone in Congress dare ask Barr: With your record of mendacity — including as to easily refutable assertions — do you see yourself at risk of an indictment for participation in a conspiracy to obstruct justice?

  2. BayStateLibrul says:

    The die is cast.
    Barr is the male counterpart to a witch, a fucking wizard, born with all the magical powers of legal trickery.
    His fairy tales are now complete with his spell-binding rhetoric/performance — hoodwinking his adversaries with tall tales.
    All that is missing is a white beard and robes.
    Thank God he never became a judge.
    As AG, he needs to be impeached, with his horn-rimmed glasses broken in two.

    • BroD says:

      “his spell-binding rhetoric/performance”
      I didn’t watch or listen but this strains credulity.

      • bmaz says:

        Naw, Barr won the day easily. A couple of Dems scored a point here and there but, overall, Barr killed them.

  3. civil says:

    At the end of the hearing, Nadler noted that HJC members have 5 days to submit additional questions to be answered in writing, and in a comment on a different column, I said “My Rep. isn’t on the committee, but I’ll have to write and ask him to forward questions to someone who is on the HJC. I’ll include the question Dr. Wheeler posted yesterday, and I’ll look through comments here and the previous column (including the Just Security, … links) for other ideas.” bmaz asked me to post what I found, which I’ve done:
    I wanted to invite people to add more questions there.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Thanks for your tireless work.

    Bill Barr acts like a mafia don. His attitude, like Jeffrey Epstein’s, is that he’s untouchable. He’s certainly a made man, at least in the political sense. In his first stint as Attorney General, he saved St. Ronny, Bush Sr. and the Republican Party from the nuclear winter that would have followed detailed disclosures of their Iran-Contra dealings.

    Following Nixon’s crimes less than two decades earlier, those disclosures would have been devastating. As it was, Barr stonewalled Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh’s efforts for years. He caused his investigation to be shut down because of systematic obstruction – and Barr still had to orchestrate pardons for six highly-placed GOP operatives, including a former SecDef, to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Saving Bush Sr’s hide gave us Bush Jr’s presidency, which gave us Dick Cheney.

    The GOP owes Bill Barr big time and he’s cashing in. He’s helping to keep malefactor and useful idiot Trump in office. He’s also using him in ways that Dick Cheney used Shrub – to execute on his arch-conservative, neoliberal, executive power is the only power agenda. It happens to coincide with the GOP’s need to corrupt the system in order to hang on to power rather than become a permanent minority, permanently out of power.

  5. The Old Redneck says:

    It was painful to watch Nadler and others flounce around with a skilled evader like Barr. But conversely, it was gratifying to see Swalwell do his job extraordinarily well. Swalwell did a few really critical things:
    1. Not try to cover too much, knowing he only had five minutes.
    2. Be prepared with the facts to prevent deflection/diversion/dissembling.
    3. Calmly, but firmly, refuse to let Barr give non-answers.

    By the end, Barr was reduced to yelling and spluttering some whataboutism about the end of the Obama administration. He looked miserable. Other members of Congress need to watch Swalwell’s segment and learn something about how it’s done.

    • Timmer says:

      Dems have a future if folks like Swalwell, Lieu, O’Cortez, Jayapal, Porter, Pressley, Slotkin, Schiff, Neguse, Raskin types gain and maintain leadership.

        • Yohei72 says:

          Fuck, when Hoyer said (yesterday?) that the Dems weren’t *married* to a $600/week continuation of unemployment benefits, I almost choked out from rage. Where the hell did these people learn to negotiate?

      • Yohei72 says:

        “O’Cortez” – I like it! I’ve been in the market for another abbreviation besides “AOC.” I also like the visual possibilities of an Irish conquistador.

  6. John K says:

    “If Barr agreed with that then other people would benefit from Barr’s brief concern about prison sentences.”

    This is all I kept thinking about while watching his greasy, pompous ass slither out of everything. This guy, the ultimate legal bullshit artist who says with a straight face that there is no systemic racism in American police tactics, pretends that what Roger Stone got was not preferential treatment.
    Just let some wise ass black drug dealer try to pull off what Stone did pull off. Does anyone think for a fraction of a second that Barr wouldn’t be going all in to maximize that guy’s sentencing? William Barr is the poster child for the establishment of two separate rules of law.

      • BobCon says:

        Congressional offices with full staffing are usually jammed with more people than would be allowed by code if Congress followed codes.

        The Sherman thread notes that McConnell and Pelosi have had a ridiculously substandard response in terms of testing for members of Congress, and this true for staff and employees too.

        A piece of this is also enforcement of mask rules, which appears to be nonexistent. Also, both McConnell and Pelosi should have handed down mandates which would lock up the offices of members like Gohmert who don’t follow safe practices. Of course, trying to do this now after so much lax time has passed is vastly harder than it would have been months ago.

        • MB says:

          Not to mention that in yesterday’s hearing, Nadler interrupted at some point to berate Jordan and Gohmert for not wearing masks during the hearing when they weren’t talking themselves.

          Because Gohmert and Barr greeted each other (both unmasked) on their way into the hearing room, Barr is now going to get tested.

          Wait, I thought all cabinet members got tested regularly anyway…here’s looking at you, kid.

          • bmaz says:

            Well, in this instance, Gohmert was tested b because he was about to get on Air Force One with Trump. You see, the people who hate testing use it relentlessly for themselves.

            • BobCon says:

              Pelosi is next in line for the White House after Pence. She has grounds to insist on a much stricter adherence to masks and testing than she does.

              For that matter, Chuck Grassley comes after Pelosi, and I can’t imagine there is anything being done to watch over him. It’s crazy that he is that close, but until the Constitution changes, they have to think about these things.

              • P J Evans says:

                They should have mandated masks for all of Congress back in March. And then enforced the mandate, with fines and censure as needed.

  7. Peterr says:

    I’d hate to be the US Atty standing in front of Reggie Walton as Walton reviews the DOJ redactions to the Mueller Report. Walton’s already taken notice of the lies Barr told when Mueller first submitted his report: “considering the record in this case, the Court must conclude that the actions of Attorney General Barr and his representations about the Mueller Report preclude the Court’s acceptance of the validity of the Department’s redactions without its independent verification.” Answering for that will be hard enough.

    But now Barr is adding to those lies with lies about a federal judge.

    Something tells me this will make Walton even more eager to make public the lies of the DOJ and especially those coming from the AG.

    Be afraid, Billy Barr. You might be able to stonewall a series of 5 minute question sessions from House Democrats. You might be able to shout over those representatives who really get under your skin. But that’s not going to work with Reggie Walton.

    Barr’s just making Walton more disgusted with the antics of the DOJ.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Conveniently, more of Barr’s lies are now in the public record, via statements made under oath to Congress. Makes it easier for Reggie.

      • Timmer says:

        I do like to participate in the vents here and read what you all have to say. However, I would like to know what actions Congress or Reggie can accomplish to rid the nation of this pile o’shyte. Doing rather than talking about what can be done is paramount.

        • bmaz says:

          A lot if they want, especially the House. But they don’t want. Reggie Walton has a narrow area of action, but it could leave a significant mark if he plumbs it. He just might. We’ll see.

          • Peterr says:

            If Walton determines that Barr’s DOJ did indeed abuse the classification process to keep unflattering parts of the Mueller Report redacted for improper reasons, he will not only order those parts unsealed but he will no doubt do so by issuing a scathing opinion of Barr and the DOJ.

            A question for bmaz: might the DC Circuit also take note of this kind of order from Walton in their en banc hearing of the mandamus request aimed at Sullivan (assuming Walton rules before the en banc hearing)? The phrase “pattern and practice” keeps floating through my head.

            • emptywheel says:

              I don’t think DOJ did abuse classification on the initial Mueller Report release. They have fairly obviously done so on the subsequent release of 302s. But that issue is not yet fully before Walton (BuzzFeed/EPIC have noted it, but he is not yet reviewing DOJ’s withholdings).

  8. Savage Librarian says:

    Neither Hair, Nor There

    Barr looks to have a head of hair,
    But we wonder what is under there,
    Did Sidney tell us, “Do beware,”
    With a double dealing, double dare?

    Natural, thick and full it seems,
    His hair an asset, a boon, it reams
    the senses of what sense it deems,
    And forces facts to factotum memes.

    It’s all about that Kodak moment,
    To boost the polls and to foment
    economic flimflam on the home front
    by a showman who’s less than cogent.

    Yet salt and pepper are belied in
    bogus jargon that can hide in
    briny stones that can’t be relied on,
    That’s why we must all vote for Biden.

  9. CD54 says:

    Built-in GOP hypocrisy re: Proof.

    Barr: I have no evidence. I have common sense.

    Jordan/Gohmert: There’s no proof masks make you safer.

    • AndTheSlithyToves says:

      Two Republican Oxymorons, three if you add in Congressman COVID’s colleague, K. McCarthy.

  10. Yohei72 says:

    Apologies for the derail – there doesn’t seem to be a current open thread – but I wanted second, third, etc., opinions from the brains here. Feel free to delete if it’s too far off topic.

    The House pulled the Homeland Security funding bill yesterday, as I’m sure we’re all aware. I called my rep (Yvette Clarke) last week to ask her to oppose it, and I’ve been haranguing friends and family all week to do the same, with some success, I think. So my initial response is, “Yesss.”

    But I am seeing laments from some Dems that this bill achieved some unprecedented progressive goals with regard to DHS’s operations, and that the progressive members made a “perfect as the enemy of the good” mistake with their opposition. I’m inherently suspicious of such arguments, for reasons I probably don’t have to explain, but I also try to question my kneejerk responses. So… thoughts?


    https://www. politico. com/news/2020/07/28/house-democrats-homeland-security-spending-bill-from-floor-384633

    • BobCon says:

      It’s a 2021 appropriations bill, and while I don’t know the details, those usually don’t apply retroactively to the current fiscal year. I would guess there is some hedging of bets by liberal opponents in case of a Trump victory next year, and possibly concern that if Biden wins DHS will still be running on autopilot for a while until new political appointees can take the reins.

      But since 2021 funding needs the Senate to pass a bill and then go through a conference committee, I think any major changes in mission in this bill are only a starting point, especially since there is a very strong chance the only thing enacted in the next few months is a stopgap continuing funding bill that carries over existing funding for existing programs. The full bill probably won’t happen until a post election lame duck session, or possibly not even until next year if things get chaotic. And even if Congress somehow passes a bill full of restrictions on schedule by October 1 and Trump loses, he’ll still be flouting Congressional requirements while he can.

      To be honest, though, I wouldn’t be surprised if the moderate opponents mentioned in the article are the real drivers, and the liberals are being set up as the bad guys. I think it is dumb if any moderates honestly think that this appropriations bill even registers in this political atmosphere; a wild guess is that they aren’t so dumb and they are responding to pressure by DHS contractors hoping to restore some cuts and maintain the highest possible level of pork.

      • Yohei72 says:

        Well, now I’m even less sure. But in a potentially useful way.

        So can I reasonably glean from your comments that this happening now doesn’t necessarily make much difference, since there was going to be so much more debate and revision before anything went into effect anyway?

        Thanks for the thoughtful response.

  11. eastman says:

    I’m interested in hearing the community’s perspective on a question that just occurred to me. Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. What is the benefit of Barr getting Stone’s sentence reduced if it was going to be commuted in the end? It seems to me that they showed bias and opened themselves up to two lines of criticism (sentencing recommendation plus commutation) when only one was necessary. I’m far from a legal expert so there is probably something I’m missing. Is it possible that this was just poorly planned? Based on track record, that seems quite possible too.

    • Yohei72 says:

      My amateur, half-informed impression is that “poorly planned” is the most likely answer. Or something similar, like “the right hand doesn’t always know what the left is doing because the right hand changes his mind all the time.”

      As I believe EW herself has observed here, Barr is hardly the mastermind he seems to imagine himself, or that the media and some of his opponents sometimes imagine him to be.

      But people who are actual lawyers and not just guys on the internet could comment more usefully than I.

    • Marinela says:

      I think it was planned by design between Trump and Barr. Barr gets to interfere to the sentence for Stone so when Trump commutes it is less risk perceived to Trump.
      Barr also gets to be put out “fake” narratives about not agreeing with Trump commutation while both of them are in locked steps regarding protection of Stone.

      One wrinkle that contributes to the this dynamic, maybe Stone started to make noise about how much he can damage Trump in case he has a bad day in jail.

      • Yohei72 says:

        So, I know journalists aren’t supposed to make predictions, but… what do you think the odds really are that a Biden DOJ moves to do anything substantive on this stuff?

        I’m assuming the odds are very low, in line with most of my left/progressive fellows, but I’d love to hear a reason why I might be wrong.



        • Troutwaxer says:

          If Biden has any idea of national security I don’t think he has any choice but to launch the largest counter-intelligence in U.S. history, and let the chips fall where they may, including the take down of Democrats if necessary.

          But I don’t think he has that conception of national security.

    • skua says:

      An explanation could include a senior WH propagandist deciding, “If it distracts from Trump failing at COVID and presents the President as a winner to his base then get it happening”.

  12. sand says:

    As we heard, Barr told Swalwell that he does not read Trump’s tweets.

    Maybe all Republicans that claim this denial should be called out for dereliction. Twitter is arguably Trump’s primary channel of communication, and the tweets may include official statements. All cabinet members and congress should have staff assigned to monitor presidential communications. For that matter, “Do you follow the President of the United States on Twitter, and if not, why not?” is a useful question. If they do not, the President should be asked, “Secretary X or Rep. Y stated that they are intentionally ignoring your communications via Twitter? Do you believe they are doing this because they may not agree with your policies? Why wouldn’t they listen to the President, even if they disagree?”

    The cabinet in particular should not be allowed to claim that they simply do not monitor Presidential communications. Clearly, Trump has issued several directives and policy changes on Twitter before calling or emailing the affected departments. Who else could tell their boss, “I generally ignore your broadcast communications. You need to reach out to me personally to communicate your wishes.” This communication failure should be addressed.

    • Tom says:

      I find it very hard to accept Bill Barr’s claim that he does not follow President Trump’s Twitter feed, just as I find it very difficult to believe that the AG was unaware of Roger Stone’s boasting that he kept his mouth shut during the Mueller investigation in order to cover Trump’s ass (sorry for the visual). I may be wrong, but I would think that the first rule of survival for anyone working in the present administration is to follow the President’s tweets so as to be up to speed on whatever thoughts are ricocheting around in his mind, be they concerning alien DNA, demon babies, flying wombats, or anything else.

      • timbo says:

        Perhaps he has an aide follow the Twitter feed. Barr likes to keep himself removed from direct contact with as much of his work as possible. It’s why he’s gotten away with so much for so long I bet…

  13. harpie says:

    I am suddenly in tears:


    Together, You Can Redeem the Soul of Our Nation
    Though I am gone, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe.
    July 30, 2020

    [NYT: Mr. Lewis, the civil rights leader who died on July 17, wrote this essay shortly before his death, to be published upon the day of his funeral.]

    [Thank you for linking to this, Marcy.]

  14. Molly Pitcher says:

    Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkin, a former USA for the Western District of Washington, was just interviewed on Morning Edition and says that she thinks the federal agent presence in specific Democratic lead cities is a “dry run for martial law to suppress the vote on election day”.. This interview is 5 min. and definitely worth listening to.

    • BobCon says:

      The cofounder of the rightwing Turning Point USA, Bill Montgomery, has also died from COVID complications:

      On the Gohmert front, Politico has published a number of furious comments from people on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill about lax standards. GOP staff are angry about anti-mask and anti-telework efforts in their offices. A Democratic rep says: “[Pelosi] is getting hammered by everyone. People are really really mad. Ripshit might be a better word … [Gohmert] was in Judiciary, Natural Resources and on the floor. Doctor has told members who were near him yesterday to call for instructions, Members want masks made mandatory.”

      Note that Pelosi has finally said masks on the House floor will be enforced, but nothing about anywhere else on the Hill. She was warned at the beginning of the year where this was going, and has sat on her hands. McConnell is just as bad, maybe worse.

      • P J Evans says:

        I thought they’d started requiring masks in committee meetings a couple of months ago, but obviously that message didn’t get through.

        • BobCon says:

          Since members are always going in and out of committee rooms, and the only place where they are required is in the room itself, GOP members would “forget” to put them on repeatedly, or just flat out flout the rule.

          They’re stricter about enforcing rules for men about wearing a tie.

  15. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The park police apparently have records of police radio traffic regarding the protests in Lafayette Square – for the day before and the day after Trump’s gladiatorial walk-through and photo-op at St. John’s. For some reason, there are no records for the day of.

    Bill Barr will get right on this – he’s where reports of the theft or destruction of federal records go – but his memory is a bit spotty. As a reminder, destruction of federal records is a felony. It might violate 18 USC 2071 or 1519, for example. For those who turned off their devices, there might be obstruction charges or dismissal.

    But events were moving so fast, things break down, we were trying our best. Barr won’t be directly involved, there will be a cut-out or three, anxious knights willing to risk their heads in order to rid their lord of some turbulent priest. I expect a preliminary evaluation will find “technical problems” and a bit of negligence. It’s such an attractive Rosemary Woods alternative to willful criminal conduct. I hope this is not a contagion that follows Barr’s special police to Portland, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and points East.

  16. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The Biden campaign is as leaky as a Trump tax return over whether he will choose Kamala Harris as his VP. The disarray is alarming and sexist. Biden has essentially promised not to run in 2024, which makes his VP pick explicitly rather than impliedly his presumed successor. That brings forward jockeying that is normally deferred for years. All the women on Biden’s short list are experienced, talented, ambitious, professionals. They differ in their strengths, weaknesses, priorities, and race. That’s a lot for the old guard on Biden’s team to swallow. They haven’t digested it well.

    “Some Biden allies wage a shadow campaign to stop Kamala Harris from becoming vice president.”

    If those are Joe’s “allies,” I’d hate to see his enemies. Who knows whether the claim is true, a distraction, or a trial balloon. But the reasons being touted are overtly sexist. Harris would be too “ambitious,” for example, and spend all her time running for president. Name me a Vice President for whom that was not true. Except this time it would be a woman, possibly a person of color, and she would be doing it with the president’s blessing. Biden’s people need to up their game. They have a lot more to do than agree on a VP.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The CNBC article also describes some of Biden’s “allies” as big donors, some from California, which would be a non-campaign source for the leaks. But that doesn’t reveal what priorities these big-money donors want, instead of the ones they think Harris would promote. Regardless, their stated reasons for opposing her are bullshit.

  17. Molly Pitcher says:

    According to the Washington Post:
    “Michael Flynn case to be reheard by full federal appeals court in D.C.
    U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan had asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the matter after a three-judge panel earlier ordered him to immediately dismiss the case.”

  18. x174 says:

    what i don’t understand is why barr would make these kinds of misleading statements as a very public official. doesn’t he realize that all of the judges that have him in their cross hairs are listening to his every word? i understand he’s spreading the gospel according to the retard, but still, his fashioning of his public persona makes him come across as a little puke. talk about degrading the doj.

  19. bg says:

    Albuquerque is also on tap for Legend troops. Many reports they are here now. Our Governor and Mayor have weighed in with concern and from the Mayor a demand for a “written agreement” with platitudes (at least) about POC and our immigrant community, among others. We have had Operation Relentless Pursuit already. The USAtty was on the radio this morning denying this is about protecting federal property and really just about terrible crime in ABQ. Our Sheriff was in DC last week to promote the invasion. He refuses to let his deputies wear lapel cams, despite legislation directing this from Santa Fe. He is giving his deputies some kind of taser lasso instead. Our police are still operating under a consent decree from the DOJ, in force prior to this criminal administration. The police (union) contract is currently pending, negotiations delayed (so we hear) by COVID. A former journalist from NM has shown his injuries from this week in Portland, while covering protests and wearing a gas mask. He was shot in the eye. The Red Nation has an action at the Federal Courthouse tomorrow.

Comments are closed.