I guess this is so obvious that no one wants to mention it,

[senseandsensibility]

but what do you think the right's reaction to Aileen Cannon would be if she was appointed by Biden and had issued two horrible rulings AGAINST tfg (instead of for him) that were so bad that they had to be overturned? Do you think they'd be sitting on their hands issuing mealy-mouthed statements?

I'm getting the same vibes I got from all the Dems who thought Bill Barr cared about the Justice Dept. and would be an okay Attorney General.

[Hortensis]

1. :) You found some Dems who trusted Bill Barr's integrity?

When he was well known to "believe" the president should have near absolute authority, effectively promising to help carry out an INTERIOR COUP if he was appointed, which he could use to advance his own famous Christian extremism? Hoping he wouldn't be as bad as feared and would be okay, waiting to see, is not the same as believing he would.

As for the imaginary reaction to Cannon, to me it's both too obvious to bother imagining, but also too insulting. Democratic presidents don't appoint Aileen Cannons. That's basic. Goes right to why we're here and not over on Free Republic or Truth Social.

[NoRethugFriends]

2. Might want to change your screen name

[betsuni]

3. +1

[LenaBaby61]

4. NO Dem I know ever trusted Barr ....

The Dems I know go back to the Iran Contra scandal of the 1990's, and his treasonous actions with that debaucle where NO ONE ever paid the for what they did.

Bill Barr Is The Master Of Covering Up Political Scandals.



Thom Hartmann

George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan were facing the possibility of treason charges. Who did they call? Bill Barr.

That was in the ’80s and early ’90s, but now we discover the Bill Barr really, truly, definitely also lied to America about presidential treason this decade. Shocking.

Mueller laid out 10 prosecutable incidents of Donald Trump committing felony obstruction of justice, all to cover up the assistance he was seeking and receiving from Russian oligarchs and the Russian government that ultimately helped him win the 2016 election.

Looking back now, seeing the actual documents from the time, Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson noted that Barr’s lies to the American people, to Congress, and to federal judges were “so inconsistent with evidence in the record, they are not worthy of credence.”

In other words, Barr lied through his teeth.

And he did it to avoid prosecuting Trump, who we can now see had clearly committed crimes — particularly reaching out to a foreign power for help — that would’ve landed any other American in prison for decades.

But this is not Bill Barr‘s first time playing cover-up for a Republican president who had committed crimes that rise to treason against America.

Back in 1992, the first time Bill Barr was U.S. attorney general, iconic New York Times writer William Safire referred to him as “Coverup-General Barr” because of his role in burying evidence of then-President George H.W. Bush’s involvement in “Iraqgate” and “Iron-Contra.”

Christmas day of 1992, the New York Times featured a screaming all-caps headline across the top of its front page: Attorney General Bill Barr had covered up evidence of crimes by Reagan and Bush in the Iran-Contra scandal.

Earlier that week of Christmas, 1992, George H.W. Bush was on his way out of office. Bill Clinton had won the White House the month before, and in a few weeks would be sworn in as president.

But Bush’s biggest concern wasn’t that he’d have to leave the White House to retire back to Connecticut, Maine, or Texas (where he had mansions) but, rather, that he may end up embroiled even deeper in the Iran-Contra treason and that he and his colleagues may face time in a federal prison after he left office.

https://thetriallawyermagazine.com/2021/07/bill-barr-is-the-master-of-covering-up-political-scandals/

[crickets]

6. ✔ And another from back in the day:

https://www.villagevoice.com/2023/01/27/attorney-general-william-barr-is-the-best-reason-to-vote-for-clinton/

Originally published October 27, 1992

A federal judge accuses the Justice De­partment of trying to “shape” a case in­volving illegal loans to Iraq. The House Judiciary Committee blasts federal attor­neys for compromising their reputation for impartiality in the investigation of a com­puter-software theft. CIA officials charge a deputy attorney general with advocating the suppression of evidence in a sensitive sentencing hearing.

To even the most avid scandalmonger, these may sound like the ravings of a fe­vered Orwellian imagination. But in fact they are all part of a litany of wrongdoing leveled at George Bush’s Justice Depart­ment in the past two months alone. And at the center of the criticism is the chief artic­ulator of Bush’s imperial presidency, the man who wrote the legal rationale for the Gulf War, the Panama invasion, and the officially sanctioned kidnapping of, foreign nationals abroad — Attorney General Wil­liam P. Barr. [snip]

Barr first met Bush in the CIA. In 1976, having shifted to the agency’s legislative office, he helped write the pap sheets that director Bush used to fend off the Pike and Church committees, the first real embodiments of Congressional oversight of the CIA. Intimates say the experience was for­mative for Barr, turning him into an impla­cable enemy of congressional intrusions on executive prerogative. [snip]

The truest measure of Barr’s extremism, however, lies in the coils of three unfolding national scandals. The central question they pose is: How far will he go to protect his master? The answer, some feel, already exposes Barr to the risk of a grand jury investigation and maybe worse. [more]

The three scandals of the day were BCCI, INSLAW, and IRAQGATE. As Hartmann's piece also points out, Barr was well-known and deeply disliked and distrusted for decades after eeling his way through many dirty dealings, long before his second stint as AG. Thinking about Iran-Contra and how Oliver North & co. walked away from it mostly unscathed still makes me furious.

[LenaBaby61]

8. And another from back in the day:

[betsuni]

5. "Sitting on their hands issuing mealy-mouthed statements" "Vibes"? Who are you talking about?

Another "Gee Whiz, what is the problem with that terrible Dem Party, just asking questions."

[edisdead]

7. Yep

Waiting for a follow up touting the wonderful independent party.

[Solomon]

9. John Roberts would have been a better example. Plenty of democrats

thought he was a good guy and still think he's a good guy. Makes me sick to hear dems continually say "Roberts won't go that far because he cares about his legacy". What fucking legacy!? He was never a good guy to begin with.