Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Mimi Rocha:"I was one of several alumni of the DOJ inclined to give Barr the benefit of the doubt."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/barr-looks-like-hes-trying-to-protect-trump-not-get-out-the-mueller-reportI was one of several alumni of the Department of Justice who was inclined to give Barr the benefit of the doubt. In my experience, people like Barr who have worked for decades within the DOJ understand the unique importance of its independence and integrity and the need for the public to have faith that decisions made at DOJ are based on facts, evidence, and law and not political considerations. In my experience, the pull of DOJ is to make sure people, in the words of my former boss and friend Preet Bharara, “do the right thing, in the right way for the right reasons.” And so it is with some sadness that I say, Barr did absolutely the wrong thing, in the wrong way, and one can certainly infer bad reasons in his handling so far of the special counsel's report.
SNIP
At this point, whatever Barr’s intentions—and I am no longer inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt—in order to salvage what is left if the integrity of the process, he must immediately release the Mueller-prepared summaries rand work with Congress to ensure that the whole report is turned over to Congress, and as much as legally and safely possible to the American public.
This is Barr's final chance to salvage his reputation and, more importantly, the integrity of the Justice Department he claims to hold so dear.
29 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
appointing him and voting for him would give a shit anyhow?
They're ALL scum!!! 
REAL FAST!!!
His downfall may be at a record speed. 
With HIS backgeound she still supported him? 
Great review of his history here by those who know:
What Has Bill Barr Done to Earn the Benefit of the Doubt?
by Luppe Luppen
April 4, 2019
Link: https://www.justsecurity.org/63510/what-has-bill-barr-done-to-earn-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/
(snips)
Bill Barr’s long record, unfortunately, affords little basis for trust.
Barr has been implicated in high level cover-ups before. In Barr’s first stint as Attorney General, he recommended that President George H.W. Bush grant full pardons to six former officials from the Reagan administration who were caught up in the Iran-Contra scandal, including Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. “There were some people arguing just for Weinberger,” Barr later recounted, “and I said, ‘No, in for a penny, in for a pound.’” President Bush’s pardons brought the long-running scandal to an end just as many observers believed it was about to reach the president’s doorstep. In response, independent counsel Lawrence Walsh bitterly remarked that “the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed.”
Barr has both a body of writings that suggest he has prejudged matters under his purview as Attorney General and significant conflicts of interest. In the Spring of 2017, Barr penned an op-ed supporting the President’s firing Comey. “Comey’s removal simply has no relevance to the integrity of the Russian investigation as it moves ahead,” he wrote. In June 2017, Barr told The Hill that the obstruction investigation was “asinine” and warned that Mueller risked “taking on the look of an entirely political operation to overthrow the president.” That same month, Barr met with Trump about becoming the president’s personal defense lawyer for the Mueller investigation, before turning down the overture for that job. In late 2017, Barr wrote to the New York Times supporting the President’s call for further investigations of his past political opponent, Hillary Clinton. “I have long believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called ‘collusion,’” he wrote to the New York Times’ Peter Baker, suggesting that the Uranium One conspiracy theory (which had by that time been repeatedly debunked) had more grounding than the Mueller’s investigation (which had not). Before Trump nominated him to be attorney general, Barr also notoriously wrote an unsolicited 19-page advisory memo to Rod Rosenstein criticizing the obstruction component of Mueller’s investigation as “fatally misconceived.” The memo’s criticisms proceeded from Barr’s long-held and extreme, absolutist view of executive power, and the memo’s reasoning has been skewered by an ideologically diverse group of legal observers, including Wittes.
Barr has been implicated in high level cover-ups before. In Barr’s first stint as Attorney General, he recommended that President George H.W. Bush grant full pardons to six former officials from the Reagan administration who were caught up in the Iran-Contra scandal, including Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. “There were some people arguing just for Weinberger,” Barr later recounted, “and I said, ‘No, in for a penny, in for a pound.’” President Bush’s pardons brought the long-running scandal to an end just as many observers believed it was about to reach the president’s doorstep. In response, independent counsel Lawrence Walsh bitterly remarked that “the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed.”
Barr has both a body of writings that suggest he has prejudged matters under his purview as Attorney General and significant conflicts of interest. In the Spring of 2017, Barr penned an op-ed supporting the President’s firing Comey. “Comey’s removal simply has no relevance to the integrity of the Russian investigation as it moves ahead,” he wrote. In June 2017, Barr told The Hill that the obstruction investigation was “asinine” and warned that Mueller risked “taking on the look of an entirely political operation to overthrow the president.” That same month, Barr met with Trump about becoming the president’s personal defense lawyer for the Mueller investigation, before turning down the overture for that job. In late 2017, Barr wrote to the New York Times supporting the President’s call for further investigations of his past political opponent, Hillary Clinton. “I have long believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called ‘collusion,’” he wrote to the New York Times’ Peter Baker, suggesting that the Uranium One conspiracy theory (which had by that time been repeatedly debunked) had more grounding than the Mueller’s investigation (which had not). Before Trump nominated him to be attorney general, Barr also notoriously wrote an unsolicited 19-page advisory memo to Rod Rosenstein criticizing the obstruction component of Mueller’s investigation as “fatally misconceived.” The memo’s criticisms proceeded from Barr’s long-held and extreme, absolutist view of executive power, and the memo’s reasoning has been skewered by an ideologically diverse group of legal observers, including Wittes.
(read more at the link above)
We need to better understand how people like Barr are ever allowed anywhere near our Government in the first place....
From the OP:
I was one of several alumni of the Department of Justice who was inclined to give Barr the benefit of the doubt. In my experience, people like Barr who have worked for decades within the DOJ understand the unique importance of its independence and integrity and the need for the public to have faith that decisions made at DOJ are based on facts, evidence, and law and not political considerations. In my experience, the pull of DOJ helps ensure that people, in the words of my former boss and friend Preet Bharara, “do the right thing, in the right way for the right reasons.” And so it is with some sadness that I say, Barr did absolutely the wrong thing, in the wrong way, and one can certainly infer bad reasons in his handling so far of the special counsel's report.
One could never equate Bill Barr with Preet Bharara, even though both men worked in the DoJ. Bharara is a man of upstanding courage and conviction, while Barr is a slimy political hack. The evidence is in their past deeds. Barr should never get the benefit of the doubt. He has already proved he doesn't deserve it.
