William Barr's highly inappropriate behavior
From The Independent;In response to:
By dropping Michael Flynn’s case, Barr has stripped centuries of credibility from the department of justice
The attorney general has done the worst harm that could be done to the republic: politicizing prosecution, so that friends of the Dear Leader get off
Eric Lewis
11 hours ago
Let’s play Mad Libs. Fill in the blanks:
What would attorney general William Barr have done if [name of prominent Trump enemy] had lied to the FBI about [contact with representative of hostile foreign power] in which they discussed [giving benefit to hostile foreign power] and then got caught and pleaded guilty, twice?
Let’s try: What if Michael Cohen lied to the FBI about talking to the North Korean ambassador about allowing nuclear testing and then got caught and pleaded guilty, twice?
or
What if Adam Schiff lied to the FBI about talking to the Iranian Ambassador about getting Congress to lift economic sanctions and then got caught and pleaded guilty, twice?
or
What if George Conway lied to the FBI about talking to Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan president, about invasion plans he saw on Kelly Anne Conway’s laptop and then got caught and pleaded guilty, twice?
Lying to the FBI is a crime. There is a materiality requirement; if you tell the FBI that you had cornflakes for breakfast when you had raisin bran, they can’t indict you. But as a lawyer who has argued materiality in a number of cases, I can tell you that beyond what kind of cereal you have, there is very little that is not material. A lie is material not only if it is relevant to the investigation but if the FBI says the lie caused the FBI to affect the course or focus of its investigation or fail to pursue certain lines of inquiry.
So let’s return to our Mad Libs response. Plainly, the crime of lying to the FBI about contact with a hostile foreign power is potentially serious. The lie could be interposed to hide an improper relationship with the foreign power, i.e., espionage or, as the US president would call it with respect to his own FBI, treason. That is not to say that Michael Flynn committed treason, but when someone lies about contact with the Russian Ambassador, that would certainly create in the reasonably curious investigator a thought that there could be national security implications here. As Judge Emmet
Sullivan said, “Arguably, you sold your country out.”
Barr asserted that the government already had the transcript of the conversation so there was no reason to interview him. They knew he had talked to the Russian Ambassador and what was said — basically, don’t worry about responding to Obama’s throwing out of Russian diplomats (or spies undercover) because when we come into office, we’ll fix it all up.
But the FBI had been investigating Russian interference in the Trump campaign. And here is the incoming National Security Advisor telling the Russian Ambassador that good times are gonna roll for Russia when the Trump team arrives. On whose behalf was Flynn offering the goodies? Was he acting on his own? Unlikely. Was he instructed by President-elect Trump to let the Russian ambassador know? And if so, why? Was there, to use a phrase, a quid pro quo? Pretty good questions.
For Barr to claim there was no need to ask whether there was contact because the government already knew, is to limit the purpose of the interview to a single question. Not only does the FBI ask questions it knows the answer to all the time, such a question would be a logical entry point to the questions of why this was occurring when there was still a president in the Oval Office whose policies were entitled not to be undermined by the incoming administration.
By dropping Michael Flynn’s case, Barr has stripped centuries of credibility from the department of justice
The attorney general has done the worst harm that could be done to the republic: politicizing prosecution, so that friends of the Dear Leader get off
Eric Lewis
11 hours ago
Let’s play Mad Libs. Fill in the blanks:
What would attorney general William Barr have done if [name of prominent Trump enemy] had lied to the FBI about [contact with representative of hostile foreign power] in which they discussed [giving benefit to hostile foreign power] and then got caught and pleaded guilty, twice?
Let’s try: What if Michael Cohen lied to the FBI about talking to the North Korean ambassador about allowing nuclear testing and then got caught and pleaded guilty, twice?
or
What if Adam Schiff lied to the FBI about talking to the Iranian Ambassador about getting Congress to lift economic sanctions and then got caught and pleaded guilty, twice?
or
What if George Conway lied to the FBI about talking to Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan president, about invasion plans he saw on Kelly Anne Conway’s laptop and then got caught and pleaded guilty, twice?
Lying to the FBI is a crime. There is a materiality requirement; if you tell the FBI that you had cornflakes for breakfast when you had raisin bran, they can’t indict you. But as a lawyer who has argued materiality in a number of cases, I can tell you that beyond what kind of cereal you have, there is very little that is not material. A lie is material not only if it is relevant to the investigation but if the FBI says the lie caused the FBI to affect the course or focus of its investigation or fail to pursue certain lines of inquiry.
So let’s return to our Mad Libs response. Plainly, the crime of lying to the FBI about contact with a hostile foreign power is potentially serious. The lie could be interposed to hide an improper relationship with the foreign power, i.e., espionage or, as the US president would call it with respect to his own FBI, treason. That is not to say that Michael Flynn committed treason, but when someone lies about contact with the Russian Ambassador, that would certainly create in the reasonably curious investigator a thought that there could be national security implications here. As Judge Emmet
Sullivan said, “Arguably, you sold your country out.”
Barr asserted that the government already had the transcript of the conversation so there was no reason to interview him. They knew he had talked to the Russian Ambassador and what was said — basically, don’t worry about responding to Obama’s throwing out of Russian diplomats (or spies undercover) because when we come into office, we’ll fix it all up.
But the FBI had been investigating Russian interference in the Trump campaign. And here is the incoming National Security Advisor telling the Russian Ambassador that good times are gonna roll for Russia when the Trump team arrives. On whose behalf was Flynn offering the goodies? Was he acting on his own? Unlikely. Was he instructed by President-elect Trump to let the Russian ambassador know? And if so, why? Was there, to use a phrase, a quid pro quo? Pretty good questions.
For Barr to claim there was no need to ask whether there was contact because the government already knew, is to limit the purpose of the interview to a single question. Not only does the FBI ask questions it knows the answer to all the time, such a question would be a logical entry point to the questions of why this was occurring when there was still a president in the Oval Office whose policies were entitled not to be undermined by the incoming administration.
(continued in my first comment below)