"Barr Can't Be Trusted" Rules Fed Judge On Trump IC IG Revenge Firing Lies

Endorsing Trump’s Firing of Inspector General, Barr Paints Distorted Picture

The attorney general misstated key facts in explaining the dismissed official’s handling of the whistle-blower complaint that prompted impeachment.

“The president did the right thing in removing Atkinson,” Attorney General William P. Barr told Fox News.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

By Charlie Savage

• 10 April 2020

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr endorsed and defended President Trump’s firing of Michael K. Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, in an interview with Fox News. But in making the case that Mr. Atkinson committed a firing offense in his handling of a whistle-blower complaint last year that led to the impeachment battle, Mr. Barr made several claims that are subject to scrutiny.

What did Mr. Atkinson do?

Mr. Atkinson pushed the Trump administration in September to tell Congress about the whistle-blower complaint accusing Mr. Trump of abusing his power to try to coerce Ukraine into announcing investigations that could deliver him personal political benefits. The complaint touched off Mr. Trump’s impeachment by the Democratic-controlled House.

Since the Republican-controlled Senate acquitted the president, he has been purging officials who cooperated with the House inquiry. On April 3, Mr. Trump fired Mr. Atkinson. The next day, the president made clear at a news briefing that he did so because he remained angry that the inspector general wanted to disclose the complaint to Congress.

“He did a terrible job, absolutely terrible,” Mr. Trump said, adding: “He took a fake report and he brought it to Congress with an emergency, OK? Not a big Trump fan, that I can tell you.”

What did Mr. Barr say?

He endorsed Mr. Trump’s move while putting forth a dubious account of what happened. This is Mr. Barr’s statement:

“The president did the right thing in removing Atkinson. From the vantage point of the Department of Justice, he had interpreted his statute — which is a fairly narrow statute, gave him jurisdiction over wrongdoing by intelligence people — and tried to turn it in to a commission to explore anything in the government and immediately report it to Congress without letting the executive branch look at it and determine whether there was any problem. He was told this in a letter from the Department of Justice, and he is obliged to follow the interpretation of the Department of Justice and he ignored it, so I think the president was correct in firing him.”

Did Mr. Atkinson do what Mr. Barr said?

No, not when it came to an executive branch review. Mr. Atkinson tried to follow the procedures laid out in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which requires that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence review the complaint, then report it to Congress.

After determining that the complaint was “credible” and raised an “urgent concern,” Mr. Atkinson provided it on Aug. 26 to the acting director of national intelligence at the time, Joseph Maguire. Mr. Atkinson believed that under the whistle-blower protection law, Mr. Maguire would have seven days to review the materials and append any comments before passing on the complaint to Congress.

A senior Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, defended Mr. Barr’s claim that Mr. Atkinson instead thought he could “immediately report it to Congress without letting the executive branch look at it,” arguing that a week was insufficient for the department to conduct its own review of the complaint.

But it was Congress, not Mr. Atkinson, that set the review period at one week for complaints covered by the whistle-blower law. In addition, officials at the White House and the Justice Department already knew that an intelligence official had raised concerns about Mr. Trump’s Ukraine dealings even before he filed the complaint on Aug. 12. The department ultimately decided not to open any criminal investigation.

Did Mr. Atkinson ignore the Justice Department’s view?

No. While Mr. Atkinson disagreed with it, he considered himself bound by it.

After Mr. Atkinson gave the complaint to Mr. Maguire, Steven E. Engel, the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, opined that the whistle-blower law did not apply because the complaint was not about an intelligence activity, so the administration could lawfully withhold it from Congress.

On Sept. 9, about a week after the deadline, Mr. Atkinson wrote to the intelligence oversight committees with the approval of Mr. Maguire, notifying them that a dispute had arisen over how the law applied to a whistle-blower complaint without disclosing its subject. Mr. Atkinson also wrote in a follow-up letter to Congress, “I understand that I am bound by the determination” of the Justice Department and “will continue to abide by that determination.”

The senior department official, defending Mr. Barr’s claim that Mr. Atkinson instead “ignored” the Justice Department’s interpretation, argued that if he had truly respected the Office of Legal Counsel’s role, he would not have told the oversight committees anything.

Did Mr. Barr assert anything else factually questionable?

Yes. He claimed that the F.B.I. had opened its investigation into whether Trump campaign officials were coordinating with Russia’s election interference “without any basis.” But the official who decided to open the investigation, Bill Priestap, then the assistant director of the F.B.I.’s counterintelligence division, did so on the basis of certain facts.

Specifically, after WikiLeaks started dumping out stolen Democratic emails believed to have been hacked by Russia and timed to disrupt the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Australia told the United States that two months earlier, a Trump campaign official, George Papadopoulos, had told one of its diplomats that Russia had offered to help the Trump campaign by anonymously disclosing “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

Defending Mr. Barr’s claim that the F.B.I. did not have “any basis” to open an investigation, the department official pointed to the apparent opinion of John H. Durham, a prosecutor whom Mr. Barr has assigned to reinvestigate the Russia investigators, that the F.B.I. should have opened a “preliminary investigation” rather than a “full investigation.”

The Justice Department inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, concluded that the facts available to Mr. Priestap were an adequate basis for a full investigation, but said in testimony last year that Mr. Durham had disagreed with him and believed the factual basis for the inquiry only rose to the standard for a preliminary one.

Has Mr. Barr’s candor about the Russia inquiry come under question before?

Yes. He has repeatedly come under fire for misleading the public about the findings and analysis of the special counsel who eventually took over the case, Robert S. Mueller III.

Last month, Reggie B. Walton, a federal judge appointed by a Republican president, declared in a ruling that Mr. Barr’s initial account of the then-still-secret Mueller report was so “distorted” and “misleading” that the court could not trust him. Judge Walton also suggested that the attorney general had made “a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller report in favor of President Trump.”

The Justice Department has said it “stands by” Mr. Barr’s statements without addressing the substance of the judge’s critique.

Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/politics/barr-inspector-general-firing.html?

Copyright 2020 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved (no claim to The New York Times content)

Regarding Veteran's Administration "Scandals" Professor Paul Krugman Nobel Peace Prize Winner New York Times Columnist Cautions Readers Not Rush To Judgment Despite Media Hysteria

       Sunday, 22 June 2014, NEW YORK, NEW YORK - Nobel Peace Prize Winner New York Times (Uncompensated) Daily "The Conscience of a Liberal" Columnist Princeton University Economics Professor (and the Ninth Amendment Editorial Board is not sure exactly what else) Paul Krugman in a Thursday, 19 June 2014 column presented verbatim in its entirety as fair comment accessible by interested readers via the link below argues why more thoughtful persons may wish to exercise pause before rushing to judgment regarding information presented to them which facts on cursory examination may seem to be susceptible to but one "correct" interpretation but on further examination with more complete background context may not necessarily be exactly what it seems nor be presented in some cases solely for the necessarily "innocent" good-intentioned motives which readers might quite naturally be expected to impugn.
       In the following piece Professor Krugman raises the question whether the furiously fueled Veteran's Administration hypermedia scandal may be to some extent be instigated by the calculated manipulation of parties with agendas which some observers might not otherwise immediately expect as well as demonstrating to the Ninth Amendment's editorial board one of a great many persons such as Professor Krugman win a Nobel Peace Prize while members of the Ninth Amendment's editorial board and staff have not. The editorial board however does take this opportunity unambiguously to communicate that we in fact are available to accept the Nobel Peace Prize and the accompanying one million dollar "stipend" -- including any inflation or cost of living upward adjustments -- should duty call upon us to do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/opinion/the-hype-behind-the-health-care-scandal.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As&_r=0  

Copyright 2014 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved (no claim to Krugman column)

Obama Deceives Again Remains Silent As President Himself Has Power Immediately To Halt Unconscionable Unconstitutional Repulsive Executive Spook Agencies' Recording Of All Americans' Phone Calls, Yet Obama Misleads Americans As To Congress' Unneeded "Approval"

     Tuesday, 26 March 2014, WASHINGTON, D.C. - The entire New York Times editorial board in today's edition flat-out calls President Obama on that repeatedly disingenuous not-so-cool a guy as he might have you think side of President-Bam-Bam-Bama-Orama (as locally known in the days living with Grandma getting "selfish" doing drugs -- well-crafted words on his first election CNN hour -- or did that really refer to dealing below-par product?) who has exposed himself failing to act "under stealth" instead again shown himself possessed of a most distasteful and unforgivable trait of betraying those who got him elected.
     Here the immediate issue disclosed by the Times is that President Obama while he would have the Country believe he waits on his recent request to Congress immediately to cease collection of ALL Americans' telephone calls every time we have used the phone since "little shrub" Bush the "not really elected" President approved recording everybody obviously illegally -- "yeah, Dick, okay sure" -- between daily afternoon rounds of video golf during naptime at the White House.
     President Obama so far as we know has not gone to any great lengths to disabuse the American people of their encouraged misunderstanding, as best we understand the Times, because the fact is that President Obama made his request fully aware that he as President Obama by virtue of his position whether under law, arcane budget or other clause, or who really cares what is in an absolute position immediately to shut down this massive heinous invasion of all of our privacy simply by stating "Stop, I terminate requested authorization for this "program" of recording all Americans' telephone calls (on the grounds of no cause whatsoever)".
     Now on that dishonesty, too, given the continuing misinformation of the American people making zero effort to correct their belief that the responsibility for continuing to conduct such a horribly illegal executive spook agency action actually rested with no one but Mr. Obama himself, well might Mr. Obama again step way out there on a limb and "frankly" assess his own behavior as "selfish"?  
     While he is at it might President Obama even really let himself have it for "admitting" his drug "selfish[ness]", but then completely ignoring that he promised his constituents when he became President that such persons who had such a health issue and were non-violent (in which group President Obama evidently included himself) properly would be treated as such. Only problem Mr. President Obama is that then immediately upon becoming President and soon having the opportunity to present his own budget on such matters, Mr. Obama unbelievably merely re-proposed verbatim intact no new treatment programs whatsoever but almost beyond belief an exactly duplicated drug enforcement budget proposal of the recently departed not-really-elected "little shrub" Bush.
     Now in a court of law eventually repeated acts which bear an uncanny resemblance to one another at a certain point might become admissible evidence of "habits", or God forbid even repeated so often with such similarity that they may be taken by the trier of fact to prove "character". Well, Mr. President Obama these early morning ramblings neither have been long-considered, long-researched, nor do they purport to be "all-inclusive" pro and con. Nevertheless we believe there are a GREAT many of us who voted for you who sadly may well never forget these and at least a few other of your Presidential acts (we will put aside your acceptance (and frequent use of) sole authority to murder by being the sole person self-permitted to give the "Fire" (or is it "Kill") order to a drone under the entirely distasteful newly updated for a new century CIA assassination protocol developed under your first Administration, if memory serves, as a the final component of the work of "lethal surveillance teams").
     And finally let us not forget those of us caught up in the tremendous fury of massive Constitutional upset and horror as to all sorts of loathsome provisions tossed into the so-called "U.S. Patriot Act", that apparent hodge-podge of yes maybe a little terrorism, and, well, yes, maybe quite a few "other" items as to which Congress had already unequivocally innumerable times told law enforcement and the spooks "no", which frankly well no one was really at the time of signing what-all given the circumstances not the least of which was that the strangely altered final draft allegedly mysteriously appeared up their on the podium with the first rays of dawn's early light its ink still fresh from the press, and no need to get one's fingers dirty as what was it, four or five hundred pages and the vote if four minutes?
     Mr. President, now on that one you definitely were against it. If anyone was against it, in case you forgot, that was you. Going into your first Election Day were there one thing we knew for sure about you it was that. So, Mr. President Obama-bama-bo-bama-orama the one saving grace, if one could call it that, was that the Bush administration's legislative nightmare thrust up the American people's *** that day must have been so beyond the pale even for that so-called "President's" crew, the usual cast of characters, that they must have felt compelled to see that the Patriot Act at least was not literally written as in stone, nor even in permanent marker, because the one thing it had was "sunset provisions" providing that if not specifically re-enacted the days would come when sections of it would fall off of it as the dead law it had always really been, but now longer effective.
     Our only question on that one Mr. Obama would undoubtedly have to be, we are sure you must have guessed it by now, is why the hell after all you had said and represented in your campaign, was your Administration actually in the end not the impetus to eliminate the legislation but in fact the opposite. Because it was your Administration that then took the fantastically unbelievable betrayal of your Aeministration's own initiative before those sunset provisions dropped off to propose that much of that most heinous in the Patriot Act become permanent law! Your administration took the initiative to make it the permanent law of the land! So, tell us please, sir. To trash our Constitution. Were you selfish?

Copyright 2014 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved