Weaponization of the government

"1st Rule of Weaponization Hearings? NEVER POINT THE WEAPON AT YOURSELF." -- Keith Olbermann

Aaron Rupar has a nice thread on that particular self-owning hearing.

I'm going to pick out one bit...

So let's then look at Bill Barr a little more closely.

Through its new “weaponization of government” subcommittee, the GOP-controlled House is preparing to pursue the same conspiracy theories that preoccupied Barr and Trump [...] .

This makes it all the more essential that the Senate, and the DOJ itself, conduct a comprehensive inquiry into Barr’s actual weaponization of the justice system for political ends.

[...]

The roots of Barr’s agenda date back to his tenure in the George H.W. Bush administration, during which he first served as attorney general. Barr was an early proponent of what became known as the “unitary executive” doctrine, which questioned efforts to limit presidential power in the wake of Watergate.

[...]

He facilitated Bush’s pardons, immediately before leaving office, of six individuals who had been convicted or charged by the Iran-Contra Independent Counsel, including former Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, thereby truncating a potential criminal probe into Bush’s own conduct.

[...]

Barr defended Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey after his announcement that the bureau was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. Barr also publicly advocated for a DOJ investigation into the Steve Bannon-sponsored conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton corruptly facilitated a Russian company’s purchase of US uranium assets, contending that there was “nothing inherently wrong” with Trump pressing for the investigation of a political opponent.

[...]

Barr also contended that Trump had an “illimitable” executive authority to “start or stop” law enforcement investigations.

[...]

Barr’s scheme to turn the DOJ into a Trump protection racket began almost as soon as he took office. In March 2019, Barr released a letter purporting to recount the findings of the then still secret Mueller report regarding Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, as well as Trump’s own efforts to interfere with the Mueller and FBI investigations.

[...]

In his letter, Barr purported to exonerate Trump of liability for obstruction of justice.

[...]

But as the public learned only weeks later — when a redacted version of the Mueller report was belatedly released — there was actually ample evidence that Trump had engaged in criminal conduct [...] in an effort to shut down an investigation of his own conduct.

[...]

Barr’s efforts were not limited to protecting Trump; he also repeatedly employed the DOJ to protect Trump’s cronies.

First, in February 2020, Barr set out to protect Roger Stone, Trump’s long-time associate, who had been convicted of witness tampering, lying to Congress, and other charges brought by Mueller’s team.

[...]

The DOJ thereafter, in normal course, filed a memo asking the court to sentence Stone to nine years in prison.

But soon after Trump issued a tweet complaining about the DOJ’s sentencing request, Barr intervened, causing the DOJ to withdraw it. His unprecedented move led four members of the prosecution team to withdraw, and one of them resign from the DOJ entirely.

[...]

Second, in May 2020, Barr’s DOJ sought the dismissal of criminal charges against former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Flynn stood charged with making false statements to the FBI, having brazenly lied about taped conversations he held with the Russian ambassador to the US before Trump took office.

[...]

In the face of the overwhelming evidence, Flynn had pled guilty, and agreed to cooperate with the Mueller inquiry (an agreement he ultimately reneged upon). But a prosecutor installed by Barr filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, contending — based on a strikingly dubious legal theory — that Flynn’s baldfaced lies to the FBI did not merit prosecution after all.

[...]

Finally, and perhaps most audaciously, in June 2020, Barr removed one of the DOJ’s most prominent prosecutors, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jeffrey Berman, in a transparent effort to frustrate investigations of persons close, or potentially dangerous to, Trump — likely including Trump’s closest crony (and former US Attorney) Rudy Giuliani. Barr tried to handpick Berman’s successor. That effort failed, but it again demonstrated that Barr was willing to do whatever it took to keep Trump’s inner circle above the law.

One of Barr’s most outrageous efforts to protect Trump remains the least explored: The attorney general’s elaborate 2019 scheme to employ the DOJ as a tool to conceal from Congress and the public Trump’s effort to extort Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.

As part of that scheme, the DOJ instructed then-acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire to violate his duty to turn over to Congress a whistleblower’s complaint recounting Trump’s demand — during his “perfect” phone call with Zelenskyy — that Ukraine announce a bogus “investigation” of Joe Biden in return for urgently needed weapons to defend Ukraine against attacks by Russian proxy forces.

As later came to light, the DOJ’s once respected Office of Legal Counsel had prepared a transparently defective opinion declaring that the DNI had no obligation to share the whistleblower’s complaint with Congress, and asserting that the DOJ’s criminal division had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. Criminal division prosecutors then conducted a cursory “review” and closed the file.

[...]

Barr enlisted [John] Durham, then the Connecticut US Attorney, to engage in a wide ranging “investigation” into the Justice Department’s probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, in what amounted to an even more audacious chapter in his scheme to discredit Robert Mueller’s findings.

[...]

Barr was motivated by a conspiracy theory positing that “deep state” actors within US Intelligence or law enforcement agencies were behind the FBI’s — and Mueller’s — investigations of Russia’s election interference, as well as its potential links to Trump’s campaign. Barr was personally, and deeply, involved in Durham’s effort to prove this thesis, which ultimately, and spectacularly, failed.

The most disturbing new revelation in the recent Times article is that 2019 reporting that Durham’s investigation had become a “criminal” probe was highly inaccurate. [...]

According to Barr, Durham, however, concluded that the allegations — the nature of which remain secret — were without merit.

[...]

Ultimately, in a striking echo of other Barr schemes, several prosecutors left Durham’s team after being disturbed by his politicized tactics.

[...]

Barr had succeeded in creating a public impression that Trump’s baroque claims of a deep state plot actually had merit. Indeed, these fictional claims continue to be pursued, including by the new House “weaponization of government” subcommittee.

[...]

Barr resigned on December 15, 2020, in a letter showering Trump with praise. But soon thereafter, Barr began letting it be known that he objected to Trump’s election fraud claims, and later began to publicly, and harshly, criticize his former boss, whom he has variously accused of “extortion” and “sabotage.”

Yet these accusations flew in the face of Barr’s own aggressive efforts to bolster Trump’s election conspiracism before, during, and immediately after the election.

[...]

By resigning in mid-December, Barr avoided being in office when, only a few weeks later, the conspiracism he had enabled culminated in the attack on the Capitol.

  David Lurie

And it is certain that Barr was aware of what was coming.  Being the slimey character he is, he meant to get clear of any implication in the coup.  And in fact, he testified against Trump to the January 6 Committee.  A weasel of a man.

Some Democratic House members have called for the DOJ’s inspector general to commence a probe, which is certainly in order. But any investigation of Barr’s misconduct will, by definition, also be an investigation of the DOJ; and no institution can be relied upon to conduct a neutral and comprehensive investigation of itself. Therefore, the Senate, which now has a Democratic majority, with the authority to issue subpoenas and compel the production of documents, should conduct its own inquiry.

[...]

The recent, and notably successful, House January 6 investigation demonstrates that Congress remains capable of such inquiries. Those who recognize the importance of an effective DOJ, free of politically influenced misconduct, must hope that Durbin and his colleagues undertake their investigation of Barr’s repugnant legacy diligently and without fear or favor.

[...]

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin has announced that his committee will be undertaking an investigation. The question is whether the Senate inquiry will have the proper scope — it should encompass the entirety of Barr’s wide-ranging misconduct — as well as whether it will be as searching as past, successful Senate inquiries, including the Senate Watergate investigation.

Don't hold your breath.

.....but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 02/12/2023: