A couple of months ago I made fun of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for presuming to question the motives of six of his brethren for being so temarious as to vote the “wrong” way in a case involving abortion issues:
So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named “Planned Parenthood.”
Well, Justice Thomas was “careful” to qualify his charge of unjudicial and inappropriate motivation with the prefatory “I suspect that it has something to do”—“Just putting it out there,” as Rush Limbaugh likes to say. And in today’s press conference, Attorney General William Barr proved an apt pupil in the innuendo game, floridly elaborating on Donald Trump’s remarkable grace under pressure:
In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.
Well, it isn’t important to bear in mind the context. You don’t get to get away with committing crimes because you’re under stress. As for the “unprecedented” bit, every president confronts unprecedented situations. So what? That’s part of the job. Furthermore, Trump himself was the cause of much of the “unprecedented situation”—by being an unprecedented asshole.
Barr’s hypocrisy reaches its peak with the sentence “And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.” See, I’m not saying the president was “sincere”. That Mueller guy, he said it!
But so what if the president “sincerely” believed the investigation was undermining his presidency? Sometimes, the truth hurts! The truth is, the president’s son met with Russian nationals for the express purpose of obtaining information from Russian intelligence sources that, Don, Jr., hoped, could be used against Hillary Clinton in the presidential election campaign. And the truth also is, both Big Don and Little lied about this. Mark Joseph Stern, writing in Slate, has an excellent article, “William Barr Has Failed America”, that pokes a few more dozen holes in Barr’s abysmal performance. Bill Barr may not look like Roy Cohn, but he sure sounds like him.
Afterwords
There is very clear "subtext" to Barr's "there is substantial evidence" sentence, that a president, if he "sincerely" believes that an investigation, pushed forward for political reasons (in his judgment, of course), is undermining his presidency, then he has the plenary power, as president, to terminate that investigation, regardless of the merits of the actual allegations being investigated, for "reasons of state". Note that it is the "sincere belief" of the president that is the determining factor, not objective evidence, and also note that the merits of the investigation are irrelevant to the president's right to act.
