Tuesday Reads
Posted: January 15, 2019 Filed under: morning reads, U.S. Politics 75 CommentsGood Morning!!
William Barr
The Senate Judiciary Committee is currently questioning William Barr, Trump’s nominee for Attorney General. It’s pretty much guaranteed that Barr’s appointment will be approved, so the main goal for Democrats is to get him to commit publicly to protecting Robert Muller and the Russia investigation.
Diane Feinstein already got Barr to say that he will protect the investigation and he said that he will abide by the rules of the Special Counsel statute. The hearings are expected to take about three days. You can read Barr’s prepared statement at CNN.
Also from CNN: Barr sent or discussed controversial memo with Trump lawyers.
Attorney General nominee William Barr shared a controversial memo last year with nearly all of President Donald Trump’s lawyers concluding that an aspect of special counsel Robert Mueller’s case could be “fatally misconceived,” Barr acknowledged Monday.
Barr’s 19-page memo — which concluded that Trump’s publicly reported interactions with ex-FBI Director James Comey could not constitute obstruction of justice — was addressed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel and released as a part of Barr’s Senate questionnaire last month. But it was previously unclear who else had seen it.
In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham Monday night, Barr said that he had sent it to White House special counsel Emmet Flood, Solicitor General Noel Francisco, and his former Justice Department colleague Pat Cipollone who is now White House counsel. He also discussed the issues raised in the memo with Trump lawyers Marty and Jane Raskin and Jay Sekulow. In addition he sent a copy, or had a conversation about the contents of the memo with Abbe Lowell, an attorney for Jared Kushner.
In Tuesday’s testimony, Barr will say he distributed the memo “broadly” so that other lawyers “would have the benefit of my views.” He said the memo was narrow in scope and targeted a specific obstruction of justice theory “under a single statute that I thought, based on media reports, the special counsel might be considering.”
“I wrote it myself, on my own initiative, without assistance , and based solely on public information,” Barr will say.
But the revelation comes as Democrats have pledged to make Barr’s criticisms of Mueller’s investigation a centerpiece of the hearings, particularly because Barr would be poised to oversee Mueller’s work if confirmed.
Cindy McCain weighed on Twitter.
Here are three opinion pieces on the Barr nomination to check out:
NBC News: William Barr confirmation hearing: Trump’s attorney general nominee still has a lot to answer for, by Glenn Kirschner.
The Washington Post: I was in Congress during Nixon’s impeachment proceedings. William Barr is wrong, by Elizabeth Holzman. former Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Lawfare: Lessons from Watergate: What the Senate Judiciary Committee Should Ask Bill Barr, by Mikhaila Fogel Quinta Jurecic, and Benjamin Wittes.
In other DOJ news, The Supreme Court has declined to hear a “challenge to Whitaker as acting attorney general.” The Washington Post reports:
The Supreme Court, without comment, turned away a challenge Monday to Matthew G. Whitaker’s appointment as acting attorney general.
Washington lawyer and Supreme Court practitioner Thomas C. Goldstein has intervened in cases in Nevada and Maryland to say that President Trump did not have the legal authority to appoint Whitaker, who had been chief of staff to Jeff Sessions when Trump forced out his attorney general in November.
The justices denied the Nevada case and its attempt to substitute Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein for Whitaker. The Maryland case is still before a federal judge there.
Goldstein and others say that Rosenstein, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, should have succeeded Sessions and that it is unlawful for Whitaker to be running the department for even a short time.
Read more at the WaPo.
More legal news, just breaking this morning: Wilbur Ross can’t include a question about immigration status in the Census questionnaire. NPR: Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question.
A federal judge in New York has ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Wilbur Ross characiture
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ordered the administration to stop its plans to include the controversial question on forms for the upcoming national head count “without curing the legal defects” the judge identified in his opinion released on Tuesday.
Furman’s decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.
It’s an important step in the right direction, but the case will likely end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Furman has noted that he does not expect his order to be the final word on the question’s fate. The district court ruling in New York is expected to be appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court.
In addition to the two lead cases before Furman at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the administration is fighting five more lawsuits across the country filed by dozens of states, cities and other groups that want the question removed. A second trial over the question began earlier this month in California, and another is scheduled to begin in Maryland on Jan. 22.
Yesterday The New York Times reported that Trump is dying to make Putin’s dreams come true: Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia.
There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.
Last year, President Trump suggested a move tantamount to destroying NATO: the withdrawal of the United States.
Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Current and former officials who support the alliance said they feared Mr. Trump could return to his threat as allied military spending continued to lag behind the goals the president had set.
In the days around a tumultuous NATO summit meeting last summer, they said, Mr. Trump told his top national security officials that he did not see the point of the military alliance, which he presented as a drain on the United States.
Read more at the NYT.
Will Devin Nunes finally get his comeuppance? The Daily Beast reports: Mueller Probes an Event With Nunes, Flynn, and Foreign Officials at Trump’s D.C. Hotel.
The Special Counsel’s Office and federal prosecutors in Manhattan are scrutinizing a meeting involving former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, one-time National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, and dozens of foreign officials, according to three sources familiar with the investigations.
The breakfast event, which was first reported by The Daily Sabah, a pro-government Turkish paper, took place at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. at 8.30 a.m. on Jan. 18, 2017—two days before President Donald Trump’s inauguration. About 60 people were invited, including diplomats from governments around the world, according to those same sources.
The breakfast has come under scrutiny by federal prosecutors in Manhattan as part of their probe into whether the Trump inaugural committee misspent funds and if donors tried to buy influence in the White House. The existence of that probe was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. The Special Counsel’s Office is also looking at the breakfast as part of its investigation into whether foreigners contributed money to the Trump inaugural fund and PAC by possibly using American intermediaries, as first reported by The New York Times. Robert Mueller’s team has asked Flynn about the event, according to two sources familiar with the Special Counsel’s Office questioning.
Click on the link to read the rest.
Breaking Russia investigation news from Twitter:
The Women’s March is bleeding support because of concerns that the leadership of the group is anti-Semitic. The latest from Jewish News Syndicate: Democratic National Committee drops partnership with Women’s March.
The Democratic National Committee has dropped its partnership in the Women’s March over anti-Semitism concerns, according to a Democratic source.
This development comes amid accusations of anti-Semitism within the movement’s leadership, causing many organizations to drop their support of the this year’s march, scheduled for Saturday, Jan. 19. There have been calls for firms to back out.
In recent weeks, a number of progressive groups that have withdrawn their support of the march, which was launched in 2017 in protest of the election of President Donald Trump, including, but are not limited to, the National Council of Jewish Women, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, the Human Rights Campaign, Greenpeace, Children’s Firearm Safety Alliance, Coalition Against Gun Violence and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense.
Moreover, local marches, such as in Chicago and New Orleans, have been cancelled.
And from The Washington Post: What’s in a name? Women’s March groups spar over who owns the name and the movement.
After a year marred by accusations of anti-Semitism, financial opacity and infighting, the national Women’s March organization has sought to refocus the group with a rally and the rollout of a new federal policy platform dubbed the Women’s Agenda.
Meanwhile, local groups across the country — largely unaffiliated with the national organization — have been unable to separate themselves from the fallout. They say it has hurt their ability to organize, to attract participants and to be heard.
Even the name, Women’s March, has become a flash point.
Four organizations have sued the national Women’s March group — led by activists Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour — over efforts to trademark the name, arguing that no entity can own the march or the activism it has inspired. Some groups have sought to rebrand to shed the “Women’s March” name and the tumult that comes with it.
Frankly, I had issues with the women’s march in 2017, because they shut out Hillary and her supporters. The next march is scheduled for Saturday.
What else is happening? Please post your thoughts and links on any topic in the comment thread below.
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Devin Nunes needs to go to jail for obstruction of justice.
and this:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/425348-another-gop-lawmaker-calls-on-steve-king-to-resign-over-white-supremacy
Another GOP lawmaker calls on Steve King to resign over white supremacy comments
I have been looking at our national budget and our national debt for decades and saying we are spending way to much for defense and should bring all our troops home. We cannot afford what we have been doing, abd to me that includes troops in Europe. We are separate countries and continents and and some point we need to remove ourselves from paying for their defense. I think that time should just as well be now.
Some one just needs to make them do a study to figure out where they can downsize. I think Obama was working on some of that but the Republicans howl when that happens and the weapons industry is powerful. Trump is doing it willy nilly. The country managed to downsize its bases with a panel of blue star generals. I don’t understand why they can’t do that in partnership with the diplomats and find a way to downsize.
It’s the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, with the member countries bordering or close to the North Atlantic Ocean. As the purpose is mutual defensive support, the countries fund this in approximate relation to their resources — so the %s are similar though a larger country will provide more than does a smaller country. The organization seems quite neighborly though on a much larger scale.
We have troops in German and Japan because for our own defense. In the case of Japan, it was to prevent them from ever building up another army like they had in WWII. I’m no expert, but I think it’s important for us to support our allies. But I’m not a pacifist.
I’m a pacifist until I get pushed around or I see someone else bullied. I’m in favor of Teddy Roosevelt’s “Speak softly but carry a big stick” to prevent attack.
I’m certainly not a hawk, but I see the value of having military readiness. We probably do have too many troops around the world, but that doesn’t mean we should disengage from our longtime alliances.
Teddy said speak softly but he never did. But it is a catchy phrase.
BB – this is from Nov. 2017, but very interesting perspective on Japanese and ROK military capabilities. From Charlie Pierce at Esquire:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a13821658/japan-south-korea-military-capability/
We have treaty obligations for both Germany and Japan. They’re restricted on what they can actually do militarily and because of that we cover their asses. But then, Orangeholio cares nothing of treaties and obligations .. he just bails when he wants on
I’m sure I remember it was reported earlier that Trump wants out of NATO. Guess it was passed over by the NYT then and only now is it important.
He talked about it during the campaign.
Taking a queue to disband our alliance FROM MOSCOW would be a fatal mistake.
I don’t believe in occupation.
If Germany or Japan ever said GTFO I’d say let’s go.
But gaining the trust of old enemies for mutual defense against Russia was and is key to our survival.
Is anybody falling for Trump/Putin’s con?
No, as I said, I have been saying that for decades, long before Trump came onto the scene.
Sorry if I sounded hostile. It was unintentional.
The military downsizing done under Bush 1 (and Dick Cheney) billed as the so-called “peace dividend” turned out to be a smorgasbord for privatization ala Halliburton and Blackwater.
This has to be done carefully and with the full participation of career military and diplomats. Not ideologues and people with a financial interest.
Oh yeah, and after Vladimir Putin is dead.
The problem with that is the military in conflicts will never agree to any reductions. They always say gives us more troops and more time and we can achieve our objective. This is true in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and in the Middle East today.
The diplomats are sold on the MIC and neo-con view of the world which is constant war and US military domination and control of the world. I think we should let that view go.
You’re absolutely right, Ron. The problem with Dump’s crazy moves is that they serve Putin’s agenda. And Putin is just about a contrary indicator. If he’s for it, the angels are probably on the other side.
OG, I have to disagree. Reduction in military budget has been carried out before some years back, with the advice of military commanders on which areas to reduce. I was just reading an article on this in the last few days. Let me try to find it again. (So much news happening.)
I wonder how many of the leftover hamburgers Trump scarfed down last night.
Nobody believes that.
https://twitter.com/_ThereR4Lights_/status/1085014688302288897
Cold fries.
Reminds me of the priceless cartoon about hell, may even be a Far Side:
the one sweating denizen standing in the eternal flames is saying to the other denizen,
“Man, they thought of everything. The coffee is cold.”
They used heat lamps.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/15/trump-has-turned-white-house-into-white-castle-president-roasted-serving-clemson-fast-food/?utm_term=.3e6e7ad5dc7c
The white quarterback was apparently thrilled.
http://smokeroom.com/2019/01/15/clemson-trevor-lawrence-white-house-fast-food/
I get the feeling the Women’s March was hijacked. It took off, Sarsour and her ilk quick hustled themselves to the front of the parade, and have been spreading their bafflegab ever since.
First and foremost red flag was not inviting Hillary. Second was supporting misogynist freaks like Farrakhan. In so-called leaders of a WOMEN’S movement! Third, the anti-semitism.
The whole thing is so weirdly out of character for any actual women’s movement, I’m wondering if somebody who knows how should be tracking the number of trollbot farms pushing that cabal.
It would fit the pattern: weaken all the women’s movements. They’re the only large consistent threat to the world’s dicktaters.
Sarsour and her biddies did hijack it. I read a long article about it a couple of months ago, but now I can’t remember where. They were Bernie cultists, I think.
That’s my recollection too.
I remember signing a petition in early 2017 asking Sarsour not to exclude Hillary from the march.
You’re right. Now that you mention it, I remember that too. I tried to search for it and found this: https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/276694/is-the-womens-march-melting-down That’s not where I remember seeing it before, but it does sound like the same article. ??
That’s the one. Thanks for finding it.
It was a hateful act to not invite Hillary. It also made no sense since the women marching supported and voted for her. I also hate the co-opting of Hillary’s “Women’s rights are human rights” without giving her credit. I was proud to carry my sign Thank you Hillary and Women’s rights are human rights — HRC. It’s because of Sarsour and her ilk that I didn’t join the 2018 march and won’t join the 2019 march.
I knew there were tensions but I must not have been paying attention. I had hoped that the issues with the Women’s March were being exaggerated by the media and and that they were mostly misunderstandings. Sounds like it is more serious.
Next year why don’t we have a counter March led by HRC? I would March with her anywhere.
Me too.
They had a list of important activist women and Hillary wasn’t on it.
What? Paying workers who are actually working “could be catastrophic” and cause them to stay home?
Weird.
The Daily Beast: William Barr, Trump’s Attorney General Nominee, Held Immigrants in ‘HIV Prison Camp’
It is almost as if they look for the most deplorable and reprehensible people imaginable…oh wait, yeah that is exactly what they do. Carry on.
Oh my gawdesses! He’s Opus Dei! Not another one of those freaks!!! https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/quite-a-shock-the-priest-was-a-dc-luminary-then-he-had-a-disturbing-fall-from-grace/2019/01/14/99b48700-1453-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html?utm_term=.9f751a14dc93
Shocked, shocked I tell you!
Women and boys should steer clear of all of them.
Barr’s “I wrote it myself, on my own initiative, without assistance” memo is hugely alarming. He sounds like just the sycophant Trump likes.
Uh-oh. In that case I hope the real report is leaked.
I think the House Dems will get it out.
Trump is ripping the country off under cover of the shutdown.
“Selling the country off for parts”
As far as negative economic impact, Trump’s tariffs and shutting down the government does that.
Oops. We posted simultaneously
great minds
Interesting that he’s using Trump’s latest word for the wall, “barrier.”
It’s about damn time.
Drag him, Kamala! Oooooh she is sharp!
Rather selective knowledge of the Constitution, eh Mr. Barr?
https://twitter.com/femalep/status/1085215299513679874
Excellent.
Hell hath no fury
Nancy is so polite when she points out what a fckup Trump is.
“would hurt the country” is very elastic wording.
One of the many red flags raised by Barr is that he would not agree to recuse himself if advised to do so by DOJ ethics advisors.
Barr on the emoluments clause of the Constitution: “I couldn’t even tell you what it says.”
But “a woman trapped in a man’s body” is different from this how?