 
     |
| ‘Time for the public to see.’ Judge skewers Trump AG Bill Barr with 'zesty' opinion. (Page 1/2) |
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 05, 06:10 AM
|
|
I want to READ about it.
"Judge orders release of DOJ memo justifying not prosecuting Trump"
| quote | A federal judge has ordered the release of a key DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice) memo supporting former [U.S. Attorney General] William Barr’s conclusion that [President Trump] should not [have been] prosecuted for obstruction of justice over episodes investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued that ruling in a withering opinion that accused Barr of being “disingenuous” when describing Mueller’s findings and found that the [Barr-led DOJ] was not candid with the court about the purpose and role of the 2019 memo prepared by Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, [DOJ] attorneys argued that the memo was part of the process of advising Barr on whether Trump should be prosecuted, but Jackson said the analysis consisted of a post hoc rationalization of a decision already made.
“The review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given,” wrote Jackson.
Jackson linked [DOJ's] effort to keep the memo secret to Barr’s initial descriptions of Mueller’s conclusions, declaring both efforts misleading. |
|
The article, which isn't all that long, continues from there.
Josh Gerstein for Politico; May 4, 2021.
https://www.politico.com/ne...n-justice-doj-485360
I'd rather see this on YouTube, even if it's narrated by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
"Federal Judge Calls Out Bill Barr For Lying | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC"
Just over 12 minutes of YouTube video.
https://youtu.be/T0E333MX714
In the judge's own words:
Judge Amy Berman Jackson for the U.S. "DC" District Court
| quote | On Friday, March 22, 2019, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III delivered his Report of the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election1 to the then-Attorney General of the United States, William P. Barr.
But the Attorney General did not share it with anyone else.
Instead, before the weekend was over, he sent a letter to congressional leaders purporting to “summarize the principal conclusions” set out in the Report, compressing the approximately 200 highly detailed and painstakingly footnoted pages of Volume I – which discusses the Russian government’s interference in the election and any links or coordination with the Trump campaign – and the almost 200 equally detailed pages of Volume II – which concerns acts taken by then-President Trump in connection with the investigation – into less than four pages. The letter asserted that the Special Counsel “did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,” and it went on to announce the Attorney General’s own opinion that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
The President then declared himself to have been fully exonerated.
The Attorney General’s characterization of what he’d hardly had time to skim, much less, study closely, prompted an immediate reaction, as politicians and pundits took to their microphones and Twitter feeds to decry what they feared was an attempt to hide the ball.
Even the customarily taciturn Special Counsel was moved to pen an extraordinary public rebuke on March 27:
The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.
Mueller called for the immediate release of his report, but it remained under wraps for another three weeks.
On April 18, 2019, the Attorney General appeared before Congress to deliver the report. He asserted that he and the Deputy Attorney General reached the conclusion he had announced in the March 24 letter “in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers.”
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington [or CREW] immediately fired off a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for any records related to those consultations, but the Department of Justice demurred [declined] on the grounds of the deliberative process and attorney-client privileges. What remains at issue today is a memorandum to the Attorney General dated March 24, 2019, that specifically addresses the subject matter of the letter transmitted to Congress.
It is time for the public to see that [memorandum.] |
|
That's from the beginning of Judge Jackson's ruling. Like an "executive summary."
'Click' to reveal the judge's own words.
Full court document in PDF format.
https://storage.cou...79.27.0_1.pdf
You guessed it: an "Obama" judge.
Amy Berman Jackson, District Judge for the U.S. District of Columba (quick summary)
https://www.dcd.uscourts.go...e-amy-berman-jackson
The bottom line:
Judge Jackson has "opined" that this memorandum of March 24, 2019, which the DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice) has withheld from the public, should now become available to the public.
She is allowing two weeks for the Merrick Garland-led DOJ to appeal her decision--if they want to.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-05-2021).]
|
|
|
|
sourmash
|
MAY 05, 08:41 AM
|
|
Bill Barr wasn't working for Trump. Quite the opposite. Trump was advised to pick Barr by the same anti-American people who had him pick Bolton, Wray, Podesta.
Trump wasnt savvy enough to outsmart the Swamp. His son in-law is swamp produce, and his daughter worked Donald from her angle as another facet of Swamp Kushner.
You know, I don't learn anything from the propaganda pieces you post here. Do you ever do deep dives?
|
|
|
|
randye
|
MAY 05, 06:03 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by sourmash:
You know, I don't learn anything from the propaganda pieces you post here. Do you ever do deep dives?
|
|
It's really sad how deeply TDS affects so many Lefties.
A long history on this forum of acting, and apparently believing, that nothing burgers like this are some kind of earth shattering news that "will finally have TRUMP doing the perp walk"....or some other fantasy. That long history includes being consistently and totally WRONG, particularly about political and legal matters.
THIS CASE is about a FOIA REQUEST. Nothing more, Nothing less.
The Plaintiff(s) in this case only got approx. HALF of the documents they demanded. The judge's order said that "Document 6 was properly withheld" and consequently she DID NOT order it to be turned over in the FOIA demand.
As for any other opinions the judge may have expressed they have NOTHING to do with this case, are outside the 4 corners of the complaint and consequently outside of her jurisdiction in this matter AND have ZERO effect of law or any determinative value.
AG Barr's candor with regard to Robert Muller's mess WAS NOT ON TRIAL.
She just as well may have opined that she finds the April weather in Portugal to be abysmal, the taste of chocolate éclairs delightful or "China Joe" Biden to be of sound mind.
I really don't understand the motivation of Leftists to habitually beclown themselves.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-05-2021).]
|
|
|
|
sourmash
|
MAY 05, 07:21 PM
|
|
|
Some eclairs would hit the spot.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 06, 12:46 AM
|
|
"What remains at issue today is a memorandum to the Attorney General [William Pelham or "Bill" Barr] dated March 24, 2019 . . ."
~ Amy Berman Jackson, judge; for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
I created this forum topic with the literary genre of "Slice of Life" at the front of my mind.
At this point, it is still uncertain if this DOJ internal memorandum from 2019 will become public.
What would it change, in terms of politics or public opinion or even "culture", if the memorandum does become public?
Very possibly, nothing at all would be changed or impacted in any discernible way.
It's the testiness and the zestiness that jumps from the first two pages of Judge Amy Berman Jackson's opinion or ruling in this case. The directness and the very conversational temperament and tone of her language. It's the very antithesis of official or bureaucratic formality. It's not dry--it's "un-dry." If it were an indictment, it would be hailed as a "speaking" indictment. It could be marketed as "Judge Jackson Bold." It's a gourmet course of discourse. It's the judge with the fudge.
I'm no lawyer (just a layman) but I know a colorfully worded opinion or ruling from a judge when I see it.
I created this forum topic as, first and foremost, a simple invitation for other forum members to join me in the ABJ (Amy Berman Jackson) Experience and become part of a shared mindset of remarking, appreciating and savoring this exceptional specimen of the written English language that is on display at the beginning of this court case filing from a currently very well known federal judge.
Anything more that might come from the publication of the DOJ memorandum itself--if that were to happen--would be icing on the cake. My cake.
Whether it's your cake is entirely up to you.
| quote | Originally posted by sourmash:
Some eclairs would hit the spot. |
|
Awesome.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-06-2021).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
MAY 06, 05:13 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
I'm no lawyer (just a layman) but I know a colorfully worded opinion or ruling from a judge when I see it.
|
|
NO YOU DON'T
Some Leftist propaganda TOLD YOU.
Then you actually parroted, and even highlighted, that propaganda here.
Just like "sourmash" observed:
| quote | Originally posted by sourmash:
You know, I don't learn anything from the propaganda pieces you post here. Do you ever do deep dives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 06, 12:45 PM
|
|
File photo.
Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, described by federal judge Amy Berman Jackson as having been "disingenuous" in a FOIA case filing on Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
MAY 06, 07:51 PM
|
|
Behind all the PROPAGANDA and horseshit, is the TRUTH.
The defendant, (DOJ), actually WON two out of the three issues in the matter.
Propagandists , and their useful idiots, don't want you to do a "deep dive' and see the TRUTH
You WILL focus on the extralegal language of the judge and not on the actual ruling. THAT was the point of the propaganda.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 07, 03:58 PM
|
|
This is a spacetime portal or "wormhole" that lets any reader escape temporarily from this reactionary and extremist-dominated Pennock's universe and explore the Mainstream Media universe, which also has a version of the well known U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson's "zesty" critique of former U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
YouTube videos
Two days ago; 8 minutes. MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace hosts a roundtable discussion with well known attorney Daniel Goldman, former DOJ chief spokesperson Matthew Miller and New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt.
https://youtu.be/y1_qQWzwbTk
Two days ago; 10 minutes. MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace discusses the case with well known attorney Neal Katyal and investigative journalist and author Carol Leonnig.
https://youtu.be/htWCxiAHFo0[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-08-2021).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 07, 10:02 PM
|
|
It's hugely tiresome to see that forum member randye persists in trying to "put words in my mouth."
This is a case in point.
I haven't been talking about anything except the first few paragraphs of the judge's filing in the FOIA case about whether the DOJ internal memorandum of March 24, 2019 can be released to the public. Judge Jackson has ruled that it can be released to the public, and should be released to the public.
WTF is all this other "stuff" that randye's been talking about in this thread?
It could add substance to the discussion, were he to bring it into the discussion in a calm and thoughtful voice, but he approaches this topic (as he has with every previous topic) as if my remarks were more than they actually were, or different than they actually were.
People like randye who constantly try to "put words in other people's mouth" aren't worth the time of day.
He should stop that. I don't think he can stop it . . . but he should.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-07-2021).]
|
|
|
|