- Jul 13, 2011
- Pacific Rim
- HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
Not one second of that piece was devoted to discussing Congress’s request for redacted information.
Here’s what was said, though.
- said that the word collusion entered the political discourse courtesy of Rudy Guiliani, blatantly ignoring the last 2 years of leftist propaganda (yes, Andrew... Rudy framed the argument using a non-legal term which fooled everyone into not looking at conspiracy.... right)
- claimed Trump is guilty of obstruction because he ordered his aides to do something they actually didn’t do (and many, including myself, have said that had they followed their boss’ demands, the case for obstruction would then be far more likely)
- this demands repeating: Neopolitano actually said that Barr’s definition of obstruction was too narrow, because it demanded that one commit obstruction to be guilty of obstruction. He then disingenuously claims that Barr stated since there was no conspiracy, there can be no obstruction. Again, since Mueller punted on obstruction, Barr was left having to conclude Mueller’s findings, which is exactly what he did. Barr did not, as Neopolitano claims, “override” his prosecutor’s findings on obstruction.
If Neopolitano were intellectually honest, he’d surely be asking why didn’t Mueller force Barr’s hand? Why didn’t Mueller recommend indictment on obstruction? Because if he did that, then the Dems would get what they do desperately wanted (Trump facing charges) OR then Barr would legitimately be facing obstruction if he then were to go against his prosecutor’s wishes.
Again: everything that is currently unfolding hinges on Mueller’s impotence at rendering a definitive re: obstruction.
- Neopolitano then misrepresents the obstruction case of a judge in Massachusetts. I posted about that in another thread. Here are the details.
- claims Mueller was supposed to ask for permission from Barr to ask for an indictment. This is bullshit of the highest order. All Mueller had to do was recommend indictment, which he punted, and only after he sunk his own campaign by claiming his hands were tied by an OLC statement (something Mueller didn’t bother prefacing for the volume on collusion/conspiracy)
- Goes on to leverage his perch as a former judge (he hasn’t been on the bench in over 20 years!) to malign the character of Barr with only an anecdote of something that was written during the HW Bush admin about the merits of warrantless surveillance... he doesn’t actually state what Barr’s final position was, or even attempt to dissect the nuance... which is the hallmark of any reasonable intellectual, let alone a judge!
TL;DR - Are you planning on providing even a scintilla of actual source documentation that backs up your assertion that Barr is allowed to break the law in this case?
Also, TL; DR- if it isn’t clear, I despise people who use their positions of supposed authority (in this case a former judge) as a replacement for cogent arguments. It’s why I also have no respect for Dr. Oz. Appeal to expert authority is only valid if the arguments put forth are themselves valid.