William Barr wrote an unsolicited memo before he was appointed to his current position as Attorney General. It was intended to discredit the Mueller investigation. It sets forth an expansive view of the powers of the president and supports Trump’s view that the president is above the law. As Trump put it, “the president can do whatever he wants.” Barr agrees.
To learn more about the Barr memo, read the following reviews of it.
This commentary by the ACLU links to the memo.
This analysis by Neil Kinkopf of the University of Georgia School of Law highlights this startling passage:
I would like to focus attention…on the ramifications of Mueller’s theory of the President’s constitutional powers for the rest of the government. Those ramifications are vast and proceed from the memo’s most jaw-dropping passage: “Constitutionally, it is wrong to conceive of the President as simply the highest officer within the Executive branch hierarchy. He alone is the Executive branch.”
Barr rejects the fundamental idea of checks and balances. He rejects the principle that no one is above the law. He asserts that the president is.
He is pushing out or firing prosecutors who are independent, like Geoffrey Berman in New York.
Under Barr’s leadership, the rule of law is being eroded. This should concern us all, regardless of party.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Republicans know that Barr applied for the position. Republicans knew his views. Republicans do not care about the rule of law. Otherwise they would be using every possible means to distance themselves from Trump and Barr.
Barr hardly invented the strong unitary executive theory. Alexander Hamilton – a great hero around here, I understand – was a fierce proponent of it, as was George W. Bush, also a rehabilitated hero around here. In fact, that theory was the basis for Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, and other “executive overreach” that liberals were railing about during the Bush years. It was also the basis for Obama’s alleged authority to unilaterally assassinate U.S. citizens, including 16-year-old ones, due process free.
Oh well, never mind then. These observations so clearly make it OK to argue for a completely unchecked, dictatorial executive. ROFLMAO.
Huh, I’m confused. Where did I argue for that?
In fact, I’ve been arguing vehemently against that since the presidency of the war criminal GWB who is now venerated around here and feted by Ellen because he said mean things about Trump. I’m not the one pretending that Trump is some kind of singular, unprecendented evil. Just the other day there was a post about why we study history. Understanding how we got to the present is one of the biggest reasons, and GWB is one of the biggest reasons why we have Trump.
LIKE. Yes, GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice–war criminals all.
“GWB is one of the biggest reasons why we have Trump.”
Actually, one of the biggest reasons why we have Trump is the electoral college and the people with the misguided belief that there was no real difference between HRC and Trump.
And one of the biggest reasons why we had GWB are the people who voted for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore because of their misguided belief that there was no difference between GWB and Gore.
And one of the biggest reasons why we had Reagan are people who believed it didn’t matter whether Reagan or Carter won and spent all of their time bashing Carter while claiming to be progressives and ignoring the dangers of Reagan. (I plead guilty on this one but I didn’t make that mistake twice).
I know that all patriotic real Americans will join me in expressing our hope that we shall soon see the construction in D.C. of The Cathedral of the Apotheosis of Donald Trump!!! hee hee
Since when does US AG Barr get to redefine the Constitution? (or A Hamilton, or GWB).
Congress caving/ refusing to assert its authority/ punting to Exec has been going on a long time.
Here’s an analysis re: punting on foreign affairs & trade, going on since 70’s, sharply increasing in ’90’s, attributed to growth of polarization, diminishment of for-affairs & natl security expertise in congress, & sidelining of civil & forn service bureaucrats under JFK, Nixon, GWBush (& more):
https://www.cfr.org/article/unconstrained-presidency-checks-and-balances-eroded-long-trump
RE: [lack of] oversight of exec emergency powers (initiated in ’76, not followed thro on by Congress, undercut by Judiciary in ’83; shore-up w/strong bipartisan support proposed in 2019 in response to DJT border “emergency” — vetoed 2x by Trump
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/11/congress-must-reclaim-its-role-as-a-check-on-executive-power/
RE: gutting of Constitutional War Powers clause, w/warmaking powers steadily pushed from Congress to Exec since 1941, further solidified under Obama in absence of Congress will to enforce the ’73War Powers Act–where at least the pres & top natl security advisers “remained intimately involved in the approval process for US strikes”– bringing us up to DJT’s new wrinkle, “military commanders would be able to make these decisions independently during 180-day periods.”
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/04/trumps-dangerous-expansion-of-executive-war-powers-000387/
Makes you wonder if something’s wrong in Constitutional methods for implementing balance of powers, no? At least it does me.
Congress is the people’s primary check on executive power. Yet its voice has clearly been increasingly stifled over the decades. Today we have a good handful of major natl issues where polls show the nation is at odds w/ Congressional legislation. Is there something intrinsically dysfunctional with term limits, salaries, voter suppression, gerrymandering?
I suspect it’s more the failure of law to keep up w/tech realities. Starting in the ’50’s, national media– via television– became able to reach huge proportions of the population w/ political ads blanketing the scene far more effectively than localized print media, pamphlets, door-to-door campaigning of yore. Those ads were [/are still] expensive. Candidates w/innovative ideas &/ or smaller followings were increasingly sidelined. Every iteration of tech-advance since then has followed the same paradigm. Long ago we should have been looking at publicly-financed campaigns w/mandated equal campaign funds for all candidates. (& obviously– no place for foreign campaign-funding; Cit-United decision is a travesty & needs Congressional legislation workaround). Such laws would also go a long way toward undercutting the ability of lobbyists to buy poicy.
I agree. One of the biggest influences I the growth of the power of the American executive branch has been the unwillingness of the congress to come to agreement o anything. During the Obama years, this was the stated objective of the congress.
Here’s the post I wrote back when I first read this memo by Barr. This was before Barr was confirmed as Attorney General.
Trump Attempts to Impede Mueller Investigation by Appointing Attorney General Who Wrote Memo Opposing That Investigation
Such synchronicity! Trump’s pick for Attorney General, Bill Barr, just “happens” to have written a memo suggesting that the Mueller investigation was an overreach.
Wow! What. a. Coincidence!
Barr wrote a 19-page memo arguing that the Mueller probe was not justified, legally, because the Justice Department is relying upon an expansion of the meaning of obstruction to include any act knowingly done to impede an investigation, beyond impairing evidence. I’m not a lawyer, but Barr’s reading seems, well, fanciful. It’s difficult to believe that the intent of the law was to allow people, with impunity, simply to fire anyone who might work on, assist, or bring a case against them until they got someone who wouldn’t do that. LOL.
The meaning of the law is, I think, quite clear. It reads, in part,
(c) Whoever corruptly—(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction].
Section (c)(2) seems pretty clear to me. Firing someone (Comey) who is assisting or working on an investigation of you to stop him from doing that is clearly “corruptly . . . imped[ing an] official proceeding.”
So is appointing someone (Barr) to shut down such an investigation. Isn’t that obvious?
Note the expansiveness of the language: “or otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” This goes far, far beyond “impairing evidence.” Obviously. Clearly. And equally obviously, Barr can read. So why does he choose to misread this?
And then Barr famously gave the press conference in which he claimed that the Mueller Report completely exonerated Trump. Here’s what the report says: “{I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. . . . Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it does not exonerate him.”
The Mueller Report also clearly outlines many examples of Trump obstructing the investigation and says that it’s the Congress’s job to determine whether the President committed a crime and, if so, to indict him.
Again, Barr choose to misread the clear language because he sees his job as being Trump’s personal attorney.
So, the law clearly covers any corruptly obstructing, influencing or impeding an official proceeding and, at the same time, points to corruptly messing with documents and other relevant objects related to such proceedings. One simply has to ignore the plain sense of the law to conclude otherwise. In other words, one has to have a corrupt motivation not to follow what this says (unless, that is, one is semi-literate like Trump).
In times past extremism would have been kept at bay by the party structure. The republicians have imploded. I the smoke-filled room not so very long ago, republician strategists would have warned Trump that the appointment of Barr would bring his presidency down, and he would have chosen someone they wanted. Today, they bow and scrape to the only person who can get their people to the polls. And he is an anathema.
The Tepublicans sit quietly as Trump turns the party into the bastion of racism, anti-science, the KKK, white nationalism, and hate.
L’état, c’est moi.
Exactly as Barr sees it.
Seems like the idea of presidential authority is contingent on who is in power. Trump’s enablers are not principled with respect to the Constitution, common morality, or truth. They are only instrumentalists. What serves their power is true and right. That’s the beginning and end of it. It is profoundly dystopian, anti-democratic, and dangerous. Their complete defeat is the only remedy.
BTW, still awaiting my copies of
The Poetry of Bill Barr
Fluidity and Authenticity: Reflections on Gender Identity and the Construction of Self, by Mike Pence
Learning Theory, an Historical Overview, by Betsy DeVos
Experimental Philosophy: On the Scientific Revolution in Philosophical Practice, by Donald Trump
to place on my bookshelves next to
The Wit and Wisdom of Arne Duncan
Democracy in Education: Improving Schools Via Teacher Autonomy and Bottom-up Continuous Improvement, by Bill Gates
Don’t forget an all time classic: Ayn Rand On the Principle of Empathy
Ayn. Psychopath and hypocrite and writer of overstuffed, cliched prose filled with with comic book heroes and villains.