Dana Milbank watched Bill Barr testify before the House Judiciary Committee and wrote this in the Washington Post:
Here comes the caravan!
In 2018, when things were looking grim for Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections, President Trump conjured a crisis. He declared “an invasion of our country” by Central American migrant caravans full of “stone cold criminals,” “unknown Middle Easterners” and “gang members” who were “putting our country in great danger.”
Trump mobilized 2,100 National Guard members and then, days before the election, 5,200 active-duty U.S. troops. He declared a national emergency and told voters to “blame the Democrats.” The voters didn’t fall for the phony crisis, and the caravan menace fizzled.
Now another electoral reckoning approaches, and Trump is following the same script. This time, he proclaims that “sick and deranged Anarchists & Agitators” in Portland, Ore., and Seattle seek to “destroy our American cities, and worse.”
Instead of using the troops again as his political props, Trump is now mobilizing armed federal police from the Justice and Homeland Security departments — and claiming that “cities would burn” if Democrats won the election.
There are two differences this time, though. The military deployment in 2018, though wasteful, did little harm. But the current deployment of federal police to Portland has provoked a dramatic increase both in peaceful protests and in violence — tensions had been subsiding before Trump’s escalation — and rekindled unrest nationwide.
The other difference: In 2018, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis restricted troops to a supporting role on the border to avoid constitutional violations. But the man leading the current provocation, Attorney General Bill Barr, displays no scruples as he whips up violence in service of Trump’s reelection.
Barr defends federal response in Portland
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing, the attorney general described the federal response to the ongoing protests in Portland. (Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
“What unfolds nightly around the [Portland] courthouse cannot reasonably be called a protest; it is, by any objective measure, an assault on the government of the United States,” Barr testified to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Repeatedly blurring the distinction between the masses of peaceful, racial-justice demonstrators and the small band of violent vandals, Barr said peaceful demonstrators in Lafayette Square hit with chemical agents, stun grenades and rubber bullets had been “unruly.” Pressed about the many times force has been used against nonviolent demonstrators, he declared that “protesters” — he made quotation marks with his fingers — “are not following police directions.” He justified the use of weapons against peaceful demonstrators by saying “it’s hard to separate” them from the criminals.
He dismissed the idea that there is systemic racism in policing, alleged that police use deadly force more often against white men than black men (black men are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police) and blamed racial-justice protests for a spike in violence: “When a community turns on and pillories its own police, officers naturally become more risk-averse and crime rates soar. Unfortunately, we are seeing that now in many of our major cities.”
He spoke of a “mob” using “slingshots, tasers, sledgehammers, saws, knives, rifles and explosive devices” to attack federal officers serving on a strictly “defensive mission” — omitting mention of federal officers throwing nonviolent demonstrators into unmarked vans for questioning without probable cause. And he repeatedly scolded Democrats for “not coming out and condemning mob violence,” even as Democrats on the panel did just that.
But then, Barr, like his boss, is not a stickler for facts. Last week, he said of the administration’s Operation Legend, which forces federal police into U.S. cities: “The FBI went in very strong into Kansas City, and within two weeks we’ve had 200 arrests.”
The actual number of arrests in that period? One.
Barr sounded as if he were channeling Trump’s Twitter account as he denounced “the bogus Russiagate scandal,” defended Trump’s pardon of Roger Stone after Stone refused to incriminate Trump, defended the attempted dismissal of Michael Flynn’s guilty plea, defended the imprisonment of Michael Cohen after he refused to disavow criticism of Trump, defended the dismissal of the prosecutor overseeing investigations of Rudolph W. Giuliani, defended the baseless allegation that voting by mail is fraudulent, and defended armed, right-wing protesters who invaded the Michigan Capitol and called for killing the governor. (They were against “crazy rules.”) He even defended Trump’s handling of the pandemic as “superb,” while blaming the Obama administration.
Barr made no attempt to hide his contempt for the Democratic majority, telling them “I think I speak English” and “I’m going to answer the damn question,” and frequently speaking over, and occasionally laughing at, the lawmakers. The disrespect was mutual: Chairman Jerry Nadler attempted to deny Barr a five-minute bathroom break.
“You’re a real class act,” the attorney general told the chairman.
Barr knows about class. He uses federal police powers to deny peaceful Americans their constitutional rights while fomenting violence among hoodlums — all to revive Trump’s reelection bid.
This time, there really is a caravan “putting our country in great danger” — and Barr leads it.
Trump’s handlers in Moscow wouldn’t let him start a new foreign war so he could wag the dog and win the election, so his handlers here in the US decided to create a war at home with an imaginary enemy–those vast gangs of violent Antifa terrorists being fabricated every day on Fox News.
And so we get fascist secret police tear gassing and shooting at and abducting idealistic kids and Moms in yellow shirts.
So, I’m confused. Not starting wars is a Russian thing? If Trump wanted to prove that he’s not a Putin puppet, he’d have to start a new war? That is some scary thinking and precisely the reason I’m not on board with this idea that Biden is better than Trump. Whatever else his flaws – and they are legion – Trump has not gotten us into any new wars and has tried to de-escalate the ones we’ve been in for nearly two decades. I know this makes me a Trump Troll, but I count that as a good thing. The Democrats’ tendency to rattle the saber at Russia (and now China) scares the bejeebers out of me.
Incidentally, if Trump is Putin’s puppet, why has he worked so hard to crush the pipeline with Germany, something the Russian economy depends on very heavily? And what about this: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/donald-trump-putin-russiagate ?
I assume you think it was cool when Putin got his term in office extended to 2036. Her admiration for Russia is disquieting.
Not letting Trump start a war with Iran, Dienne.
I agree that not going to war with Iran is a very good thing. Withdrawing from the INF and Open Skies treaties, withdrawing from Syria and leaving the Kurds at the mercy of their enemies, withdrawing support for NATO, NOT SO MUCH.
Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, not such a good thing.
Withdrawing from the World Health Organization, not such a good thing.
I’m confused. Starting a war with peaceful Americans using lies about how those peaceful Americans are really violent anarchists is NOT a Putin thing?
Aggressively arresting people participating in peaceful protests is NOT a Putin thing? Punishing people who disagree with the leader is NOT a Putin thing?
This has really become ridiculous when so-called progressives claim that a president who is starting a war with peaceful African American protesters and their peaceful supporters is “not starting wars”.
What does it say about a person whose all-consuming worry is “The Democrats’ tendency to rattle the saber at Russia (and now China) scares the bejeebers out of me” instead of being worried about the Republicans actual actions against peaceful protesters and attempts to disenfranchise Americans or delay an election?
Saber rattling at another country worries them more than actual aggressive actions toward non-white Americans?
It’s called white privilege and those who defend Trump so rabidly – whether on the right or the left – are casebook examples of what white privilege sounds like.
“I’m so very worried about saber rattling as I sit in my little white bubble of privilege and send my kids to private school and denounce protesters as being just as violent as Barr says they are.”
Those who don’t live in the little bubble of white privilege are concerned with how a wannabe fascist president is being enabled by a wannabe fascist attorney general and getting help from an already fascist Russia president to win an election despite a huge majority of Americans not supporting his re-election.
I thought Trump, not the Democrats, was rattling the saber at China, especially with his insults about the pandemic, calling it “the China virus” or “Kung flu virus.” Why does his “humor” sound racist?
I don’t think one can expect any kind of moral consistency from people who trust William Barr’s opinion about Russia interference over Bernie Sanders and AOC.
Turns out you were right & much of what “author” lists as facts have literally now been disproven as falsehoods!
This is quite long, but it’s very thorough: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million I hope you read it. Matt Taibbi is no fan of Trump – he’s on the record with dozens of anti-Trump pieces – but he recognizes how bogus Russiagate is, it’s purpose and how much it has damaged our media, our government and our nation. Please, please read it.
Dienne. Don’t give me that Russiagate is bogus crap. Russia expended ENORMOUS resources in its Social Media campaign to get Trump elected, and it used its intelligence apparatus to do this. And Trump and his henchmen had more Russian connections, including money laundering for Russian kleptocrats, than Trump has stuff with his name on it.
Admit it, Dienne. You just think it’s fine for a U.S. president to be an asset of a hostile, dictatorial foreign power. Vlad’s Agent Orange. Moscow’s Asset Governing America (MAGA).
And I guess that delaying military aide to an ally at war with Russia until you get help with your reelection is OK with you too, Dienne.
Well, yes, we all read Trump’s “perfect” phone call with the president of Ukraine, where he asked for a favor. The favor, of course, was to investigate the Bidens. That’s an uncontested fact. Trump didn’t deny it. He thought it was just fine.
Oh my Lord, Dienne. That article is like the great compendium of Trump administration BS about Russia. BTW, what the Mueller report actually said is that they had identified ten cases of Trump obstructing justice but that the DOJ couldn’t indict a sitting president and that it was up to Congress to do that. Trump IN PUBLIC asked Russia to hack his opponent’s email. But I suppose that if you commit treason IN PUBLIC, its not a secret conspiracy. It’s just blatant, in-your-face treason.
Trump assumes if a crime is committed in public, it is not a crime.
It’s astonishing how flagrant he is. I long to see him and Miller standing in the dock at the International Criminal Court, charged with crimes against humanity.
Bob Shepherd,
I think the argument is that just like those progressives like Matt Taibbi rabidly supported and encouraged America to intervene in other countries elections and have been trying to shut up anyone who complains about America intervening in foreign countries, they demand we also welcome Russia intervention and should stop criticizing it because it should be allowed. Just like they demand other countries welcome American intervention and other countries and Americans should shut up about it or be punished.
After all, they would be the worst kind of hypocrites if they allowed other countries to criticize American intervention but not allowed America to mention other countries’ interventions in our democracy.
They would be the worst kind of hypocrites, so I assume that what dienne77 and Matt Taibbi are advocating that America should keep intervening as much as Trump wants in other countries and all American citizens who complain be severely punished, just like they did when they were very upset that Trump wasn’t allowed to intervene in Ukraine.
The bottom line in their thinking seems to be that any country, including America, can intervene wherever they want and anyone who criticizes it must be severely punished.
Bob,
Those articles dienne77 links to are exactly like right wing Trump propaganda. There is no attempt to put anything into context — it is all about demonizing Democrats and excusing the worst Republican actions, by pretending that they are being “fair and balanced”, just like Fox News.
It is exactly the opposite of the positions taken by real progressives like AOC and Bernie Sanders, who actually recognize the dangers of Putin and Trump.
Anyone still defending Putin and Trump with right wing propaganda should just admit that they despise Bernie Sanders and AOC. Their innuendo that AOC and Bernie “damaged our media and our government and our nation”, but Trump and Barr did not, should be condemned as the right wing propaganda it is.
Taibbi actually has the chutzpah to quote from the infamous memo, written by Barr, that called the Mueller investigation legally unjustified–the very memo that won Barr the job as Trump’s toadie. here’s the post I wrote about THAT when it happened:
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, for example, 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 m
e. 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 or otherwise interfere with such an investigation.
Isn’t it pretty darned obvious that that is what’s happening?
or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so
Barr made a point yesterday of saying that he speaks English. So I would think he could understand what that passage in the law freaking means.
And the Mueller Report concluded, of course, by saying that if they had found that the President had committed no crime, they would say that and, pointedly, that they WEREN’T SAYING THAT. Translation: The President committed crimes.
dienne77 trusts Barr on this issue far more than she trusts Diane Ravitch or Bernie Sanders or AOC.
I guess it is Barr’s long history of being upright and honest and telling it like it is that makes her trust Barr, while Bernie Sanders and AOC are easily fooled and stupid or maybe corrupt.
It says it all that Taibbi and dienne77 quote Barr instead of AOC or Bernie Sanders.
Or, to put the best possible Orange Clown face on it–Translation: We didn’t find that he had committed no crimes (and we’ve outlined, above, a bunch that he did commit).
Bob Shepherd,
It is long past time to marginalize the dishonest voices of Taibbi and others like him who demonize anyone remotely associated with democrats but take seriously Barr and every conspiracy theory offered by far right Republicans.
They are truly hypocrites. They accept without question whatever Barr writes about Mueller and his report, but use innuendo and deflections to discredited anyone who criticizes Trump.
It’s interesting because they are able to “discredit” Trump critics tend to present evidence honestly, which means it is always possible to come up with some cockamamie reason that an overwhelming degree of evidence is worthless (see OJ and the William Kennedy Smith defense).
On the other hand, they embrace as gospel whatever Barr says, which tells you that either their judgement or their moral compass is flawed.
And history has now proven Bob above was beyond wrong about pretty much every bit of nonsense he spews in his comments. Dienne, I hope by now you see just how much far Left DEM policies, lies, intolerance, hate & prejudiced harms America & is the real threat to our world!
I read Barr’s opening statement and watched his performance. He was pulling out every stop to justify the use of Trump’s Troops to abduct protesters and vanish them in unmarked cars in addition to targeting protesters with tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets. Barr focussed on the destruction of federal property by ingenious and god-awful techniques of people who had co-opted the peaceful and legitimate protests.
I am impressed with a recent lawsuit that names Barr and other federal officials who supported the use of Trump’s Troops in Portland under the militaristic mission title “Operation Diligent Valor.” See the narrative in this lawsuit against thirteen federal agencies and officials, including Attorney General William Barr. It runs 48 double-spaced pages and describes in detail the charges.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/moms-portland.pdf (48 pages).
Barr saw it done in the movies about Russia and Argentina and decided he could do it too (abduct people in unmarked vans and make them disappear).
With Barr in charge, precedent changed. Under prior AG’s, the law functioned to deter illegality. The current situation is, illegal acts are carried out, then lawsuits are filed. Justice is delayed and thereby denied.
Wonder how much rubles Putin is paying the dump?
I watched these hearings. I must say that I was horrified by the actions of the Democrats on the committee, though I am more horrified by Trump and his toadie. They asked the AG questions again and again, but these were entirely rhetorical. They wouldn’t let him answer. Pretty disgusting and childish behavior given the gravity of the subject of the hearings. And, if they had let the man speak, they would have ended up with more and better arguments to use against him. Barr is a pretty piece of work, a master at circumlocution and obfuscation, but they should let him speak and then tease out the absurdities and contradictions. That’s their job.
Barr was intent on slow walking answers to questions, running out the clock before providing any substance. This is a common tactic with a hostile witnesses. Barr was weaving, dodging, trying to play rope-a-dope and Democrats were not willing to let him get away with not providing answers. Hearings like this produce no winners.
Only question caused Barr to think…This was about whether it wrong (illegal) for the President to seek favors from foreigners to help his election. Barr paused. He had to think before he said yes. Why? He was on record trashing the Muller report and “Russia-gate.”
I agree, Bob. Most disorganized. Give Reps credit, they know how stick to message, no matter how much of a sack of … it is. Some good moments, but no coordinated strategy where one line of questioning built on another.
It’s hard to believe that a democratic president “commits perjury” and can be impeached for defining “sexual relations” as “sexual intercourse” when answering questions about an unrelated matter in a civil deposition, but Republican William Barr could testify under oath before Congress and not be convicted for perjury. A double standard indeed.
All one needs to know about Barr is very simple in my view. Barr: “Trump has done a superb job handling the corona virus.” With that statement (quote may not be exact) all credibility for Barr’s statements on other matters evaporates.
Turning the police into an instrument of Executive Power domestically is the classic fascist play. Extraordinarily chilling.
oops. comment on the wrong page!
Yikes. I doubled down on this. My correction is on the wrong page, too!!! LOL. I’m such an idiot sometimes.
Glad to see you do that as well! Thought it was just me.
Reblogged this on Lloyd Lofthouse and commented:
William Barr is the fascist Donald Trump has dreamed about since he lied while taking the Oath of Office on January 20, 2017. Trump wanted a thug and he got one in William Barr.
He may look harmless, like a toad
that squats by mushrooms in a wode,
but here’s the thing that’s much, much scariuh,
he’s really the revenant Lavrentiy Beria.
wode: Middle English, “woodlands”
revenant: one returned from the dead
Beria: head of Stalin’s secret police
But toads, at least, are wonderful singers.
If Barr were to sing, we’d learn some zingers.