Food for Thought

[H2O Man]

“You own your lies. And even if it takes a while, every lie you tell will eventually catch up to you. So try very hard to tell the truth. That's what I think. It's better to tell the truth.”
Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman


The above quote is from my first interview with the late Chief Waterman. At the time, he was in the hospital in Syracuse, having suffered a stroke 36 hours earlier. In time, I would conduct three more interviews with Paul, which were first published in a Native American newspaper, and later in a book.

I worked as Chief Waterman's top assistant for decades. In doing so, I was frequently reminded of the differences in character between native leaders, and many of those in our local, state, and federal representatives. Let's consider the case of William Barr. Were I composing a memo on Barr's “character” for Chief Waterman's consideration, or to send a Democrat in the House, here are a few things I'd include:

Barr has donated more money to political campaigns than any other Attorney General. He gave $55,000 to the Jeb Bush political action committee, then another $2,700 to the Trump campaign, during the 2016 campaign. This raises obvious questions about the extent that his personal political beliefs influence his overall thinking.

It's not just that he is on the record saying the Supreme Court made the wrong decision in Roe v. Wade, or that he is strongly against the legalization of marijuana. Barr is on the record as saying that Hillary Clinton should rightfully be investigated for “crimes,” and that Trump should not have been. We will return to this shortly, but keep in mind Senator Kamala Harris's questioning of Barr earlier this week.

Barr penned an op-ed for the Washington Post on 10-31-2016, titled “James Comey did the right thing.” A sub-heading notes Barr was supporting Donald Trump for president. In commenting on the FBI director's notice to Congress that he was re-opening the investigation of Clinton e-mails, Barr refers to Democrats' concerns as “flatly wrong” and “absurd.” Always prone to self-righteousness to the point of delusion, Barr states that the need of the moment was for “honesty” and “truthfulness.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-did-the-right-thing/2016/10/31/7fcf0018-9f84-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html?utm_term=.de0b3a7ff8af

On February 1, 2017, Barr had another op-ed published in the Post, arguing that Trump was right to fire Sally Yates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/former-attorney-general-trump-was-right-to-fire-sally-yates/2017/02/01/5981d890-e809-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.4d463a43af7b

Michael Isikoff reported that in the late spring of 2017, Trump sought to hire Barr as his personal attorney, to represent him in the Mueller investigation. They met at the White House, but Barr did not accept the position at that time. Yet this did not stop communications between the White House and Barr.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-first-wanted-g-pick-bill-barr-another-job-defense-lawyer-231509009.html

Barr would tell the media that there was “nothing inherently wrong” with Trump's demand for a criminal investigation of his political opponents. This is, of course, a view shared by the alt-right, but unheard of in a democracy. Due to Barr's comments supporting Trump the Trump White House stayed in touch with Barr about joining Trump's personal defense team. They wanted him to join the personal defense team, but there was a change in plans when they hired Rudy Giuliani. (see Isikoff)

It was then that Barr submitted his “unsolicited” 20-page memo to Trump's defense team, attacking the Mueller investigation. More, he had discussions with Trump's personal legal team regarding his memo.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/14/politics/barr-mueller-letter/index.html

Now, let's do a quick mental exercise. Why might Trump have then nominated Barr to become Attorney General? And are there any possible conflicts of interest that might have called for Barr to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation? Is there any hint of a glaring conflict between first saying that James Comey did the right thing with the e-mail case, but then claiming Trump was correct in firing Comey for having done the right thing? For claiming there was a conflict of interest for some of the Mueller team, because they had donated to the Clinton campaign?

There's a lot to, um, grapple with there. That's probably why Barr was unable to answer Senator Harris's rather pointed question regarding if anyone in the White House – including but not limited to Trump – had advocated for investigations and prosecutions of other people. Had Barr gone in front of the House committee, he would have been asked specifically about discussions he has had with the White House about investigating and prosecuting individuals such as Hillary Clinton and James Comey. And he knew it.

The difference between a Chief Paul Waterman and an A.G. William Barr, as the old saying goes, is the difference between sugar and shit. And those are rather distinct choices in any food for thought.

[Timewas]

1. Good comparisons

As usual well said...........

[H2O Man]

2. Thank you!

[panader0]

3. I learned about the power of telling the truth half a life-time ago.

I'm 68. I have endeavored to be honest for most of my life. I must admit,
there have been times when it was difficult. But the real difficulty is
dealing with yourself if you have been dishonest. It is a pain that I cannot
bear. The worst truth is better than lying. So the result is that I do nothing
that I need to lie about. I understand that there are lies of commission and
lies of omission. Sometimes not saying what you know to be true can be
a bad as directly lying.
I have some friends that I don't always agree with. But they are honest
with me and that goes a long way. I place a great value on honesty.
Lying communicates no information.

[H2O Man]

6. Very good!

I find it interesting that Barr's supporters are attempting to say there is a big difference between misleading and lying. They seemed joined at the hip to me.

[kentuck]

4. Good stuff!

[H2O Man]

7. Thank you!

[spanone]

5. K&R...

[H2O Man]

8. Thanks!

[coeur_de_lion]

9. In your opinion

what are the consequences for Barr, for lying the the Senate and refusing to be questioned by the House? Never mind refusing to publish Bob Mueller's summaries as he meant for him to do?

I saw an article on CNN asking whether Mueller and Barr's relationship was "starting to fray" and I didn't even bother reading it. I figured it would just overstate the obvious. I think it hasn't started to fray, it has been ripped apart altogether starting back in March.

I also wonder - as a private citizen, will Mueller be more valuable to the Democrats trying to get the truth out about trump and Russia?

I understand he is wrapping up his role as Special Counsel in a few weeks.

[H2O Man]

11. Good questions.

Barr is doing his best to be a distraction, to take the focus off of Trump. Hence, we think of Malcolm X's instruction: "Don't aim at the puppet -- strike the puppeteer."

Should Barr be impeached? Yes, he really should. Yet, it helps republicans run the clock out on 2020.

Utterly humiliating Barr, and exposing him as a disgrace, is an option. Although Barr volunteered for it, the fact is that the number of legal experts saying he is a lying weasel has wounded his pride.

Although technically still under DOJ, Mr. Mueller's role will continue for months to come. Despite Barr's nonsense (or even moreso due to it), the intelligence community wants to inform Congress and the public about parts of the counter-intelligence invesigation. Trump's relationship with Russian "interests" is one of the threats to national security they have documented.

[coeur_de_lion]

12. EXCELLENT

If they start talking about the counter-intelligence investigation it will be curtains for trump.

Can't happen soon enough for me!

[H2O Man]

14. Right.

Mr. Mueller will do so in closed sessions this month. I expect he'll address the other aspects publiclly around two weeks from now, in televised House hearings.

There will be more leaks right along. And by the first week of June, things will be very bad for Barr, and twice as bad for Trump.

[coeur_de_lion]

15. From your mouth to God's ears

Is Mueller waiting to finish up the counter-intelligence section of his report before coming to talk to Congress?

[H2O Man]

16. I don't think

there is anything now keeping him from talking to the House (or Senate) in public or private at this time. It could happen at any time starting next week, although I hope they schedule it for my birthday.

I'm not sure if the third report is complete now. I'd think it must be, or will be in the next week.

[coeur_de_lion]

17. Very cool

I read that Nadler thinks he should testify at the house 5/15. Day before your birthday. Close enough?

[PA Democrat]

10. Trump got his Roy Cohn. But these Cohn-type

individuals so often will eventually be completely consumed by their own increasing sense of invincibility. With every successful foray into unethical, immoral and illegal behavior, they fly closer and closer to the sun. I think that Barr is taking huge risks that will eventually crash and burn his career.

Cohn was eventually disbarred and died almost penniless due to IRS actions taken against him for unpaid taxes. Barr would be well-advised to consider the amount of risk he is willing to take in the service of a morally bankrupt and totally incompetent president.

Great post H2O Man.

[H2O Man]

13. Thank you!

Back in the 1950s, Roy almost got into a fistfight with the father of one of my friends. He was a snake. And Barr has placed himself in the same place historically .....although I don't imagine he would challenge anyone to a fist-fight.

[MFGsunny]

18. Your "food for thought" feeds my knowledge base. Thank you!

And THAT adage about sugar/shit difference made me

[H2O Man]

21. Thanks!

This is information that Barr doesn't want to be questioned about. The Democrats on the House committee were aware of it, and had concluded that having a staff attorney question Barr -- for longer than the 5-minute bits -- would expose just how corrupt Barr's agenda has been. Keep it in mind as things go forward.

[Zo Zig]

19. Oh well...

I remember reading Firewall by Lawerance Walsh, and the feeling of what he must have experienced during that investigation. Owning nothing, for the ends justify the means for many.
Your posts are both a ray of hope, and a reality check.
How much will the book on this subject weigh?
Well wishes man of water.

[H2O Man]

22. Thank you!

You raise such an important point. It's essential to remember that the Iran-Contra involved an attempt by the administration to empower them to use the National Security Council to bypass the not only the law of the land, but to conduct foreign policy in a new, highly secret manner beyond review by Congress. Barr's role in covering it up -- not his only sin as AG then -- showed he believed in an imperial presidency. The current crisis combines aspects of both Watergate and Iran-Contra.

[Hekate]

20. KnR as always.

Will read more later.

[H2O Man]

23. Thank you!