Here’s a question: If Dianne Feinstein didn’t recuse herself from the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, why should anyone ever be recused from anything?
Senator Feinstein is in the news, making the characteristically hyperpartisan and frivolous claim (on Twitter) that Attorney General Bill Barr should
recuse himself from matters related to Ukraine because of concerns about his role in President Trump’s efforts to damage a political opponent and undermine the Russia investigation.
Feinstein says she is speaking for Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, all of whom have signed a letter to the AG.
There is no basis for Barr to recuse himself.
First, before we ever get to the law, the Democrats’ claim is factually vacant. The AG has no role in President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. Barr did not ask the president to intercede with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky for the purpose of seeking assistance with the ongoing Durham probe of the Russia investigation. Despite the president’s reference to Barr in the July 25 Zelensky phone call, Barr did not communicate with Trump about Ukraine before the call. Barr did not follow up with the Ukrainians, nor did he discuss Ukraine with the president or the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
Being mentioned on a phone call is not a basis for recusal.
Second, it is commonplace for the Justice Department to seek assistance from foreign governments in gathering evidence or providing access to witnesses, in both the investigative and the trial phases of criminal cases. With respect to Ukraine specifically, the United States has had a treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters for nearly 20 years. President Clinton directed that the treaty be signed in 1998 and ratified it in early 2001 with Senate consent.
That is, if Attorney General Barr had explicitly asked President Trump to seek Ukraine’s assistance, that would have been completely appropriate and routine.
In point of fact, the AG made no such request. Had he done so, though, he would have been properly functioning as attorney general in a Justice Department investigation. There would not be a scintilla of basis for recusal even if Barr had had the “role” that Feinstein wrongly claims he had.
Third, we come to Feinstein’s claim about Barr’s role in the president’s purported effort to “undermine the Russia investigation.” This brings us back to what I warned about three weeks ago. The Democrats have been laying the groundwork for the argument that they pounded away at this weekend: The Barr/Durham investigation is not a legitimate Justice Department investigation; it is a political initiative of the Trump 2020 campaign. It’s not true, but that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
You have to admire the Democrats’ chutzpah. Consider: They know full well that the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to remove the president from power if the Democratic-controlled House impeaches him. And they are still so worried about being punished by voters for overplaying their hand that they won’t take an accountable vote to have the House as an institution — the institution constitutionally vested with impeachment power — conduct the “impeachment inquiry” that the Democrats are pursuing. Their impeachment gambit, with its secret hearings and strategic leaks, is blatantly political. Yet even as they engage in precisely the political abuse of impeachment power that the Framers feared, they loudly claim it is the Justice Department that is abusively politicizing its powers.
The best defense is a good offense, but they shouldn’t get away with it.
We do not know to what extent, if any, Ukraine factors into the Barr/Durham investigation. As I recount in Ball of Collusion, there is public reporting that the Obama administration used its considerable influence over Ukraine — which included financial aid that Kyiv desperately needed — to affect Ukraine’s law-enforcement investigations. This reportedly included pushing Ukrainian investigators and prosecutors to investigate Paul Manafort, who was affiliated with the Trump campaign for several months (four of them as its chairman). It is sheer speculation, however, that this alleged episode forms any part of the Justice Department’s look at the origins of the Russia investigation.
The walls are closing in https://dbdailyupdate.com/index.php/2019/10/23/italian-prime-minister-confirms-spygate…
Recusal is the weapon of choice to try and shut down inquiry. The got Sessions to recuse himself, but he thought he was just being accommodating and gracious and that Democrats would reciprocate by being fair. What a dope.
Democrats have proven there is no longer any valid reason for recusal. Mueller should have recused himself. Schitt should recuse himself. Lynch should have recused herself. Comey should have recused himself. Feinstein should have recused herself. There a numerous examples of very solid instances where Democrats should have recused themselves but, of course, didn’t because they NEEDED that insider advantage to get done what they wanted to get done. Though there is no reason for Barr to recuse himself, even if there were, he shouldn’t.
You can smell the fear.
From The Washington Examiner, October 28, 2019 – Barr ‘surprised and angry’ about Trump phone call with Ukraine
Barr denies personal involvement with the Ukraine proposition, but the White House telephone notes suggest otherwise. Donald Trump to President Volodymyr Zelensky:
Trump involved him. Barr’s objectivity was already in serious doubt.
@Greg:
A mind reader! FAKE NEWS
@kitt, #4:
The Washington Examiner isn’t exactly a left-leaning news outlet.
@Greg: So you are saying that they have a mind reader? You may be listening to too much late night radio. Was this source bigfoot?
There are obvious clues to fake news
reliable, un-named or familiar with sources.
@Greg: Trump said his name, so Barr must recuse? The Justice Department is conducting the investigations and Barr is Attorney General. It’s his JOB. You Democrats will try ANYTHING to prevent the truth from being exposed and, believe me, you all look truly pathetically desperate.
Enjoy the collapse of your coup and your party. Remember, you brought it on yourselves.
Trump said a bit more than Barr’s name.
@Greg: No reason for him to recuse himself. Democrats won’t be able to hide behind recusal this time.
October 28, 2019 – White House Ukraine expert to testify he reported concerns about Trump-Zelensky call
Lt. Col. Vindman’s opening statement has been publicly released ahead of his testimony tomorrow.
@Greg: More selective leaks prior to questioning how Schifty, no wonder Trump did not advise them of the raid in advance it would , most likely, have been breaking news on al jazeera.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/28/impeachment-inquiry-house-vote…
Not on impeachment formally just rules for the kangaroo court.
@Greg: More selective leaks prior to questioning how Schifty, no wonder Trump did not advise them of the raid in advance it would , most likely breaking on al jazeera.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/28/impeachment-inquiry-house-vote-formal-procedures
An advance release isn’t a leak. Everybody concerned now knows what Vindman’s testimony tomorrow will be about.
Pelosi didn’t let republicans push the House into a premature procedural vote. Thursday they’re going to get the vote they claimed they wanted. They’ll need to get a new talking point.
@Greg: Do you think he would leak it if it did not fit his kangaroo courts desired findings?
Finally the house will vote on rules for this circus, perhaps there will finally be a glimmer of constitutional rights for our President, if not the vote will go down in flames.
@kitt: Greg is amazing in that he continues to twist nearly everything anyone may have said or thought to meet his silly conclusions.
@Randy: Its always conclusions before facts and evidence.
@kitt:
We can then compare them to the HRs from that resolutions on the House rules to the ones from the Nixon and Clinton impeachment to see how well the Dems follow precedent. This should be interesting, don’t you think Kitt?
@retire05: It is already interesting, how they can with MSM assistance get away with this. Our populous is smug thinking the constitution is safe from these commies.
@Greg:
No, potential Democrat voters pushed them into a long-overdue procedural vote.
Plucked right from the biased headlines, verbatim.
Good job, Goebbels.
@Greg: Did you notice what was missing? Quid pro quo. This guy thinks it is an improper image to recommend an investigation that involves a Democrat candidate. Well, maybe it looks improper, but that is Biden’s fault for extorting Ukraine to shield his son in the first place, not Trump’s. Wouldn’t Democrats want one of their candidates cleared of an accusation of corruption? Don’t Democrats want to know all the facts about foreign interference in our elections?
Unless you think being a Presidential candidate shields one from investigation. Is that what you believe?
@kitt:
After being caught, trying to legitimize the kangaroo court they have been conducting. Pelosi is such a failure; now Republicans can call witnesses and the hearings will be open and this shatters their main weapons; the secrecy that allows Democrats to lie about what has been said and now the media will not be covering the proceedings because too much negative (to the coup) information will be presented.
@Randy:
It’s what Democrats do; without falsehood, they have nothing.
This entire “impeachment” game by Dems is predicated on the notion that President Trump felt sure Joe Biden would be his opponent in the election.
But Joe Biden had so much baggage, hair-sniffing, little-girl-touching, unwanted touching of women, improving imprisonment rates for black Americans, ObamaCare (the affordable care act), the Green New Deal, the cash for clunkers, the failure to get a nomination in many other attempts, his failure to catch fire in this primary including the debates, his forgetfulness, his lies about his past, his plagiarisms, and so much more even before we get to Hunter Biden.
For decades he has lied about the honorable man who stopped to aid his wife and children after she suicided herself by driving into oncoming traffic.
He was not drunk, he didn’t even drink!
All of this has, in the past, limited Joe Biden to between 1 and 4% of the primary voters’ support.
He has always dropped out in the past.
He looked like a placeholder this time around.
But he was even failing too fast for that role.
Donors are drying up, tired of watching him take private jets to lecture voters about global warming.
I doubt Donald Trump ever thought for a minute that Joe Biden would be his opponent.