I have to say that Barr's PR handlers must have gotten paid handsomely by providing cover for a Unitary Executive shill. Whoever started the "institutionalist" meme that caught on so well and gave Barr the cover he needed should be promoted. Oh, the GOPers in the Senate would have confirmed him anyway because Dems objected. And that's all the reasoning they needed. But it would have looked a lot messier if Barr's intent to protect Trumpy were discussed more vigorously.

Mitch is an "Institutionalist" too if you mean trying to cement in old white guy power.

That's like the descriptions of SCOTUS nominees as strict Constitutionalist when they support no civil rights outside of what existed for voting citizens at the time it was written. Again, old white guys.

I think they were hoping that his "institutionalist" background would prevail and that he wouldn't let ideology overcome his duty to uphold the law. I think many of us, myself included, were hoping for the same result, considering that Barr's resume was such an improvement over Matthew Whittaker's. Ultimately, though, the result was about the same as it probably would have been if the obvious stooge Whittaker had kept the job.

What I still don't understand, even given Barr's involvement in encouraging pardons for crimes related to it, is why he'd go to such lengths to protect a president who was clearly up to no good, and in an even worse way than Reagan was in Iran-Contra (which was bad enough, but at least it didn't involve the attempted takeover of an American election by a hostile foreign government with the approval of the beneficiary of the election). Barr is on record as favoring the theory of the so-called unitary executive and opposing the appointment of special counsels, but his direct involvement in Iran-Contra seems to have been mostly his advocating for the pardon of Weinberger. In his previous government positions he was clearly very conservative but not obviously on the lunatic fringe. And even after all the Iran-Contra stuff became public, there was never any suggestion that the pardons of Weinberger and others were improper, since it's accepted that the power to pardon is virtually absolute.

But Barr is taking a lot of well-deserved flak right now, which he never got before. Like just about everybody who works for the Trump administration, he will come away from that job covered in Trump's shit and with the indelible stank of Trump all over him. What I still don't get is why Barr would risk befouling his reputation by covering for Trump. Maybe that's why the pundits thought, or at least hoped, that he would do the right thing.

But you'd think a guy with that much legal experience might have read the Constitution at some point in his life.

Conservatism lends itself more readily to authoritarianism. Not saying that leftists ideologies can't get there, but conservatism necessarily believes that power must be in the hands of the most powerful because the most powerful are the best. I think that while there may be an obvious desire to "stick up for the constitution" by conservatives, it is really only lip service. Barr thinks that Republicans should be in power and would likely eschew the Constitution and the rule of law to see that happen.

As you say, doddering Reagan was out to lunch on IC, but former CIA director Bush was up to his ass in it.

He’s a fucking disgrace to the profession.