Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBarr Has a History of Writing Summaries That Obscure The Truth
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/william-barr-mueller-report-summaryA 1989 memo Barr wrote summarizing the principal conclusions of a D.O.J. ruling apparently left out several of those principal conclusions.
Later this week, Attorney General William Barr is expected to release a redacted version of Robert Muellers report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. In his 4-page summary of the 400-odd-page report, Barr noted that the special counsel did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government, but did not come to a conclusion about whether the president had obstructed justice. That Barr took it upon himself to clear Donald Trump of obstruction, even though Mueller had not, raised a number of questions about how closely the A.G. had hewed to the spirit of the report, and whether hed put his own Trump-supporting spin on itquestions that increased after members of Muellers team reportedly expressed frustration that Barr had shortchanged their work. And according to new insight from law professor Ryan Goodman, it seems those questions are entirely reasonable!
Goodman quotes professor Jeanne Woods, who wrote in a 1996 Boston University law journal that Barrs congressional testimony attempted to gloss over the broad legal and policy changes that his written opinion advocated.
As Goodman told the Post on Monday, the 1989 situation breeds a lot of distrust of relying on Barrs assurances that hes handling this process in a way thats faithful to the principles that hes announced and will let the public know what the public should know. Asked if he believed Barr acted in good faith at the time, Goodman said, I think its difficult to imagine that Barr didnt know what he was doing in failing to inform the Congress that he had concluded that the president of the United States could violate the U.N. Charter. In fact, that proposition has proved to be highly controversial ever since the O.L.C. opinion was publicly released and significant executive branch practice turns on that proposition.
Later this week, Attorney General William Barr is expected to release a redacted version of Robert Muellers report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. In his 4-page summary of the 400-odd-page report, Barr noted that the special counsel did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government, but did not come to a conclusion about whether the president had obstructed justice. That Barr took it upon himself to clear Donald Trump of obstruction, even though Mueller had not, raised a number of questions about how closely the A.G. had hewed to the spirit of the report, and whether hed put his own Trump-supporting spin on itquestions that increased after members of Muellers team reportedly expressed frustration that Barr had shortchanged their work. And according to new insight from law professor Ryan Goodman, it seems those questions are entirely reasonable!
Goodman quotes professor Jeanne Woods, who wrote in a 1996 Boston University law journal that Barrs congressional testimony attempted to gloss over the broad legal and policy changes that his written opinion advocated.
As Goodman told the Post on Monday, the 1989 situation breeds a lot of distrust of relying on Barrs assurances that hes handling this process in a way thats faithful to the principles that hes announced and will let the public know what the public should know. Asked if he believed Barr acted in good faith at the time, Goodman said, I think its difficult to imagine that Barr didnt know what he was doing in failing to inform the Congress that he had concluded that the president of the United States could violate the U.N. Charter. In fact, that proposition has proved to be highly controversial ever since the O.L.C. opinion was publicly released and significant executive branch practice turns on that proposition.
Per the Washington Post: The 1989 precedent that raises questions about how Barr will redact the Mueller report
. . .
Particularly given Barrs track record, as New York University professor of law Ryan Goodman wrote on Monday at the site Just Security, where hes a co-editor-in-chief.
Goodman, who is a former Defense Department special counsel, details a remarkably similar fight from 1989 in which Barr, then head of the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel, was involved. The OLC had determined that the FBI was allowed to take people into custody in foreign countries without the consent of those countries' governments a ruling that seemed to pave the way, Goodman notes, for the eventual arrest of former Panamanian leader Manuel Antonio Noriega.
This was a contentious position to take, and Barr was asked to provide the memo offering the detailed legal rationale for allowing such detentions. He declined, instead offering a 13-page document that summarizes the principal conclusions. When Congress, and then The Washington Post, obtained the full opinion in 1991, it was quickly noted that several conclusions from the full document hadnt been included in Barrs summary. Foremost among them was that the opinion authorized the president of the United States to ignore the United Nations Charter.
Goodman quotes Boston University's Jeanne Woods, writing in 1996: Barrs congressional testimony attempted to gloss over the broad legal and policy changes that his written opinion advocated.
"What happened in 1989 is that Barr, in a sense, actually provided a redacted version of the underlying OLC opinion, he said. That's the problem, because the redactions of what he omitted are very significant for legal practice yet he told the Congress that he was including all of the, quote unquote, 'principal conclusions' that time around as well.
Particularly given Barrs track record, as New York University professor of law Ryan Goodman wrote on Monday at the site Just Security, where hes a co-editor-in-chief.
Goodman, who is a former Defense Department special counsel, details a remarkably similar fight from 1989 in which Barr, then head of the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel, was involved. The OLC had determined that the FBI was allowed to take people into custody in foreign countries without the consent of those countries' governments a ruling that seemed to pave the way, Goodman notes, for the eventual arrest of former Panamanian leader Manuel Antonio Noriega.
This was a contentious position to take, and Barr was asked to provide the memo offering the detailed legal rationale for allowing such detentions. He declined, instead offering a 13-page document that summarizes the principal conclusions. When Congress, and then The Washington Post, obtained the full opinion in 1991, it was quickly noted that several conclusions from the full document hadnt been included in Barrs summary. Foremost among them was that the opinion authorized the president of the United States to ignore the United Nations Charter.
Goodman quotes Boston University's Jeanne Woods, writing in 1996: Barrs congressional testimony attempted to gloss over the broad legal and policy changes that his written opinion advocated.
"What happened in 1989 is that Barr, in a sense, actually provided a redacted version of the underlying OLC opinion, he said. That's the problem, because the redactions of what he omitted are very significant for legal practice yet he told the Congress that he was including all of the, quote unquote, 'principal conclusions' that time around as well.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 613 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (16)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Barr Has a History of Writing Summaries That Obscure The Truth (Original Post)
CousinIT
Apr 2019
OP
malaise
(269,164 posts)1. Watch this
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)2. Barr is Mr. Coverup.
True Blue American
(17,988 posts)3. Now Barr
Is stopping immigrants from applying, keeping them in detention for months.
He really is an, uh, you know of the worst kind! Such a sleazy man proclaiming what a wonderful family he has. Then they go to work for Trump where the slime is now hi deep!