Quantcast
Connect with us

Bill Barr’s sketchy involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein case just proves that Trump should already have been impeached

Published

on

- Commentary

Attorney General Bill Barr has once again made a mess of his role at the top of the Justice Department, and it revealed once again why neither he nor President Donald Trump can faithfully fulfill their constitutional duties.

Questions about the integrity of the Justice Department arose immediately when Jeffrey Epstein, the registered sex offender and financier with ties to powerful people like Trump and President Bill Clinton, was arrested over the weekend on sex trafficking charges. Epstein had previously come under scrutiny by the feds for these same allegations, but for unknown reasons — perhaps his connections to powerful people — he got away without any federal charges and faced a relatively light penalty from a state prosecution in 2008.

ADVERTISEMENT

So it was natural to wonder, since Trump is now president, whether the new prosecution will face any undue influence. Some legal experts were worried that Barr might use his position at the top of the Justice Department to insert himself into the federal prosecutors’ decision-making if he thought it might help Trump, and I argued Monday that the mere appearance of this possibility was enough reason for him to recuse from the case.

Shortly thereafter on Monday, Barr announced that he would recuse, citing his work for a law firm that Epstein once employed.

But then on Tuesday, Barr abruptly reversed himself. He said while he would be recused from the review of Epstein’s previous plea deal, he would not be recused from the new case against the onetime Trumpa friend. Legal experts were baffled. Reports said that Barr had met with ethics officials prior to making this recusal decision, but notably, they did not say he followed their advice.

This observation on my part might seem like excessive hairsplitting, but the previous acting attorney general was advised by ethics officials to recuse from the Russia investigation, but he refused to do it. It’s not a wild leap to believe that might be happening again.

More disturbingly, though, is the possibility that Trump heard Barr say he was recused from the investigation and told him to unrecuse himself. Again, this might seem like absurd speculation, but we know already know Trump would do this because he did it to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump repeatedly demanded that Sessions withdraw his recusal from the Russia investigation and take control of the probe, hoping the attorney general would protect him. The Mueller report documented this, indicating it fit the elements of the crime of obstructing justice.

ADVERTISEMENT

Though there’s been much speculation, there’s no hard evidence that Trump has any links to Epstein’s crimes, though his public comments suggest he may have been aware of his conduct. So it’s far too big a leap to assume that Trump wants to gain control of the Epstein case to protect himself. But there’s another possibility suggested by public reporting that should be just as disturbing.

A Vanity Fair report by journalist Emily Jane Fox revealed Tuesday that Trump foresaw using Bill Clinton’s ties to Epstein against Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. It didn’t end up becoming a major issue in the campaign, but it’s possible he’s interested now in using the new charges against Epstein as a weapon against Clinton.

Once again, all this would be wild speculation — except for the fact that Trump has done it before. One of the largely overlooked revelations in the Mueller report was that Trump directed Sessions to unrecuse not only from the Russia investigation but from cases involving Hillary Clinton because he wanted to see her prosecuted.

ADVERTISEMENT

These facts emphasize one key point: We can’t trust Trump to fairly oversee the administration of justice.

But the larger problem is, of course, that we know that Trump has obstructed justice before — and yet he goes unpunished. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler hasn’t opened an impeachment inquiry. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has resisted calls for impeachment. The Senate has made clear it would refuse to convict Trump if he were impeached, and Republicans have convinced themselves and their voters that the president’s behavior had been legal and acceptable.

ADVERTISEMENT

That’s why impeachment in the face of clear violations is necessary. By refusing to impeach, lawmakers essentially condone criminality and abuses of power.

Trump has already gotten away with obstructing justice and trying to target his political enemies. Now that an old friend — or enemy, or whatever Epstein turns out to be — is in the Justice Department’s firing line, there’s no reason to think Trump wouldn’t do it again.

And there’s no reason to think Barr wouldn’t let him.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Commentary

Relax, Devin Nunes – theater is essential to politics

Published

on

A televised theatrical performance staged by the Democrats.” With these words, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes expressed his discontent with the beginning of presidential impeachment hearings. He indirectly invited listeners – both supporters and detractors – to consider the relationship between theater and politics.

As the hearings continue, it’s important to remember that theater is one of the most consequential elements in U.S. history, enabling the killing of a president, the election of at least two, and probably the impeachment of another.

Continue Reading

Alternet 2020

Don’t be too sure that impeachment won’t move public opinion

Published

on

Last week, I lamented about how the political press is incapable of conveying the gravity of a historic clash between two co-equal branches of government–one that has the potential to redefine a president’s powers and immunities going forward–in large part because most reporters are trained to cover political conflicts on the eve of an election first and foremost in the context of the horse race. So yesterday’s big impeachment news was that 70 percent of Americans believed Trump’s “actions tied to Ukraine were wrong” and a slim majority favored removing him from office, according to an ABC News/ Ipsos poll, and today we learn that “the first week of the House’s public impeachment hearings into President Donald Trump did not move public support for the inquiry in Democrats’ favor, according to a new Morning Consult/Politico poll.”

Continue Reading
 

Commentary

Here are 7 stunning moments from this morning’s impeachment testimony

Published

on

Two witnesses gave powerful and important testimony beginning Tuesday morning as the impeachment hearings into President Donald Trump continued.

Republicans finally got what they’ve been asking for in the form of two firsthand witnesses to President Donald Trump’s conduct — National Security Council staffer Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence — but they weren’t happy with what they heard. Both Williams and Vindman were stunned and disturbed by Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Here are seven remarkable moments from the hearing:

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image