FUBarr

May 31, 2019

FUBarr

william barr

Attorney General William Barr

FUBarr as a title? Facebook applies certain standards. The F-word? Bad. False representations of the U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives? Nothing to see here; move along.

Thank you, Attorney General William Barr and National Review Poo-Bah Rich Lowry for dragging me back into the fray. Y’all deserve no respect from me or anyone else, as you are mendacious, despicable creatures. But, you can “angry up the blood.”

Critiquing Special Counsel Robert Mueller

General Barr tells us Special Counsel Robert Mueller “could’ve reached a decision” on the alleged obstruction of justice issues. And Rich Lowry wrote:

Mr. Mueller ditched the presumption of innocence, a bedrock of the American legal system. In the normal course of things, all of us are considered innocent unless a jury finds us guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Mueller switched this around. Rather than finding conclusive evidence of Trump’s guilt, he had to find conclusive evidence of his innocence. Because he didn’t find this exculpatory evidence, he deemed Trump ‘not exonerated,’ a standard heretofore unknown to the American system.

General Barr and Mr. Lowry? Smart guys. Bent, totally, but smart. Mr.  Mueller, in his report and his May 29 comments, bent over backwards to be fair to our undeserving POTUS. He said, plain and simple:

  1. We cannot indict POTUS, per Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations;
  2. Our work involves, among other things, evaluating whether POTUS obstructed justice;
  3. If we believe POTUS did not obstruct justice, we should say so;
  4. If we think he may have obstructed justice, Congress is the only forum for evaluating and addressing those claims.

So, here we are. Let’s take up Mr. Lowry’s stupid claim first. Mr. Mueller did not turn innocent until proven guilty on its head. Instead, acknowledging that regulations did not allow his office to indict POTUS, he said he would clear POTUS if he could. Seems like an incredibly reasonably offer … albeit one the facts don’t support.

Then there’s the more odious General Barr. Seemingly, he suggests a scenario in which Mr. Mueller could have reached the conclusion that POTUS violated 18 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq., even though his office could not seek or obtain an indictment. Right. Sure. Coulda come down that way. And the howls? J’accuse, and Dear Leader never gets his day in court, to defend himself. You can hear them, bellowing from the hills!

General Barr knows better. Mr. Lowery does, too, but his job description involves polemics. Not so for the Attorney General.

Attorney General Barr’s Reputation

Apparently, though, General Barr cares not at all about his reputation. Here’s what he says on the subject:

I am at the end of my career. Everyone dies and I am not, you know, I don’t believe in the Homeric idea that you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know?

No worries, sir. There will be no odes! (And nothing said about your eloquence, either!)

The End

We will get through this, I imagine. Poorly, but lives will go on, and something that calls itself the United States of America will exist for decades to come. And, in the end, historians will have a grand time recounting how a buffoon, leading a bunch of con men and grifters, supported by a disenchanted minority, destroyed a nation. FUBarr. Or, simply, FUBAR.

One Response to FUBarr

  • I agree, Marc, but I think ordinary people (like me) are frustrated with the process. “If we had confidence the president did not commit crimes, we would have said so.” Huh? Is that it, Mr. Mueller? Trevor Noah had a great segment on this. Still, the most important actual findings were about Russian interference in the election. Any president but Donald Trump would take that finding seriously and direct our intelligence agencies to fight any future interference. Trump views it only through the prism of his own stature.

Leave a Reply