AG Bill Barr Speaks About The Damage to Our Nation From The “Resistance”…

A rather lengthy speech by U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr to the Federalist Society is getting some increased attention today for the specific focus on how the executive branch has been weakened over the past several decades.

More specifically, AG Barr discusses how, in the Trump-era, the resistance movement has abdicated their legislative power and responsibility in favor of a politically motivated intent to harm the constitutional executive power.  [Video and Transcript below]


[Transcript] – Good Evening. Thank you all for being here. And thank you to Gene [Meyer] for your kind introduction.

It is an honor to be here this evening delivering the 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. I had the privilege of knowing Barbara and had deep affection for her. I miss her brilliance and ebullient spirit. It is a privilege for me to participate in this series, which honors her.

The theme for this year’s Annual Convention is “Originalism,” which is a fitting choice — though, dare I say, a somewhat “unoriginal” one for the Federalist Society. I say that because the Federalist Society has played an historic role in taking originalism “mainstream.” While other organizations have contributed to the cause, the Federalist Society has been in the vanguard.

A watershed for the cause was the decision of the American people to send Ronald Reagan to the White House, accompanied by his close advisor Ed Meese and a cadre of others who were firmly committed to an originalist approach to the law. I was honored to work with Ed in the Reagan White House and be there several weeks ago when President Trump presented him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. As the President aptly noted, over the course of his career, Ed Meese has been among the Nation’s “most eloquent champions for following the Constitution as written.”

I am also proud to serve as the Attorney General under President Trump, who has taken up that torch in his judicial appointments. That is true of his two outstanding appointments to the Supreme Court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh; of the many superb court of appeals and district court judges he has appointed, many of whom are here this week; and of the many outstanding judicial nominees to come, many of whom are also here this week.


I wanted to choose a topic for this afternoon’s lecture that had an originalist angle. It will likely come as little surprise to this group that I have chosen to speak about the Constitution’s approach to executive power.

I deeply admire the American Presidency as a political and constitutional institution. I believe it is, one of the great, and remarkable innovations in our Constitution, and has been one of the most successful features of the Constitution in protecting the liberties of the American people. More than any other branch, it has fulfilled the expectations of the Framers.

Unfortunately, over the past several decades, we have seen steady encroachment on Presidential authority by the other branches of government. This process I think has substantially weakened the functioning of the Executive Branch, to the detriment of the Nation. This evening, I would like to expand a bit on these themes.

♦ First, let me say a little about what the Framers had in mind in establishing an independent Executive in Article II of the Constitution.

The grammar school civics class version of our Revolution is that it was a rebellion against monarchial tyranny, and that, in framing our Constitution, one of the main preoccupations of the Founders was to keep the Executive weak. This is misguided. By the time of the Glorious Revolution of 1689, monarchical power was effectively neutered and had begun its steady decline. Parliamentary power was well on its way to supremacy and was effectively in the driver’s seat. By the time of the American Revolution, the patriots well understood that their prime antagonist was an overweening Parliament. Indeed, British thinkers came to conceive of Parliament, rather than the people, as the seat of Sovereignty.

During the Revolutionary era, American thinkers who considered inaugurating a republican form of government tended to think of the Executive component as essentially an errand boy of a Supreme legislative branch. Often the Executive (sometimes constituted as a multi-member council) was conceived as a creature of the Legislature, dependent on and subservient to that body, whose sole function was carrying out the Legislative will. Under the Articles of Confederation, for example, there was no Executive separate from Congress.

Things changed by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. To my mind, the real “miracle” in Philadelphia that summer was the creation of a strong Executive, independent of, and coequal with, the other two branches of government.

The consensus for a strong, independent Executive arose from the Framers’ experience in the Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation. They had seen that the War had almost been lost and was a bumbling enterprise because of the lack of strong Executive leadership. Under the Articles of Confederation, they had been mortified at the inability of the United States to protect itself against foreign impositions or to be taken seriously on the international stage. They had also seen that, after the Revolution, too many States had adopted constitutions with weak Executives overly subordinate to the Legislatures. Where this had been the case, state governments had proven incompetent and indeed tyrannical.

From these practical experiences, the Framers had come to appreciate that, to be successful, Republican government required the capacity to act with energy, consistency and decisiveness. They had come to agree that those attributes could best be provided by making the Executive power independent of the divided counsels of the Legislative branch and vesting the Executive power in the hands of a solitary individual, regularly elected for a limited term by the Nation as a whole. As Jefferson put it, ‘[F]or the prompt, clear, and consistent action so necessary in an Executive, unity of person is necessary….”

While there may have been some differences among the Framers as to the precise scope of Executive power in particular areas, there was general agreement about its nature. Just as the great separation-of-powers theorists– Polybius, Montesquieu, Locke – had, the Framers thought of Executive power as a distinct specie of power. To be sure, Executive power includes the responsibility for carrying into effect the laws passed by the Legislature – that is, applying the general rules to a particular situation. But the Framers understood that Executive power meant more than this.

It also entailed the power to handle essential sovereign functions – such as the conduct of foreign relations and the prosecution of war – which by their very nature cannot be directed by a pre-existing legal regime but rather demand speed, secrecy, unity of purpose, and prudent judgment to meet contingent circumstances. They agreed that – due to the very nature of the activities involved, and the kind of decision-making they require – the Constitution generally vested authority over these spheres in the Executive. For example, Jefferson, our first Secretary of State, described the conduct of foreign relations as “Executive altogether,” subject only to the explicit exceptions defined in the Constitution, such as the Senate’s power to ratify Treaties.

A related, and third aspect of Executive power is the power to address exigent circumstances that demand quick action to protect the well-being of the Nation but on which the law is either silent or inadequate – such as dealing with a plague or natural disaster. This residual power to meet contingency is essentially the federative power discussed by Locke in his Second Treatise.

And, finally, there are the Executive’s powers of internal management. These are the powers necessary for the President to superintend and control the Executive function, including the powers necessary to protect the independence of the Executive branch and the confidentiality of its internal deliberations. Some of these powers are express in the Constitution, such as the Appointment power, and others are implicit, such as the Removal power.

One of the more amusing aspects of modern progressive polemic is their breathless attacks on the “unitary executive theory.” They portray this as some new-fangled “theory” to justify Executive power of sweeping scope. In reality, the idea of the unitary executive does not go so much to the breadth of Presidential power. Rather, the idea is that, whatever the Executive powers may be, they must be exercised under the President’s supervision. This is not “new,” and it is not a “theory.” It is a description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II of the Constitution.

After you decide to establish an Executive function independent of the Legislature, naturally the next question is, who will perform that function? The Framers had two potential models. They could insinuate “checks and balances” into the Executive branch itself by conferring Executive power on multiple individuals (a council) thus dividing the power. Alternatively, they could vest Executive power in a solitary individual. The Framers quite explicitly chose the latter model because they believed that vesting Executive authority in one person would imbue the Presidency with precisely the attributes necessary for energetic government.

Even Jefferson – usually seen as less of a hawk than Hamilton on Executive power – was insistent that Executive power be placed in “single hands,” and he cited the America’s unitary Executive as a signal feature that distinguished America’s success from France’s failed republican experiment.

The implications of the Framers’ decision are obvious. If Congress attempts to vest the power to execute the law in someone beyond the control of the President, it contravenes the Framers’ clear intent to vest that power in a single person, the President. So much for this supposedly nefarious theory of the unitary executive.

♦ We all understand that the Framers expected that the three branches would be jostling and jousting with each other, as each threatened to encroach on the prerogatives of the others. They thought this was not only natural, but salutary, and they provisioned each branch with the wherewithal to fight and to defend itself in these interbranch struggles for power.

So let me turn now to how the Executive is presently faring in these interbranch battles. I am concerned that the deck has become stacked against the Executive. Since the mid-60s, there has been a steady grinding down of the Executive branch’s authority, that accelerated after Watergate. More and more, the President’s ability to act in areas in which he has discretion has become smothered by the encroachments of the other branches.

When these disputes arise, I think there are two aspects of contemporary thought that tend to operate to the disadvantage of the Executive.

The first is the notion that politics in a free republic is all about the Legislative and Judicial branches protecting liberty by imposing restrictions on the Executive. The premise is that the greatest danger of government becoming oppressive arises from the prospect of Executive excess. So, there is a knee-jerk tendency to see the Legislative and Judicial branches as the good guys protecting society from a rapacious would-be autocrat.

This prejudice is wrong-headed and atavistic. It comes out of the early English Whig view of politics and English constitutional experience, where political evolution was precisely that. You started out with a King who holds all the cards; he holds all the power, including Legislative and Judicial. Political evolution involved a process by which the Legislative power gradually, over hundreds of years, reigned in the King, and extracted and established its own powers, as well as those of the Judiciary. A watershed in this evolution was, of course, the Glorious Revolution in 1689.

But by 1787, we had the exact opposite model in the United States. The Founders greatly admired how the British constitution had given rise to the principles of a balanced government. But they felt that the British constitution had achieved only an imperfect form of this model. They saw themselves as framing a more perfect version of separation of powers and a balanced constitution.

Part of their more perfect construction was a new kind of Executive. They created an office that was already the ideal Whig Executive. It already had built into it the limitations that Whig doctrine aspired to. It did not have the power to tax and spend; it was constrained by habeas corpus and by due process in enforcing the law against members of the body politic; it was elected for a limited term of office; and it was elected by the nation as whole. That is a remarkable democratic institution – the only figure elected by the Nation as a whole. With the creation of the American Presidency, the Whig’s obsessive focus on the dangers of monarchical rule lost relevance.

This fundamental shift in view was reflected in the Convention debates over the new frame of government. Their concerns were very different from those that weighed on 17th century English Whigs. It was not Executive power that was of so much concern to them; it was danger of the legislative branch, which they viewed as the most dangerous branch to liberty. As Madison warned, the “legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” And indeed, they viewed the Presidency as a check on the Legislative branch.

The second contemporary way of thinking that operates against the Executive is a notion that the Constitution does not sharply allocate powers among the three branches, but rather that the branches, especially the political branches, “share” powers. The idea at work here is that, because two branches both have a role to play in a particular area, we should see them as sharing power in that area and, it is not such a big deal if one branch expands its role within that sphere at the expense of the other.

This mushy thinking obscures what it means to say that powers are shared under the Constitution. Constitution generally assigns broad powers to each of the branches in defined areas. Thus, the Legislative power granted in the Constitution is granted to the Congress. At the same time, the Constitution gives the Executive a specific power in the Legislative realm – the veto power. Thus, the Executive “shares” Legislative power only to the extent of the specific grant of veto power. The Executive does not get to interfere with the broader Legislative power assigned to the Congress.

In recent years, both the Legislative and Judicial branches have been responsible for encroaching on the Presidency’s constitutional authority. Let me first say something about the Legislature.

• As I have said, the Framers fully expected intense pulling and hauling between the Congress and the President. Unfortunately, just in the past few years, we have seen these conflicts take on an entirely new character.

Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.

A prime example of this is the Senate’s unprecedented abuse of the advice-and-consent process. The Senate is free to exercise that power to reject unqualified nominees, but that power was never intended to allow the Senate to systematically oppose and draw out the approval process for every appointee so as to prevent the President from building a functional government.

Yet that is precisely what the Senate minority has done from his very first days in office. As of September of this year, the Senate had been forced to invoke cloture on 236 Trump nominees — each of those representing its own massive consumption of legislative time meant only to delay an inevitable confirmation. How many times was cloture invoked on nominees during President Obama’s first term? 17 times. The Second President Bush’s first term? Four times. It is reasonable to wonder whether a future President will actually be able to form a functioning administration if his or her party does not hold the Senate.

Congress has in recent years also largely abdicated its core function of legislating on the most pressing issues facing the national government. They either decline to legislate on major questions or, if they do, punt the most difficult and critical issues by making broad delegations to a modern administrative state that they increasingly seek to insulate from Presidential control. This phenomenon first arose in the wake of the Great Depression, as Congress created a number of so-called “independent agencies” and housed them, at least nominally, in the Executive Branch. More recently, the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Branch, a single-headed independent agency that functions like a junior varsity President for economic regulation, is just one of many examples.

Of course, Congress’s effective withdrawal from the business of legislating leaves it with a lot of time for other pursuits. And the pursuit of choice, particularly for the opposition party, has been to drown the Executive Branch with “oversight” demands for testimony and documents. I do not deny that Congress has some implied authority to conduct oversight as an incident to its Legislative Power. But the sheer volume of what we see today – the pursuit of scores of parallel “investigations” through an avalanche of subpoenas – is plainly designed to incapacitate the Executive Branch, and indeed is touted as such.

The costs of this constant harassment are real. For example, we all understand that confidential communications and a private, internal deliberative process are essential for all of our branches of government to properly function. Congress and the Judiciary know this well, as both have taken great pains to shield their own internal communications from public inspection. There is no FOIA for Congress or the Courts. Yet Congress has happily created a regime that allows the public to seek whatever documents it wants from the Executive Branch at the same time that individual congressional committees spend their days trying to publicize the Executive’s internal decisional process. That process cannot function properly if it is public, nor is it productive to have our government devoting enormous resources to squabbling about what becomes public and when, rather than doing the work of the people.

In recent years, we have seen substantial encroachment by Congress in the area of executive privilege. The Executive Branch and the Supreme Court have long recognized that the need for confidentiality in Executive Branch decision-making necessarily means that some communications must remain off limits to Congress and the public. There was a time when Congress respected this important principle as well. But today, Congress is increasingly quick to dismiss good-faith attempts to protect Executive Branch equities, labeling such efforts “obstruction of Congress” and holding Cabinet Secretaries in contempt.

One of the ironies of today is that those who oppose this President constantly accuse this Administration of “shredding” constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law. When I ask my friends on the other side, what exactly are you referring to? I get vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the Travel Ban or some such thing. While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him. What I am talking about today are fundamental constitutional precepts. The fact is that this Administration’s policy initiatives and proposed rules, including the Travel Ban, have transgressed neither constitutional, nor traditional, norms, and have been amply supported by the law and patiently litigated through the Court system to vindication.

Indeed, measures undertaken by this Administration seem a bit tame when compared to some of the unprecedented steps taken by the Obama Administration’s aggressive exercises of Executive power – such as, under its DACA program, refusing to enforce broad swathes of immigration law.

The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.

In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.

Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing. This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a “rule of law” standard. The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized – that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?

For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy far, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media.

• Let me turn now to what I believe has been the prime source of the erosion of separation-of-power principles generally, and Executive Branch authority specifically. I am speaking of the Judicial Branch.

In recent years the Judiciary has been steadily encroaching on Executive responsibilities in a way that has substantially undercut the functioning of the Presidency. The Courts have done this in essentially two ways: First, the Judiciary has appointed itself the ultimate arbiter of separation of powers disputes between Congress and Executive, thus preempting the political process, which the Framers conceived as the primary check on interbranch rivalry. Second, the Judiciary has usurped Presidential authority for itself, either (a) by, under the rubric of “review,” substituting its judgment for the Executive’s in areas committed to the President’s discretion, or (b) by assuming direct control over realms of decision-making that heretofore have been considered at the core of Presidential power.

The Framers did not envision that the Courts would play the role of arbiter of turf disputes between the political branches. As Madison explained in Federalist 51, “the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” By giving each the Congress and the Presidency the tools to fend off the encroachments of the others, the Framers believed this would force compromise and political accommodation.

The “constitutional means” to “resist encroachment” that Madison described take various forms. As Justice Scalia observed, the Constitution gives Congress and the President many “clubs with which to beat” each other. Conspicuously absent from the list is running to the courts to resolve their disputes.

That omission makes sense. When the Judiciary purports to pronounce a conclusive resolution to constitutional disputes between the other two branches, it does not act as a co-equal. And, if the political branches believe the courts will resolve their constitutional disputes, they have no incentive to debate their differences through the democratic process — with input from and accountability to the people. And they will not even try to make the hard choices needed to forge compromise. The long experience of our country is that the political branches can work out their constitutional differences without resort to the courts.

In any event, the prospect that courts can meaningfully resolve interbranch disputes about the meaning of the Constitution is mostly a false promise. How is a court supposed to decide, for example, whether Congress’s power to collect information in pursuit of its legislative function overrides the President’s power to receive confidential advice in pursuit of his executive function? Nothing in the Constitution provides a manageable standard for resolving such a question. It is thus no surprise that the courts have produced amorphous, unpredictable balancing tests like the Court’s holding in Morrison v. Olson that Congress did not “disrupt the proper balance between the coordinate branches by preventing the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.”

Apart from their overzealous role in interbranch disputes, the courts have increasingly engaged directly in usurping Presidential decision-making authority for themselves. One way courts have effectively done this is by expanding both the scope and the intensity of judicial review.

In recent years, we have lost sight of the fact that many critical decisions in life are not amenable to the model of judicial decision-making. They cannot be reduced to tidy evidentiary standards and specific quantums of proof in an adversarial process. They require what we used to call prudential judgment. They are decisions that frequently have to be made promptly, on incomplete and uncertain information and necessarily involve weighing a wide range of competing risks and making predictions about the future. Such decisions frequently call into play the “precautionary principle.” This is the principle that when a decision maker is accountable for discharging a certain obligation – such as protecting the public’s safety – it is better, when assessing imperfect information, to be wrong and safe, than wrong and sorry.

It was once well recognized that such matters were largely unreviewable and that the courts should not be substituting their judgments for the prudential judgments reached by the accountable Executive officials. This outlook now seems to have gone by the boards. Courts are now willing, under the banner of judicial review, to substitute their judgment for the President’s on matters that only a few decades ago would have been unimaginable – such as matters involving national security or foreign affairs.

The Travel Ban case is a good example. There the President made a decision under an explicit legislative grant of authority, as well has his Constitutional national security role, to temporarily suspend entry to aliens coming from a half dozen countries pending adoption of more effective vetting processes. The common denominator of the initial countries selected was that they were unquestionable hubs of terrorism activity, which lacked functional central government’s and responsible law enforcement and intelligence services that could assist us in identifying security risks among their nationals seeking entry.

Despite the fact there were clearly justifiable security grounds for the measure, the district court in Hawaii and the Ninth Circuit blocked this public-safety measure for a year and half on the theory that the President’s motive for the order was religious bias against Muslims. This was just the first of many immigration measures based on good and sufficient security grounds that the courts have second guessed since the beginning of the Trump Administration.

The Travel Ban case highlights an especially troubling aspect of the recent tendency to expand judicial review. The Supreme Court has traditionally refused, across a wide variety of contexts, to inquire into the subjective motivation behind governmental action. To take the classic example, if a police officer has probable cause to initiate a traffic stop, his subjective motivations are irrelevant. And just last term, the Supreme Court appropriately shut the door to claims that otherwise-lawful redistricting can violate the Constitution if the legislators who drew the lines were actually motivated by political partisanship.

What is true of police officers and gerrymanderers is equally true of the President and senior Executive officials. With very few exceptions, neither the Constitution, nor the Administrative Procedure Act or any other relevant statute, calls for judicial review of executive motive. They apply only to executive action. Attempts by courts to act like amateur psychiatrists attempting to discern an Executive official’s “real motive” — often after ordering invasive discovery into the Executive Branch’s privileged decision-making process — have no more foundation in the law than a subpoena to a court to try to determine a judge’s real motive for issuing its decision. And courts’ indulgence of such claims, even if they are ultimately rejected, represents a serious intrusion on the President’s constitutional prerogatives.

The impact of these judicial intrusions on Executive responsibility have been hugely magnified by another judicial innovation – the nationwide injunction. First used in 1963, and sparely since then until recently, these court orders enjoin enforcement of a policy not just against the parties to a case, but against everyone. Since President Trump took office, district courts have issued over 40 nationwide injunctions against the government. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued a total of two nationwide injunctions against the government. Both were vacated by the Ninth Circuit.

It is no exaggeration to say that virtually every major policy of the Trump Administration has been subjected to immediate freezing by the lower courts. No other President has been subjected to such sustained efforts to debilitate his policy agenda.

The legal flaws underlying nationwide injunctions are myriad. Just to summarize briefly, nationwide injunctions have no foundation in courts’ Article III jurisdiction or traditional equitable powers; they radically inflate the role of district judges, allowing any one of more than 600 individuals to singlehandedly freeze a policy nationwide, a power that no single appellate judge or Justice can accomplish; they foreclose percolation and reasoned debate among lower courts, often requiring the Supreme Court to decide complex legal issues in an emergency posture with limited briefing; they enable transparent forum shopping, which saps public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary; and they displace the settled mechanisms for aggregate litigation of genuinely nationwide claims, such as Rule 23 class actions.

Of particular relevance to my topic tonight, nationwide injunctions also disrupt the political process. There is no better example than the courts’ handling of the rescission of DACA. As you recall, DACA was a discretionary policy of enforcement forbearance adopted by President Obama’s administration. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the closely related DAPA policy (along with an expansion of DACA) was unlawful, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision by an equally divided vote. Given that DACA was discretionary — and that four Justices apparently thought a legally indistinguishable policy was unlawful —President Trump’s administration understandably decided to rescind DACA.

Importantly, however, the President coupled that rescission with negotiations over legislation that would create a lawful and better alternative as part of a broader immigration compromise. In the middle of those negotiations — indeed, on the same day the President invited cameras into the Cabinet Room to broadcast his negotiations with bipartisan leaders from both Houses of Congress — a district judge in the Northern District of California enjoined the rescission of DACA nationwide.

Unsurprisingly, the negotiations over immigration legislation collapsed after one side achieved its preferred outcome through judicial means. A humanitarian crisis at the southern border ensued. And just this week, the Supreme Court finally heard argument on the legality of the DACA rescission.

The Court will not likely decide the case until next summer, meaning that President Trump will have spent almost his entire first term enforcing President Obama’s signature immigration policy, even though that policy is discretionary and half the Supreme Court concluded that a legally indistinguishable policy was unlawful. That is not how our democratic system is supposed to work.

To my mind, the most blatant and consequential usurpation of Executive power in our history was played out during the Administration of President George W. Bush, when the Supreme Court, in a series of cases, set itself up as the ultimate arbiter and superintendent of military decisions inherent in prosecuting a military conflict – decisions that lie at the very core of the President’s discretion as Commander in Chief.

This usurpation climaxed with the Court’s 2008 decision in Boumediene. There, the Supreme Court overturned hundreds of years of American, and earlier British, law and practice, which had always considered decisions as to whether to detain foreign combatants to be purely military judgments which civilian judges had no power to review. For the first time, the Court ruled that foreign persons who had no connection with the United States other than being confronted by our military on the battlefield had “due process” rights and thus have the right to habeas corpus to obtain judicial review of whether the military has a sufficient evidentiary basis to hold them.

In essence, the Court has taken the rules that govern our domestic criminal justice process and carried them over and superimposed them on the Nation’s activities when it is engaged in armed conflict with foreign enemies. This rides roughshod over a fundamental distinction that is integral to the Constitution and integral to the role played by the President in our system.

As the Preamble suggests, governments are established for two different security reasons – to secure domestic tranquility and to provide for defense against external dangers. These are two very different realms of government action.

In a nutshell, under the Constitution, when the government is using its law enforcement powers domestically to discipline an errant member of the community for a violation of law, then protecting the liberty of the American people requires that we sharply curtail the government’s power so it does not itself threaten the liberties of the people. Thus, the Constitution in this arena deliberately sacrifices efficiency; invests the accused with rights that that essentially create a level playing field between the collective interests of community and those of the individual; and dilutes the government’s power by dividing it and turning it on itself as a check, at each stage the Judiciary is expressly empowered to serve as a check and neutral arbiter.

None of these considerations are applicable when the government is defending the country against armed attacks from foreign enemies. In this realm, the Constitution is concerned with one thing – preserving the freedom of our political community by destroying the external threat. Here, the Constitution is not concerned with handicapping the government to preserve other values. The Constitution does not confer “rights” on foreign enemies. Rather the Constitution is designed to maximize the government’s efficiency to achieve victory – even at the cost of “collateral damage” that would be unacceptable in the domestic realm. The idea that the judiciary acts as a neutral check on the political branches to protect foreign enemies from our government is insane.

The impact of Boumediene has been extremely consequential. For the first time in American history our armed forces is incapable of taking prisoners. We are now in a crazy position that, if we identify a terrorist enemy on the battlefield, such as ISIS, we can kill them with drone or any other weapon. But if we capture them and want to hold them at Guantanamo or in the United States, the military is tied down in developing evidence for an adversarial process and must spend resources in interminable litigation.

The fact that our courts are now willing to invade and muck about in these core areas of Presidential responsibility illustrates how far the doctrine of Separation of Powers has been eroded.

♦ In this partisan age, we should take special care not to allow the passions of the moment to cause us to permanently disfigure the genius of our Constitutional structure. As we look back over the sweep of American history, it has been the American Presidency that has best fulfilled the vision of the Founders. It has brought to our Republic a dynamism and effectiveness that other democracies have lacked.

At every critical juncture where the country has faced a great challenge –

– whether it be in our earliest years as the weak, nascent country combating regional rebellions, and maneuvering for survival in a world of far stronger nations;

– whether it be during our period of continental expansion, with the Louisiana Purchase, and the acquisition of Mexican territory;

– whether it be the Civil War, the epic test of the Nation;

– World War II and the struggle against Fascism;

– the Cold War and the challenge of Communism;

– the struggle against racial discrimination;

– and most recently, the fight against Islamist Fascism and international terrorism.

One would have to say that it has been the Presidency that has stepped to the fore and provided the leadership, consistency, energy and perseverance that allowed us to surmount the challenge and brought us success.

In so many areas, it is critical to our Nation’s future that we restore and preserve in their full vigor our Founding principles. Not the least of these is the Framers’ vision of a strong, independent Executive, chosen by the country as a whole.


This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Deep State, Legislation, media bias, Occupy Type Moonbats, President Trump, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

684 Responses to AG Bill Barr Speaks About The Damage to Our Nation From The “Resistance”…

  1. tigsmom says:

    AG Barr gives an awesome speech, but the “rules of Pigs’ have not served us well:
    Never wrestle a pig. They will get you dirty, and they like it.
    Do not attempt to teach a pig to sing. It will aggravates the pig, and will be a waste of your time.
    Putting lipstick on a pig, its still a pig.
    Its time for the inverse of the Rule #1.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. citizen817 says:

    Nice well regarded speech. So what.
    The fact that the Barr DOJ has declined prosecutions on many of the coup cabal is at least to me, a sure tell that nothing much will be done. All the traitors that were the subject in the first Horowitz report (Clinton investigation), were declined prosecutions. The results from that was “bias training”. The corrupt ‘rank and file’ are very clearly still present.
    Now we await this FISA report… Will this too,
    result in more non-prosecutions. Seems likely, as McCabe won’t be… at this point.
    Barr talks the talk, but not willing to walk the walk. Just another sheep in wolf’s clothing.

    Liked by 4 people

    • nimrodman says:

      From the speech it sounds like he’s got the plot
      Now it’s time for him to step up and be the leading man

      Liked by 18 people

    • vincent cuomo says:

      All talk and no action; Hillary, Podesta, Comey, Brennan, Mc Cabe and all the others are still free; who is the FBI going after now, RUDY and I wonder what about all those so called Criminal referrals in all these reports; Wray should be fired and Rudy should be running the FBI, and the FBI and all other Government agencies should be cleansed of all these degenerate Obama and Clinton appointees who think they run the government.

      Liked by 5 people

      • FrankieZee says:

        Meanwhile Roger Stone just got convicted on 6 counts. There is no justice for conservatives anymore.


      • Jederman says:

        I agree. A great speech. He’s talking the talk but all we see is former PT associates being indicted and convicted in NY, VA and DC. Those you mention above skate.

        He has called out obama (without mentioning names) and the DS. The question is what will he do about it.

        obama = the DS, whether in fact or perception. There is no point in recounting the smallness and hypocrisy of obama. His unwillingness to afford PT the same courtesy others afforded him while in office merely validates what a waste he is. Morally useless to the country.

        I’m guessing Barr can live with all this mess. It’s too big to fail. It’s easier to front load increased control of the citizenry to keep a lid on our unrest then it is to address the cause of all this.


    • Harry King says:

      There are many, who are guilty of several crimes against the President, and the Nation. AG Barr does not want to charge these individuals with small crimes, thus giving them light punishment. He is compiling all evidence to charge them with MAJOR crimes, and therefore MAXIMUM punishment. Treason is punishable by death, and AG Barr reinstated the Federal Death Penalty July, 2019, in anticipation of these guilty verdicts. I would prefer to see many of these individuals involved with this attempted coup, put to death, than have them spend a few years in a ” country club ” prison, then released to try again.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Jenevive says:

    Wasn’t it Barr/DOJ who stopped Manafort from being transferred
    to Rikers? As far as Roger Stone goes, since he seems to be facing
    ONLY Federal charges after his sentencing POTUS can pardon him,
    so they have to wait that out.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Linda K. says:
      We don’t know much about the Stone trial, except the judge was an Obama appointee.The “star witness” speaks out.


      • Tl Howard says:

        Typical of Stone to go overboard on everything he said. Perhaps the jury HAD to convict. What were they to conclude: that he was just a jokester?

        I got sick of seeing STone on tv saying this and that, trying to figure out what and who the hell he was and was not.

        I’m not saying he should have been convicted because I don’t know what the hell the jury was presented with but by damn, I do know Roger STone brought a lot of shyt down on himself.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Ma McGriz says:

          I have to agree. He got pretty out there in some ways.

          But that being said, and not to compare the cases or men involved, but I’m thinking of General Flynn’s case and what is ultimately being revealed about it now. The implications and potential impacts are huge, the outcome is unclear, he’s not in custody, and seems farther than ever from sentencing.

          I suspect the Stone case is a long way from being over.

          It remains to be seen whether winding its way through appeal will produce anything as useful, illuminating or potentially far-reaching as we’ve seen so far in the Flynn case.

          I think ultimately he’s probably a candidate for a Presidential pardon.


  4. John says:

    This wil be nothing to compare to the damage done to our nation if AG Barr does not indict and send the traitors to prison.He has,for not prosecuting,already done some damage.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Every day it is not stopped is a new wound in America’s side, or back, or throat. Every speech Barr makes is just a reminder that he is not doing his job(!) — and this speech, with its obvious theoretical merit, particularly so.


    • Kent Berry says:

      I like Barr, I do, so far.
      I love the WORDS of this speech, very cogent, pertinent and enlightening, but just words. Like POTUS says “They Talk, never do anything, just Talk”
      And I’m willing to give a little more patience to my already exceeding patience, but it better be for a very good, Very BIG, reason. Big Fish I mean.
      But if we don’t have some indictments soon, I’ll consider this speech to be more taunting by the opposition. From the deep state to US, the people. kb

      Liked by 1 person

      • luke says:

        Lol keep the Faith Kent. I’m with you; here’s to hoping. I’ve assumed for a long time that the main conspirators would never get their just deserts. I would have been content with that outcome. But after all that has been done to our movement by these leftists slobs with their mockery of our Republic I don’t see how we move forward without taking some scalps of our own.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. El torito says:

    And choose to not do…


  6. TigerBear says:

    Mr. Barr you obviously have an extremely clear picture of what is happening and how it’s being done. My question to you is, What are you doing to fix/remedy the issues/usurpation?

    You’re 9 months into your service and all AMERICA sees is many Trump supporters/advisers are now in prison or facing trumped up charges that’s bankrupting them even before they see a trial and hand picked obama/clinton judges are condemning them to truly harsh and inhumane treatment along with ridiculous sentences that even murderers don’t receive.

    Now…we have the house running a Soviet style inquisition under the false pretense of an impeachment inquiry, along with the state of New York continually harassing the President with their AG, legal system and courts.

    I confess that many of us are counting on you and those working with/for you to finally stop this madness and start going after those who are the problem.

    We have less than a year before the next election and we want charges, arrests and prosecutions of those committing Seditious Treasonous acts!!!

    An American Patriot 🇺🇸

    Liked by 23 people

    • Ausonius says:

      Amen to you and the others above with similar sentiments!

      I have often said for over 50 years: The Conservatives get the best rhetoric…and not much else!

      Ronald Reagan was an exception, and Donald Trump has done his best to evoke change for the better, and yet we see what he has earned for his efforts!

      Liked by 2 people

      • TigerBear says:

        “I have often said for over 50 years: The Conservatives get the best rhetoric…and not much else!”

        We tend to be more rational civilized and respectful. We’re just now realizing we can’t try rationalizing with insane people, they aren’t civilized, as they want to beat you down and force you to do, say, believe as they do. Truth and facts do not matter.

        Time for us to take off the gloves and put on brass knuckles, as Our President is literally under attack and from multiple places!

        Really liked Reagan, but I absolutely adore President Trump. 👍🏽👍🏽😁

        Liked by 19 people

        • Cam Heck says:

          Never having lived In the US, I had always held the view that the US was the beacon, the shining and foremost example in the world of what democracy, founded on the principles of wise and visionary founders and upheld by its people in perpetuity, is supposed to be. I am exceedingly sad to say I no longer hold that view and it leaves me exceeding sad and fearing for our world.

          As I have watched, I have learned that in fact there are no rules or principles that cannot be bent or broken to subvert the will of the American people, and that even in face of overt crime and corruption, there is no will on the part of the people themselves to defend your country and your constitution. You continue to hope that one man surrounded by the people that have repeatedly failed you and have brought you where you are today, will restore justice, all the while lamenting the fact that he faces increasingly insurmountable odds-including the complacency of those that elected him.

          What saddens me most is knowing who in the end, if all is lost, will be to blame. And it won’t be Donald Trump.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Seneca the Elder says:

      Tiger-EXCELLENT. Well stated.

      Liked by 4 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      If Barr has been on the job 9 months, the baby should be due at any moment…

      Liked by 13 people

    • chipin8511 says:

      Hearing this wont come out for many months ..Timing is everything

      Liked by 3 people

    • Julian says:

      Well, I can tell you something Barr’s DOJ did.

      Barr’s DOJ took Jeff Epstein into custody and managed to get him killed with the cameras turned off and no one the wiser!!

      Go Barr!!

      I believe that’s called “Draining the Swamp”.


      • JL says:

        Barr is fighting a war in the DOJ. It’s not his DOJ. It’s the Swamp’s DOJ. He’s got some great opportunities to remedy that. One of those opportunities involves what’s happening with the Epstein death investigation. So far, it looks promising.


  7. Boots says:

    Chaff. Smoke. Mirrors. BS. From the guy who:

    1) Prevented state of Idaho from trying murderer Lon Horiuchi, FBI sniper and West Point graduate, who shot Vicky Weaver through the head from only 200 yards away as she stood holding her still in diapers baby in her arms.

    2) Was consigliere to Ollie North’s illegal gun mfg/trafficking to Contras, and cocaine import operation, all in Mena, AK.

    3) Recently authored a pre-crime strategy to be used against all Americans, and further directed the FBI and all USA LE groups to adopt said strategy.



    Liked by 2 people

    • william Elbel says:

      Sad to say, I think you are entirely correct


    • G. Alistar says:

      I don’t think your comments will age well…Barr is the real deal even IF he does not fit into the draconian expectations of some here on the treehouse blog. We have all seen the outrageous “hang the basturds, firing squad,” etc. comments). Let’s give Him a few weeks and see what comes out of the Horowitz and Durham investigations.

      Liked by 6 people

      • willthesuevi says:

        G. Alistar, Now that is just too damn rational. As much as “burning it all down and start over” sounds appealing, people don’t realize the other side has a say as well.

        What the “hang the bastards” crowd envision’s our country to be after the revolution is a fairy tale. Not much Liberty and Freedom comes out of a military junta. And that is all we will be left with.

        Much better to repair the broken parts of our Republic with the tools given us by the founders, than to live like every other 3rd world sh!thole after a revolution.

        Our original Revolution set the standard, but was also an outlier. The great majority of revolutions end in misery because they trade one despot for another.

        My opinion. YMMV

        Liked by 5 people

      • JL says:

        Don’t forget Treason and Gitmo firing squads.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. John-Y128 says:

    Too bad there’s nothing illegal to the ‘resistance’, less there be ‘indictments’, right William?
    But maybe we could address it with a good old fashion revolution [AmRev2].

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Mike Ryan says:

    enough bloviating. Start incarcerating

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Mark L. says:

    I listened to this live. He gives me the impression that this is his predicate for a legal and constitutional response. Fingers crossed.

    Liked by 21 people

    • Sugarhillhardrock says:

      My read as well, Mark.

      If wrong, there are other, more direct, ways of dealing with AntiConstitutionalists.

      It’s up to you, AG Barr, your call.

      Liked by 11 people

    • Will Hunt says:

      This is my hope as well – that this speech was an intro/explanation for the coming actions against those who have abused their positions for political purposes.

      Liked by 5 people

    • I believe what AG Barr is setting up with this speech is the fact that UNDER PDJT and AG that the Separation of Powers between the BRANCHES is going to become clear.

      Don’t forget, OUR system of government has been under attack since 1913 and what Barr is espousing is the idea that OUR GOVERNMENT returns TO ITS ROOTS…
      Having a Federal District Judge have National Scope on a proceeding is ludicrous…

      Both parties have ALLOWED the government to get intertwined and also abdicated their responsibilities is due to HIDING THE MALFEASANCE THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A VERY LONG TIME…Getting RID of the Senior Executive Service will go a long way in getting OUR GOVERNMENT BACK FOR US AND NOT BY BUREAUCRATS!!!

      NOTE: Lil’ miss Yavonvitch is a case in point!!!!

      PDJT ALWAYS PREPS THE BATTLEFIELD!!! A.G. Barr is doing what PDJT commands!!!!!!!

      Liked by 9 people

      • GB Bari says:

        I don’t believe Barr is doing what PDJT commands.
        I believe Barr is simply following his own instincts about constitutional separation of powers along with his belief in a “muscular Executive”.

        How the AG is fixing to resolve the current imbalance (weakened Executive along with excess/abusive power in both Legislative and Judiciary) is anyone’s guess, but the speech leaves very little to the imagination about his desire to do something besides talk about it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • The ONLY way to resolve the “imbalance” and to return the government back to the people is to uncover the malfeasance in ALL OF ITS FORMS!!! Congress has ABDICATED MOST OF ITS RESPONSIBILITIES and congress must take back those responsibilities. The NEED to shrink government is ever more so now because so many leeches are sucking the host and NOTHING is getting done….Hence, PDJT is letting Barr do his “thing” but PDJT pulls the trigger!!!!


          • GB Bari says:

            The part about the congress abdicating responsibilities by creating agencies (expanding the unelected Administrative State) then passing off major areas of responsibility to those agencies is quite astute and profound.

            Liked by 2 people

    • RobInPA says:

      Did he open and/or close his speech by playing his bagpipes?


    • dwpender says:

      At this point, Durham is more important than Barr. If Durham says, I’m going to seek GJ indictments of (pick your list) for conspiring with corrupt and wrongful intent to misuse our intelligence and investigative tools to defeat a Presidential candidate, and later to derail (or even unseat) a President-elect and then a President, Barr will NOT overrule him. Barr won’t say — add D,E & F, or subtract X,Y &Z.

      If Durham says ZERO real indictments (maybe a few lying or leaking ones only), Barr won’t overrule him and say, go get A,B & C for REAL crimes.

      The only exception here (and Durham fully understands it) is that if Durham comes in and says indict Obama or Clinton (perhaps any SSCI members as well), or at least name them as unindicted co-conspirators, Barr WILL have to decide on those (and would likely overrule Durham IMHO).

      Everything is now riding on Durham (including timing).


      • jebg46 says:

        No, Barr said let the chips fall where they lay. That means everybody, demosocialist and Republicans. It’s despicable that these coupists are still at it and the resistance is alive and well, 3 yrs into this administration.


  11. 100% YOOPER says:

    He forgot one major point, IMO, how easy it is to blackmail to create this corruption filled system; hence the massive attempt to take down President Trump.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Genie says:

    AG Barr: The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.


    Lawfare Wittes: The goal…will be to offer a systematic defense of the values the Coalition of All Democratic Forces holds in common and to have the ability to respond rapidly to actions that threaten those values: to forestall such actions in court as long as possible, to whittle them down, and to block those that can be blocked. The goal is to use the courts to render Trump’s antidemocratic instincts as ineffectual as possible.

    Liked by 3 people

    • TigerBear says:

      Thank you for sharing the lawfare as I was not aware of this mission statement. 🙂

      Reading this Lawfare Wittes made me quite irked. But sadly, it does not surprise me.
      The goal is marxism to communism. Everyone should be equally miserable except them and theirs! Grrrrrr…..😡

      Liked by 3 people

  13. Les Standard says:

    Barr is every bit as useless as Sessions

    Liked by 1 person

  14. mdaush says:

    Too bad he didn’t mention 9/11. Where Barbara Olsen talked on a phone that the technology did not allow for at the time. Kind of makes the topic of his speech somewhat irrelevant.


  15. Boots says:

    He gives me the impression that this is his predicate for a legal and constitutional response. (Mark L)
    What impression do you get from his lack of action in ensuring justice and the Constitution are preserved?

    Liked by 1 person

    • doofusdawg says:

      After rewatching Barr’s manifesto I think what was not said is just as important as what was said. Barr lays out brilliantly the resistance and the damage done to our institutions. What he does not discuss is the role the federal law enforcement agencies including the FBI and CIA had in planning and carrying out this resistance. As Mueller would say… this is Barr’s purview.


      • willthesuevi says:

        Why would you expect him to telegraph his game plan to the general public?

        Good grief, that sounds like a RINO Republican Bush tactic.

        I am still in the wait and see mode on Bill Barr. I agree, it will be his actions not his words that will define AG Barr. I can give him some breathing room to work.

        President Trump has this. POTUS had to play a bit of catch-up because of all the swamp help, he was given, early on. He is a quick study and now I am seeing indications that President Trump is several steps ahead of these clowns.

        The masterful way he played the Syria-Kurd panic attack in Washington DC was beautiful.
        Lindsey and company looked like fools, and real fear is etched on Grahams face lately.

        Liked by 2 people

    • cantcforest says:

      Barr expressed some concern over destroying institutions, but the corruption in the FBI/CIA/DoS/DOJ/Deep State and Congress is so widespread that a sweeping reduction in force and a massive delivery of indictments is needed. It may require the overwhelming re-election of PDJT and a Republican House and Senate to make it happen. I’m including the House and Senate because the sweeping part of the election may mute overt opposition to the Draconian changes needed.
      I’m astounded that PDJT is rightfully redoing our trade situation, addressing immigration woes, corruption in foreign aid…and stepping on almost all of DC’s toes yet making so much progress for Main Street.
      Thank you Mr. President.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. Waymore says:

    In Dan Bongino’s interview yesterday (after the alleged “animated” discussion with William Barr seen through a window), President Trump referred to Barr as “our great Attorney General”, and he very much looked forward to the IG and “Bull” Durham Reports. I’m guessing that AG Barr merely gave President Trump an update as to timing of the report which continues to frustrate all those patiently waiting for it, especially the President.

    Liked by 5 people

    • SAM-TruthFreedomLiberty says:

      Yes, he was completely with Barr and sounded confident in what the BULL DURHAM will do!

      Reading CTH it seems like Barr is our enemy working against us and the President. A deep state puppet. Which btw. would also mean Trump is a dummy.

      I’m a CTH fan but this glaring discrepancy of what Trump says and what Sundance strings together on this topic is bugging me. Which is true? I tend to believe Trump cause he sits right at the source.

      Well, we wont know for sure before something big drops.

      Liked by 1 person

      • wightmanfarm says:

        How do you explain the hiring of Sessions, Tillerson, Preibus, – the list goes on.?


        • SAM-TruthFreedomLiberty says:

          Each of them had a certain function.
          Priebus was there to bait the R establishment in. Without him the GOP opposition during the general election might’ve been much bigger.
          Despite all the opposition to Trump he managed to get a lot through Ryans congress.

          Tillerson had the Russian and Saudi connections and most importantly the oil/energy knowledge needed to help make us independent and set the base for the economy we have now.

          Most treepers are clueless and full of hate about Sessions, so it’s futile to explain how he’s responsible for everything revealed, firing the deep state heads and starting the Durham probe…

          Trump uses people like pawns on a chess board depending on the situation he faces.

          Liked by 6 people

        • Koot Katmando says:

          Session was a bad hire for sure. However, PDT stated early and wanted him gone. Too many here believed PDT statements on Session was a ruse and part of a master plan. Now it is reversed. PDT is praising Barr. I believe PDT is telling us like he sees it. I hope he is right and Barr will do the right thing.

          Liked by 1 person

        • willthesuevi says:

          Simple. President Trump had never operated in DC before. He had to place some trust in people who were familiar with the way things worked.

          He trusted Preibus. After Preibus filled President Trumps cabinet with Bushies and snakes, POTUS knew he was running uphill in the rain. He had to adjust his field of fire, that’s all.

          POTUS is a smart man and knows people. His success came from reading people his entire life.

          I trust that our President is cleaning DC up. It is a monumental job filled with more secret handshakes, nefarious creatures, and dark evil crap than a Harry Potter book.

          All we can do is to continue in our support of President Trump. I seriously doubt that more than a couple of people posting here has enough clout to effect even the slightest change in the events happening today.

          The best we have is to keep hammering out Representatives and Senators. Make them do their job. Make them question their continued employment. Losing power is what they are truly afraid of, so make that a reality. Within the framework of the constitution of course.

          Liked by 2 people

      • I believe Trump is not a litigant — a whiner, if you will — by nature, but a negotiator. He makes his views known, most famously by his tweets, which are always on the money and even prescient, and that’s not hay, as they used to say. His sole, secret weapon is always telling the TRUTH, directly, simply, and unapologetically; no complex chess game. He is in the nearly insoluble position of working within the Constitution, and therefore relying on his AG, but while the whole system surrounding him is broken, with traitors in both parties and throughout all the agencies.

        Others speak of eminent civil war, and I predicted such from the start of Obama’s reign as Little Big Man. But I have also tried to suggest a way out, though I am no expert: Mass civil disobedience on our part.

        These are the elements as I have seen them up to now. These are the times…

        Liked by 2 people

        • harrumph…”imminent”, not “eminent”…a sign of old age, in one as linguistically accomplished as myself…again, harrumph (I didn’t get a harrumph out of that guy).

          Liked by 1 person

        • SAM-TruthFreedomLiberty says:

          A lot more has to happen for civil war or even mass disobedience.
          It’s all working too well in most parts of the country. Around me everything is buzzing and in a big upwards trend. No one I know will do anything beyond voting. Too busy to work and expand family.

          The whole entrenchment of anti-American elements in the gov. is going on since a long time and 3 years are not enough to change it all around. People are very impatient, understandably.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Linda K. says:

        You have to draw your own conclusions, Sam.
        I believe Barr will act, and convict the wrongdoers, but it does take time. I am still waiting for Sullivan to rule on Sidney’s filing for Flynn and that has been going on for awhile longer.
        It does hpwever, seem like the powerful have a way of wiggling out of trouble, both dems and Republicans, but at this point, serious justice has to be done or the institutions are finished. The intel spys and their companions in Congress have gone too far.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Linda K. says:

          And, let’s get rid of the ability for activist justices to put a stay on Trump’s executive orders. Why should one derpy judge in San Fran be able to effect the whole country with his rulings?

          Liked by 5 people

          • Paprika says:

            Now that right there gets to the heart of the matter. There is no legal basis for a district judge to impose a national stay or any order that effects the entire nation. This is especially true when it comes to Article II powers granted to the President.

            Whether the ‘politics” or the “political timing” look good or bad this should have been fought from the 1st stay order as there is no legal basis. Why has the DoJ not taken this on either head on or by taking to the Supreme Court?

            And yet, If Barr truly believes in what he is preaching in this speech, then even the Supreme Court does NOT have the power to rule that a district court has the power to overrule a Presidential order to protect the sovereignty of the nation. The Constitution gives the President alone the power to do so–period–full stop.

            This is exactly what Barr’s point is. The 3 branches are equal, but have different authority and different areas to govern over–not the same shared authority over all 3 areas or the other 2 branches. This is the slippage he is try to point out.

            Unfortunately, he does not point out the same slippage and usurping power that has occurred in the relationship between the distinct rights of the 3 branches of government and the distinct rights of the citizen. All 3 federal branches of government have usurped the rights and freedoms of the individual and The American Citizen at large as an entity.

            Liked by 3 people

    • JL says:

      I think Trump got confirmation that Dems would be able to impeach before the IG report will be released.

      That’s OK. It’s a necessary loss, because the Senate Trial is going to be glorious. Donald Trump’s attorneys will have subpoena power.


  17. John Preston says:

    What an inspirational speech! At first I thought it was long, but then as I listened I learned more and more about history. IMO, I think we need to be patient as this ship (or swamp) is massive and well-defended, thereby requiring the precision of a surgeon and nerves of steel like a bomb detonator…no one should think it will take one man, one term or one decade to fully drain the swamp. Remember they have a stranglehold on the minds of our children through the education system’s inculcation process.

    Liked by 5 people

  18. Charles Martel's Ghost says:

    Comments here are spot on. All talk and no action by Jeff Sessions, Jr.
    Now I will probably get trashed for this but here goes:
    “Not the least of these is the Framers’ vision of a strong, independent Executive, chosen by the country as a whole.”
    I think there must have been an auto-correction problem here. I am certain it should have read:
    Not the least of these is our Founding Fathers’ vision of a strong, independent Executive, chosen by the country as a whole.
    In school we were taught the MEN who founded our country were “the Founding Fathers”. It is not a good sign when politically correct writing is devouring all of society, even creeping into CTH. God forbid any reference be made that it was strong, brave MEN who risked their very lives to create this great country.
    I know, I know. Maybe not important given the gravity of what this article is actually about but it bothered me to see it written that way. So let the negative comments being in 3… 2…1……….

    Liked by 2 people

  19. cbjoasurf says:

    For the FIRST time since Donald J. Trump was sworn in as President I have RENEWED HOPE that “JUSTICE” WILL be served to those that have BETRAYED their Country.

    Everyone wants it NOW, NOW, NOW, however, it’s taken nearly half a century to get where we are today with the rampant corruption within Congress and the Judiciary. BAD BEHAVIOR much like ADDICTION to drugs is hard to conquer and takes time.

    Barr understands the Constitution and what’s ailing this Country.

    I’m just hoping and PRAYING for the sake of our republic that he DOES what he BELIEVES.

    I believe that “JUSTICE IS COMING” if not we’re done.

    Liked by 11 people

    • LouisianaTeaRose says:

      The nation is being prepared for what is coming. It will be shaken to the core when the reality of what has been going on, even long before Trump was elected, is laid bare before the American people. You can’t just spring something like this….we are almost there!

      Liked by 5 people

      • Ma McGriz says:

        Shaken kinda like this…….
        Guess what, kids!
        You’re adopted!
        And your natural parents are psychopaths!”

        There’s an earthquake coming.
        Patience, care and planning are paramount here.


  20. Mr Barr when will start Those corrupt deep state moron’s go To jail,
    I hope that see action pretty soon,
    not just talking Mr AG,


  21. 1riot1ranger says:

    Have yet to read this in its entirety, but great snag, Sundance! We can learn all we want to know about Bill Barr from this. And would never get this from MSM

    Liked by 4 people

    • Ma McGriz says:

      I highly recommend viewing the video if you possibly can.
      I read the transcript, and then watched the speech, and I’m very glad I did.
      It’s well worth the time, even if, like me, it takes you three sittings to get it all seen.

      Liked by 2 people

  22. Merkin Muffley says:

    Has anyone heard what the DOJ intends to do with Andrew McCabe? The deadline passed yesterday and there was still no indictment.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Les Standard says:

      How long until Trump fires Barr?


    • Linda K. says:

      I am hoping the deadline does not prohibit his prosecution. In fairness though, they really should make up their mind.

      Liked by 1 person

      • dwpender says:

        The “deadline” in the narrow FOIA case has absolutely NO impact on the DOJ’s ability to indict McCabe at any time until the Statute of Limitations has run. The Judge in the case can spout off all he wants, but he has no authority to force DOJ’s hand.

        I agree with your sentiments, as well as Judge Walton’s, that this simple decision SHOULD have been made long ago. On the other hand, if DOJ has been delaying on this “small” indictment (perhaps even readying to abandon it altogether) to pursue a BIG McCabe indictment, then the wait will have been worth it.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. TwoLaine says:

    I read about a third of it and was impressed. I can’t wait to listen to all of it.

    This needs to be the MANDATORY CivicS lesson in every classroom next week.

    Liked by 5 people

  24. Frank says:

    Barr is all talk and no walk, just like everybody else who pays lip service to originalism and nationalism. Barr, STFU and do something about it. Nobody cares if you deliver an eloquent speech or if you stand there making fart noises with your mouth for two hours. I don’t care. Just DO something.


  25. 1riot1ranger says:

    I have a theory about the “Prosecutions”. We know that they will all be found “Not Guilty” by a D.C. jury. Making them essentially useless wastes of time. But they need to be prosecuted anyway to make a point. My theory is Barr is waiting until the point arises in which the trials could not be concluded until after the election. Which is just under a year. Because if the trials were held before the election and the Not Guilty verdicts handed down in the weeks and months before the election, it would look very bad for the present administration

    Liked by 2 people

    • 1riot1ranger says:

      In other words, a timing issue

      Liked by 1 person

    • Niagara Frontier says:

      I don’t think there will be many trials. It’s likely that most of those charged will seek plea deals. And given your theory about D.C. juries, that may not be such a bad thing for our side.

      Liked by 2 people

      • 1riot1ranger says:

        There will be enough trials that the full facts of Spygate come out and the MSM will report it. What absolutely cannot happen is that they be found “Not Guilty” before the election. Which makes this a timing issue.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Niagara Frontier says:

          Exactly. It will only take a handful of trials to expose the entire conspiracy. And remember too that a “plea” deal is a guilty plea. That works.

          What are the odds that members of Congress are included among the indictments? I think it’s essential that the lawbreaking there must be exposed as much as anywhere else.

          Liked by 3 people

    • Tl Howard says:

      I’ve asked this before of those who know: 1) if emails or phone calls implicating any of these folks were sent or received outside of DC, can they be tried outside of DC? 2) if a change of venue can be granted based on the demographics of the area regarding, say, race, then why can’t it be granted based on socioeconomics or employment?


  26. NJMAGA says:

    If the Resistance steals the 2020 election this all goes away including AG Barr. Is that what he’s waiting for while making speeches to make himself look good? Even if indictments do come down they take years to prosecute. Does anyone have any doubt a future Democrat AG would not hesitate to dismiss all charges? They are lawless and wouldn’t care how it looks. Case in point, Eric Holder.

    Liked by 3 people

  27. DJ Snyder says:

    Sundance seems absolutely convinced that the deep state will prevail in removing Trump from office, thoroughly destroying his family and any who are allied with him, and plunging us into a thousand years of darkness, until the second coming of Christ.
    You would think this speech from Barr would make him reconsider, but he believes that the fact that no deep-staters have been indicted/arrested YET makes him believe it’s all an act.

    …Have you no faith in God left, sir? Trump is God’s anointed, and no weapon formed against him shall prosper. One only needs look at how disastrously the so-called impeachment inquiry is progressing to see proof of that.
    We all want to see justice NOW, but God’s ways are not our ways. “Yet he who perseveres to the end shall be saved”… which implies that we will have to persevere for a very long time- longer than it seems we are capable of. But God sends his Holy Spirit to strengthen us, that we might be able to run the race and keep the faith, as St. Paul said in his letter to Timothy.

    Do not trust in man, but trust in God.
    In Jesus’ Name, Amen.

    Liked by 5 people

    • 1riot1ranger says:

      Nah, Sundance knows Barr reads this or someone close to him reads it so he lights a fire under their ass by saying these provocative things. But it doesn’t matter, Barr knows exactly what he is doing and when to do it. He’s a PROFESSIONAL. We’re all back bench kibitzers.

      Liked by 5 people

  28. IGiveUp says:

    Nice speech. Add restoration of the rule of law/equal justice under the law to Barr’s critique and we’ll be getting somewhere. Now, do something about it.

    Will the Epstein Story Ever be Fully Told?

    Liked by 2 people

  29. There’s been a lot of doubters about Barr, especially since DOJ didn’t pursue the charges against Comey for his memos. I have no doubts about Barr. I believe he volunteered for the job because of what he was seeing from Mueller. Think…remember how quickly the Mueller probe was shut down after Barr was confirmed? If not for Barr, Weissman would still be up to his antics. This speech tells me that Barr is ready to drop the hammer where he has a strong case. Agree with one of the sentiments above… trials in DC will be tough to obtain guilty verdicts. I live nearby and I am surrounded by resisters. Therefore, the cases have to be airtight and leave no doubt. Barr is the man we hoped Sessions would be.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Linda K. says:

      Trials may be tough in D.C., but if you are guilty as sin,(I’m looking at you Brennan), would you roll the dice and take a chance on a conviction from a jury or make a plea deal?


    • Tl Howard says:

      I hope that Barr gets something really bad on WEissman and that that guy is sent away for a long time. It would be a great message to Lawfare types for a couple of decades at least.


    • Mushroom says:

      Weissmann is blabbering on MSDNC. Enron, Arthur Andersen, Mueller lead.
      Book deal to smear trump.
      Meanwhile, Barr has a lavish sendoff for bud Rod Rosenstein and pukes all over himself praising him.
      This is our savior?
      We need Trump in 2020, Sidney Powell DOJ, Flynn DNI.

      Liked by 1 person

      • JL says:

        Barr at the time and possibly not even now, did not know the full extent of everything that happened. He has a much clearer picture now, and it will only get much clearer in the near future.

        If Barr had badmouthed Rod Rosenstein beck then, echoing the President, how do you think it would look now if he ended up criticising RR or better yet, if he ends up indicted?

        Killing Rosenstein and others with kindness then, was the only treatment that would prevent valid bias accusations now.

        Barr is a smart dude. Give him some credit.


  30. xlr8tr says:

    My takeaway; the federal judiciary has been corrupted, and they (Barr, Durham) most likely have proof.

    Liked by 3 people

  31. sDee says:

    At the same time we have also allowed unchecked power in the Executive branch to be wielded when it aligns with the globalist agenda.

    The 17th Amendment is now crucial to the expansion of globalism and its WallStreet/USCoC/Government power bloc. IT MUST BE REPEALED.

    The 17th was intended to concentrate unchecked power in the Senate. Their access to corporate wealth and government graft ensures unending six year terms for 100 people who answer to no one but their donors.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. john says:

    The eeyores and ROLCONS here are insufferable.

    Anyone who has read this in its entirety and still thinks and trumpets the theory that AG Barr is going to whitewash the entire affair due to his “swampiness” is being deliberately obtuse or outright deceitful.

    AG Barr will protect the Constitution over institutions that are operating outside the intentions of the Framers and are often themselves Constitutionally dubious.

    Liked by 5 people

    • PCS says:

      If you have the faith of a mustard seed, you can move mountains.

      I sure hope so. Prayerfully.

      Liked by 2 people

    • sDee says:

      Without action there will be skepticism. Wise skepticism in the face of total government corruption is not insufferable. Trolls seeding doubt may be. Blind faith misplaced, may be.

      I understand this speech well,and can see Barr’s position toward restoration of the original intent, and his detailed analysis and legal foundation to accomplish it..

      What is behind some skepticism? Who is saying it? What concrete action have they taken to turn this death march into a offensive? The Tea Party movement was set back 8 years by trust in swamp creatures who had never even raised a signal flare.

      Who but Donald Trump, before or since, has stood in the gap? He declared globalism, the Uniparty, the media, and the deep state as our enemy. From the day he announced his candidacy Donald Trump began immediate tactical assaults, based on his strategy, to reverse our death march and restore greatness.

      So is Barr part of the broader more systemic strategy? Sounds like it, but we have heard this before and will not be fooled again. Some commenters here seek to discourage us. Who cares?

      A lifetime betrayal from those we entrusted with liberty. leave us to watch and wait for action. Armed and ready for the next betrayal of their sedition.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mushroom says:

      It’s called reality.
      Bill Barr is “principled swamp”. He wants the corrupt system fixed, but he can’t do it from his position (and may not want to). This is the implosion of current DC. Being a DC swamp resident, I don’t think he believes in PDJT. He’s trying to get a few perp walks to satisfy us enlightened red pill folks. Can he put a dent in the MSM onslaught- THAT IS THE KEY QUESTION.

      The bureaucracy is running a soft revolution to destroy the constitution.

      Almost all mainstream media is in corrupt DC’s pocket.
      The reason they spew lie after lie after lie is because they KNOW it works. Proven throughout history, and now they back it up with hard science from social media data.
      If they win the media fight, they win the people, GAME OVER.

      WE must enlighten others and fight the battle in elections.
      Look at the courts. Corrupt. How do we fix? POTUS and majority Senate.
      MAGA 2020 is the key. This shows all these @#$&s that WE know, WE don’t approve, and WE demand reform.

      That is why I don’t give Barr a pass. I hope I’m wrong, but ready for 2020.


  33. Chris says:

    Good for BAGPIPE BILL! talks tough about resistance at the same time his DOJ hints of no prosecution for McCabe for liying to the feds numerous times! While mike flynn’s life is ruined and possibly going to jail for a lesser infraction! And Rodger stone’s conviction of the same thing! Barr is good at hiding his deep state alliance!!

    Liked by 2 people

    • SAM-TruthFreedomLiberty says:

      “his DOJ hints of no prosecution for McCabe”
      Source? Beyond the fake news about Trump having an argument with Barr(and Sundance riling up people about it falsely)

      Liked by 2 people

    • willyeye says:

      Is it conceivable that Barr has recently gotten McCabe to flip? One clue could be the fact that McCabe dropped his unlawful termination lawsuit. I know there are a lot of naysayers in theses comment sections, but I think they’re missing the forest for the trees. Many of these naysayers have adopted America’s #1 mission statement: I want it my way and I want it NOW! Patience is no longer a virtue in American society; but it should be.

      Two things: You can’t take down an institution that took 50 years to build in just a few months. You also have to make sure that everything is done perfectly if you want there to be any convictions. These things take time.

      I’ve been aware of Barr’s beliefs in the Executive Branch and this new speech just confirms it even more so. I believe that Trump was sent to us by God, and that Barr was sent to Trump by God. Without faith, we might as well not even bother caring about any of this!

      Liked by 2 people

  34. tommylotto says:

    “For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be…”

    He will not fight back using the scorched earth tactics of the left. Don’t expect an eye for an eye or retribution from him. He is going to do what he thinks will help preserve the norms of our republic even if the left is in the process of shredding those norms. This speech might be a justification for his future inaction. He will scold the left but not hold them to account, because to do so will be harmful to the body politic. I am sure the left will see the nobility of his decision and will modify their behavior in response.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Publius2016 says:

    It is truly unprecedented the level of “Resistance” to America First!

    Looking back shows the ROBERT COURT is GLOBALIST!!

    Think about it: US Census question on citizenship is okay except for 2020!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  36. John Ronning says:

    There’s a serious problem with what most of modern conservatism views as “originalism” – as far as it goes, it’s correct to point out that the will of the lawmakers (whether the constitution or laws passed under its authority) is to be considered decisive in interpreting and applying the laws.What is missing from most modern advocacies of “originalism” is the fact that, because we have three EQUAL branches of government, the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary are not above the other two branches, but that is how the other two branches have been acting for the last 70 years or so, even obeying court decrees which nullify laws against the shedding of innocent blood. When the court clearly goes against the constitution, the others have a duty to follow the constitution (like they take an oath to do).This is how Presidents in the 19th century understood the situation, and we have lost our republican form of government as long as the courts are treated as a bunch of dictators.

    Liked by 1 person

    • dwpender says:

      The worry decades ago about an “Imperial Presidency” should now be focused on the “Imperial Judiciary.”

      I don’t believe that President Trump will have been fully successful in draining the swamp unless at some point he has the fortitude (plus the DOJ planning and other resources) to defy an unconstitutional Supreme Court decision. I do not say this lightly.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. 🍺Gunny66 says:

    All I see is “good speech.” “Good History lesson”. He took a this speech……Chance????…..Chance on what?……He’s the AG…

    What has he done? All these people are graduates from prestigious universities and colleges. They are all lawyers. They can all give good speeches.

    So he has defined and knows the separation of powers. That makes him smart?

    Duh…….It is in the Constitution….It does not take 3 hours to explain it.

    His DOJ has done nothing…

    Has there been “One” arrest?….just “One”? A low hanging fruit….Someone who will not give away the “Plot”

    They arrested Roger Stone for goodness sakes…..Gen Flynn will get off because he has an exceptional lawyer…..Manafort will rot in prison…..No one knows what is happening to Assamge……The President is facing Impeachment……
    What has the AG done about it?

    And how many has Barr arrested?……None..

    How about having the DOJ start investigations? Let’s start with……hmmm

    Judge Scalia’s death……Seth Rich……Jeffrey Epstein….The Bundy ramch….The Las Vegas massacre….What happened to that?….A whole lot of witnesses died after that one..

    I could go on…..
    Sessions did nothing……. said nothing for 2 years
    Barr has also done nothing, but he gave a speech….big whoop.

    Question: Will Barr make all these arrests during an election year and rocking the country?

    Dunno…….but I have heard a lot of good speeches in my life……speeches I wanted to believe…….most came from my ex-wife

    Liked by 3 people

  38. PCS says:

    How many federal, state and local prosecutors and investigators are either outright Leftists on board with Cloward Piven and Rules for Radicals or are compromised via the Magical Database?

    One is too many, hundreds means a train wreck, thousands says it’s over.


    • Lulu says:

      It’s over.


      • willthesuevi says:

        I disagree. I posted this to the open thread a few weeks back but think it would be appropriate here.

        Sometimes I have to remind myself just how far those of us on the Conservatarian right have come.

        Before I put out these stats I want to say I usually vote Republican, because more often than not they reflect my values. Not always – I vote for the person and have voted for several right leaning Democrats as well. What drew me to the CTH was the “About” page linked above. It spoke to me and welcomed me home. So with that in mind:

        From 1935 to 1997 Republicans only held the Senate for 10 years. 10 years out of 62. The same period, Republicans held the house for 4 years. 4 years out of 62.

        During this same time, Republicans held both chambers 4 years. FOUR years. FOUR years out of SIXTY TWO!

        Think about that for a moment. The Depression, Rise of the Soviet Union, WW II, Korea, Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam, Destruction of the Soviet Union, The first Gulf War, all during that 62 year period. Four years.

        From 1997 to 2021, Republicans held and will still hold the Senate for 16 of 24 years. Republicans have held the House for 20 of the last 24 years. BOTH chambers for 12 of 24 years!!!

        What an astounding turn around. No wonder the left has pulled out all the stops. No doubt we are in a fight for the Republic like we haven’t seen in 158 years. It is because we are winning.

        Take the narrative away from the left at every chance.

        If you think this is amazing, well you ought to see the stats on State, County, Parish, and local races. Even better!

        I will not even get into the advances and re-affirmation of the 2nd Amendment we have seen the last 50 years but, if possible, it is even more revealing.

        We need to act like winners. We are winners. Real winners, not participation trophy winners. Act like winners, especially when it is darkest, because we are winning. Keep our eye on the ball, and more importantly keep our congress-critters and all elected officials eyes on the ball. Make the elected Republicans act and govern like winners.

        Never ever trust them again to do the right thing. Force the Republicans to get rid of these war monger neo-cons. Re-establish limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual rights, and above all LIBERTY! Doveryai, no proveryai. Trust but verify.

        This is a slow, maddening, slog thru the mud in winter. It is up to us – No one else. Don’t give up! Mighty Casey ain’t going to hit that home run and anything easy has no lasting value.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Ma McGriz says:

          Outstanding post, willthesuevi.

          Thank you!

          Just a few short years ago it was a pc-forbidden to call illegal aliens anything but undocumented immigrants.

          It was official policy that any concerns about the obama presidency were proof of racism.

          Any questioning of the wisdom of embracing islam and enabling CAIR were vilified as islamaphobia.

          We now call them illegal immigrants, are expelling them from our midst and a wall is being constructed to prevent their re-entry.

          We now have a travel ban to help prevent our enemies from coming here from places they shouldn’t.

          Barack obama is being exposed for some of the heinous things he’s doing and for the damage he’s done to the Presidency and the rule of law.

          We have people congregating in the tens of thousands for any and every opportunity to see POTUS and chant USA! USA!

          We have Mike Pompeo and others who join the President Trump in smacking the lickspittle media right upside the head at every turn, and calling them to heel like the nasty ankle biters they are.

          And then there’s the little matter of the economy……..

          So over the long view and the more immediate one, we’re winning, and we’re winning big.

          Is the war over? Far from it.

          But it’s imperative to remind ourselves we’re winning the heck out of this war, and moving closer by the day to victory, if we’ll just keep our heads and stay the course.

          Liked by 3 people

    • Ma McGriz says:

      Yes, Julian, the sky is falling and we’re all gonna die horrible deaths and then burn in hell and probably lose our cellphone service and stuff and oh god ain’t it awful???!!!???

      Liked by 2 people

  39. Patriot1783 says:

    It’s nice they have a Barbara Olsen Memorial Lecture, I am glad she continues to be honored in that format. I remember her brilliance as a guest commentator on the news shows prior to September 11th as a passenger on Flight 77 that flew into the Pentagon.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Lulu says:

    Meanwhile, the coup continues. Traitorous not only walk free but are paid by the American taxpayer. Paul Manafort sits in solitary year two or is it three? Roger Stone was openly railroaded and at 70+ is facing life in prison for “lying,” while the deep state lies openly to Congress with impunity as recently as sad, pathetic coup member Mosha yesterday.

    And then the deep state media doesn’t just not report they openly laugh at the corruption like FOX laughing away yesterday at the thought of Roger Stone doing life in prison.

    The deep state and their voters hate us and would gladly jail or kill us and that day is coming for all of us sooner than we think if we don’t root out the corruption and start abiding by the rule of law.


  41. Mike Robinson says:

    In this address, as with the legal paper Barr prepared before he took office (again!), we see how erudite he is – a scholar of legal history around the world and down through time.

    This is something that the opportunistic “Lawfare lawyers,” and their foolish Congressional lackeys, know nothing of. They assume they will succeed, as though nothing like this had happened before. They assume that the law, and the Constitution, means whatever they want it to. That they will not be challenged… and defeated.

    But our Nation means more to hundreds of millions of people, than it apparently does to any of them. How foolish they are … and how arrogant and vicious.

    Liked by 5 people

  42. Linus in W.PA. says:

    I can’t see how Barr would give speeches like this and not be going after the treasonous bastagees.

    Liked by 4 people

  43. Zippy says:

    Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada. So then, where are the handcuffs or even INDICTMENTS!


    • Mike Robinson says:

      Remember that you will not know ANYTHING about indictments until they are unsealed. Epstein would never have landed his airplane in America had he known that two criminal indictments had been sworn out against him. We nailed his ass because he didn’t.

      A Grand Jury May consider a case, decline to hand down an indictment, and “you will never know.” That’s the law.

      Liked by 3 people

  44. John Doe says:

    Somewhere in Sundance’s posts I read that the FISA Act is up for renewal on Dec 15 and that we shouldn’t expect the report be released before that date. That made sense to me. But, if by 12/31 we’ve got NOTHING, I will give up and admit legal defeat. On to the other kind of battle.


    • Mike Robinson says:

      FISA has been a disaster. It should not be renewed. We also need to rework PATRIOT.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Julian says:

      Hang on.

      The fireworks are due to begin in February 2020.

      02/02/2020 – see that. That would be the date I’d look for a pardon for Roger Stone – just before sentencing – and just before the Assange case hits the headlines again.

      It’s all set up for Durham – 02/02/2020


  45. flatlandgoober says:

    This is what it sounds like when a fighter throws down the gauntlet.

    Liked by 2 people

  46. CTH Fan says:

    The very fact that the “Review” became a “Criminal Investigation” should set doubtful minds at ease. If AG Barr wanted a whitewash of the crimes committed by the Small Group he would have said that all was well and legitimate once the review was over. It would have been so easy.

    Really people, there are those among the Treepers whose sole intent is to spread disfaction and chaos at this site. I see them go to work on our anxieties every day.

    Never Give Up, Never Give In. Long Live The USA And Its Constitution🇺🇸

    Be Blessed!

    Liked by 5 people

  47. swal106 says:

    But yet, Mr. Attorney General, we haven’t seen ONE indictment of ANY of those Seditionist’s that you complain about. General Flynn, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos and now Roger Stone has ALL been convicted of nothing more than Process Crimes, with the exception of Manafort who was convicted of crimes dating back twelve years. One then needs to ask, where was Manafort’s statute of limitations rights on that? YOU, Mr. Attorney General has allowed a lot of this to happen as far as I’m concerned, yet hasn’t indicted ANYBODY that has clearly worked “overtime” in thwarting the President’s well known agenda. All we keep hearing from your department is, “they’re coming, but wait we’ve found more evidence and will need more time.” I and many like me are sick of your two tiered justice department.

    Liked by 2 people

    • 1riot1ranger says:

      Sure, they need a string of indictments, all resolved with Not Guilty verdicts before the election. That’s a sure fired way to win! They need you on the strategy committee.

      Liked by 1 person

    • LULU says:

      When there has been a conspiracy, no prosecutor can call for piecemeal indictments. They want all the conspirators rounded up and the cases against them fully substantiated with evidence. Piecemeal indictments would simply muddy the water for the prosecution of all of the co-conspirators.

      We are not watching Law & Order. It becomes more clear all the time that this conspiracy was far wider (including outside our borders) and deeper and longer-standing than we ever suspected. Ironically, the more we learn the more impatient we seem to become. Antsy to see perps frog-marched and all that. Sounds zippy but if anyone gets away because the case against them was insufficiently strong or it was handled improperly, where’s our victory?

      Indictments come from the grand jury, not AG Barr. They must review all the evidence and hear all the witnesses. Then it is up to them to either come down with indictments or not. Barr has been reviewing recommendations sent to him by IG Horowitz. He has also been pursuing evidence on his own (witness his trips abroad). Durham presents the case evidence to the grand jury.

      If we don’t trust AG Barr, whom would you trust? How long would it take for them to get up to speed on this complex nightmare of a case? What would they do differently? Are you sure?

      It is interesting that the handful of real lawyers who announce themselves here are not as ansy as some of the rest of us. Ever wonder why?


      Liked by 1 person

  48. bluebongo says:

    If you’re mad here is how we get even, gove to these candidates: ( from balotopedia),_2020

    National Republican Congressional Committee:

    The following table lists 55 Democratic-held seats the NRCC announced it would target in 2020 on February 7, 2019.[14] Also included are the margins of victory for each district in the 2018, 2016, and 2014 elections. Elections which took place in Pennsylvania before the 2018 redistricting are not included.

    [hide]National Republican Congressional Committee Initial Democratic Targets 2020
    District Incumbent 2018 Margin 2016 Margin 2014 Margin
    Arizona’s 1st Tom O’Halleran D+7.7 D+7.3 D+5.2
    Arizona’s 2nd Ann Kirkpatrick D+9.5 R+13.9 R+0.1
    California’s 10th Josh Harder D+4.5 R+3.4 R+12.3
    California’s 21th TJ Cox D+0.8 R+13.5 R+15.7
    California’s 25th Katie Hill D+8.7 R+6.3 R+6.7
    California’s 39th Gil Cisneros D+3.1 R+14.5 R+37.1
    California’s 45th Katie Porter D+4.1 R+17.1 R+30.2
    California’s 48th Harley Rouda D+7.1 R+16.6 R+28.2
    California’s 49th Mike Levin D+12.9 R+0.5 R+20.3
    Colorado’s 6th Jason Crow D+11.2 R+8.3 R+8.9
    Florida’s 7th Stephanie Murphy D+15.4 D+3.0 R+31.5
    Florida’s 13th Charlie Crist D+15.3 D+3.8 R+50.5
    Florida’s 26th Debbie Mucarsel-Powell D+1.8 R+11.8 R+2.9
    Florida’s 27th Donna Shalala D+6.0 R+9.8 R+100.0
    Georgia’s 6th Lucy McBath D+1.0 R+23.4 R+32.1
    Iowa’s 1st Abby Finkenauer D+5.1 R+7.7 R+2.3
    Iowa’s 2nd Dave Loebsack D+12.2 D+7.5 D+5.1
    Iowa’s 3rd Cindy Axne D+2.2 R+13.7 R+10.5
    Illinois’ 6th Sean Casten D+7.2 R+18.4 R+34.3
    Illinois’ 14th Lauren Underwood D+5.0 R+18.6 R+30.8
    Illinois’ 17th Cheri Bustos D+24.2 D+20.6 D+10.9
    Kansas’ 3rd Sharice Davids D+9.7 R+10.7 R+20.0
    Maine’s 2nd Jared Golden D+1.3 R+9.6 R+5.0
    Michigan’s 8th Elissa Slotkin D+3.8 R+16.9 R+12.5
    Michigan’s 11th Haley Stevens D+6.7 R+12.8 R+15.5
    Minnesota’s 2nd Angie Craig D+5.5 R+1.8 R+17.2
    Minnesota’s 3rd Dean Phillips D+11.4 R+13.7 R+24.4
    Minnesota’s 7th Collin Peterson D+4.3 D+5.0 D+8.5
    New Hampshire’s 1st Chris Pappas D+8.6 D+1.3 R+3.6
    New Jersey’s 2nd Jeff Van Drew D+7.7 R+22.0 R+24.2
    New Jersey’s 3rd Andrew Kim D+1.3 R+20.4 R+9.6
    New Jersey’s 5th Josh Gottheimer D+13.7 D+4.4 R+12.1
    New Jersey’s 7th Tom Malinowski D+5.0 R+11.0 R+20.5
    New Jersey’s 11th Mikie Sherrill D+14.6 R+19.1 R+25.1
    Nevada’s 3rd Susie Lee D+9.1 D+1.3 R+24.6
    Nevada’s 4th Steven Horsford D+8.2 D+4.0 R+2.8
    New York’s 11th Max Rose D+6.5 R+24.9 R+12.3
    New York’s 18th Sean Patrick Maloney D+10.9 D+11.2 D+1.8
    New York’s 19th Antonio Delgado D+5.2 R+8.6 R+28.1
    New York’s 22nd Anthony Brindisi D+1.8 R+5.5 R+48.1
    New Mexico’s 2nd Xochitl Torres Small D+1.9 R+25.5 R+28.9
    Oklahoma’s 5th Kendra Horn D+1.4 R+20.3 R+23.8
    Oregon’s 4th Peter DeFazio D+15.1 D+15.8 D+21.0
    Pennsylvania’s 7th Susan Wild D+10.0 N/A N/A
    Pennsylvania’s 8th Matt Cartwright D+9.3 N/A N/A
    Pennsylvania’s 17th Conor Lamb D+12.5 N/A N/A
    South Carolina’s 1st Joe Cunningham D+1.4 R+21.7 R+86.8
    Texas’ 7th Lizzie Pannill Fletcher D+5.1 R+12.3 R+28.7
    Texas’ 32nd Colin Allred D+6.5 R+52.1 R+26.4
    Utah’s 4th Ben McAdams D+0.3 R+12.5 R+3.3
    Virginia’s 2nd Elaine Luria D+2.2 R+22.9 R+17.6
    Virginia’s 7th Abigail Spanberger D+1.9 R+15.3 R+23.9
    Virginia’s 10th Jennifer Wexton D+12.4 R+5.8 R+16.1
    Washington’s 8th Kim Schrier D+4.8 R+20.4 R+26.5
    Wisconsin’s 3rd Ron Kind D+19.3 D+99.9 D+13.0

    Congressional Leadership Fund
    On March 5, 2019, the Congressional Leadership Fund announced the following 55 targeted districts for the 2020 election season. The organization identified 31 Trump country seats within districts Trump carried in the 2016 presidential election and 24 opportunity districts composed of primarily suburban communities.[15]

    [hide]Congressional Leadership Fund Trump Country Targets, 2020
    District Incumbent
    Arizona’s 1st Tom O’Halleran
    Georgia’s 6th Lucy McBath
    Iowa’s 1st Abby Finkenauer
    Iowa’s 2nd Dave Loebsack
    Iowa’s 3rd Cindy Axne
    Illinois’ 14th Lauren Underwood
    Illinois’ 17th Cheri Bustos
    Maine’s 2nd Jared Golden
    Michigan’s 8th Elissa Slotkin
    Michigan’s 11th Haley Stevens
    Minnesota’s 2nd Angie Craig
    Minnesota’s 7th Collin Peterson
    Nevada’s 3rd Susie Lee
    New Hampshire’s 1st Chris Pappas
    New Jersey’s 2nd Jeff Van Drew
    New Jersey’s 3rd Andrew Kim
    New Jersey’s 5th Josh Gottheimer
    New Jersey’s 11th Mikie Sherrill
    New York’s 11th Max Rose
    New York’s 18th Sean Patrick Maloney
    New York’s 19th Antonio Delgado
    New York’s 22nd Anthony Brindisi
    New Mexico’s 2nd Xochitl Torres Small
    Oklahoma’s 5th Kendra Horn
    Pennsylvania’s 8th Matt Cartwright
    Pennsylvania’s 17th Conor Lamb
    South Carolina’s 1st Joe Cunningham
    Utah’s 4th Ben McAdams
    Virginia’s 2nd Elaine Luria
    Virginia’s 7th Abigail Spanberger
    Wisconsin’s 3rd Ron Kind
    [hide]Congressional Leadership Fund Opportunity District Targets, 2020
    District Incumbent
    Arizona’s 2nd Ann Kirkpatrick
    California’s 10th Josh Harder
    California’s 21st TJ Cox
    California’s 25th Katie Hill
    California’s 39th Gil Cisneros
    California’s 45th Katie Porter
    California’s 48th Harley Rouda
    California’s 49th Mike Levin
    Colorado’s 6th Jason Crow
    Florida’s 7th Stephanie Murphy
    Florida’s 13th Charlie Crist
    Florida’s 26th Debbie Mucarsel-Powell
    Florida’s 27th Donna Shalala
    Illinois’ 6th Sean Casten
    Kansas’ 3rd Sharice Davids
    Minnesota’s 3rd Dean Phillips
    Nevada’s 4th Steven Horsford
    New Jersey’s 7th Tom Malinowski
    Oregon’s 4th Peter DeFazio
    Pennsylvania’s 7th Susan Wild
    Texas’ 7th Lizzie Pannill Fletcher
    Texas’ 32nd Colin Allred
    Virginia’s 10th Jennifer Wexton
    Washington’s 8th Kim Schrier

    End Citizens United PAC
    On March 20, 2019, End Citizens United PAC released an initial list of 26 U.S. House endorsements for the 2020 election cycle.[16]

    [hide]End Citizens United PAC Initial Endorsements
    District Incumbent
    California’s 10th Josh Harder
    California’s 21st TJ Cox
    California’s 25th Katie Hill
    California’s 39th Gil Cisneros
    California’s 45th Katie Porter
    California’s 48th Harley Rouda
    California’s 49th Mike Levin
    Colorado’s 6th Jason Crow
    Georgia’s 6th Lucy McBath
    Iowa’s 3rd Cindy Axne
    Maine’s 2nd Jared Golden
    Michigan’s 8th Elissa Slotkin
    Minnesota’s 3rd Dean Phillips
    New Hampshire’s 1st Chris Pappas
    New Jersey’s 3rd Andrew Kim
    New Jersey’s 7th Tom Malinowski
    New Mexico’s 2nd Xochitl Torres Small
    New York’s 11th Max Rose
    New York’s 19th Antonio Delgado
    Oklahoma’s 5th Kendra Horn
    Pennsylvania’s 7th Susan Wild
    Pennsylvania’s 17th Conor Lamb
    South Carolina’s 1st Joe Cunningham
    Texas’ 32nd Colin Allred
    Virginia’s 7th Abigail Spanberger
    Washington’s 8th Kim Schrier

    Presidential data
    Following the 2018 general elections, Democrats held 31 congressional districts won by Donald Trump (R) in 2016’s presidential election. Republicans held three districts won by Hillary Clinton (D).

    Districts held by Republicans after 2018’s elections and won by Clinton in 2016:

    New York’s 24th Congressional District: Represented by John Katko (R)
    Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District: Represented by Brian Fitzpatrick (R)[17]
    Texas’ 23rd Congressional District: Represented by Will Hurd (R)
    The map below shows Democratic-held congressional districts that Trump won in 2016.


  49. Phil aka Felipe says:
  50. Kleen says:

    It would take many steps to resuscitate our dead justice system.

    Barr needs to do his part.

    Then the agencies need to be taken apart, reshaped and moved out of DC
    Fire everyone and then Rehire only people with pro America values.

    Something needs to be done about legislating judges and political activist judges.

    Then we the people need to destroy Pravda.

    If all us stop funding cable, they would go belly up. But it needs to be ALL of us. 60+ million.
    Bankrupt CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS even FOX

    Simply by not watching CNN, does not hurt them. They still get paid by cable company. Your money goes to fake news. you pay them.

    Imagine a world with less fake news.

    Soros need to have all his assets confiscated. He is fomenting bloody revolutions around the world.
    He should be hunted down by countries he destroyed.

    Exterminate Marxist filth in our schools.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s