Attorney General William Barr’s expanding review of the Russia probe has evolved into a criminal investigation, according to a source familiar with the matter, giving a federal prosecutor who is leading the inquiry the ability to subpoena witnesses and use a grand jury.
It could not immediately be determined what prompted the change nor what evidence of a crime Mr. Barr and the federal prosecutor leading the probe, John Durham, may have found. When the inquiry was announced in May, Justice Department officials described it as a review that could prompt changes to counterintelligence investigations of political campaigns.
Mr. Barr and a federal prosecutor are looking into the underpinnings of the FBI’s probe, and he has said he wants to understand if the U.S. government’s intelligence-gathering efforts in the probe’s early stages were legal and appropriate.
During two meetings in Rome in August and September, Mr. Barr expressed interest in London-based academic Joseph Mifsud, who was affiliated with a university in Rome at the time he told a Trump campaign adviser in 2016 that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of her emails.
Mr. Mifsud disappeared from view in 2018; his whereabouts are publicly unknown.
Sorry if you like them, those things are quite grating, IMO.
Just imagine living next door to the Barr household when he was a kid as he learned to play them. The only thing worse than listening to bagpipes must be listening to someone playing bagpipes and making mistakes.
Attorney General William Barr was cited for contempt by the House Judiciary Committee last week for failing to deliver a document he is not only not required to provide, but legally prevented from handing out.
Even though he had to release nothing, Barr gave Congress almost all of the Mueller report. He withheld small portions of tit that included grand jury testimony, which he is not supposed to release.
Barr asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi whether she planned to arrest him when he appeared on the west front of the Capitol to commemorate the National Peace Officers Memorial service on Wednesday.
Barr, who was on a platform with congressional leaders as they awaited President Trump’s arrival, approached Speaker Pelosi and shook her hand, a bystander said. Apparently joking, he said loudly: “Madam Speaker, did you bring your handcuffs?”
The bystander said: “The speaker, not missing a beat, smiled and indicated to the attorney general that the House sergeant at arms was present at the ceremony should an arrest be necessary. The attorney general chuckled and walked away.”
Okay. Sen. Kamala Harris, R-Calif., doesn’t seem to understand that the attorney general runs the Justice Department.
Watch his simple answer to her final question after she tries several ways to ask the same thing — why he would overrule “career officials” at DOJ. She seems to thing bureaucrats should be in charge of the country, not elected officials and their appointees.
Because, of course, bureaucrats are generally Democrats.
In her line of questioning, Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris tried to draw out a situation in which attorney general nominee William Barr would not take the advice of career ethics officials if they advised him to recuse himself https://t.co/0YTLEqI7yGpic.twitter.com/SBSqQB7UCj
Attorney general nominee William Barr may have to recuse himself from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, activists and attorneys say, pointing to at least two arguments that he cannot impartially supervise Mueller.
The arguments indicate pressure for recusal may come from both sides of the aisle: Democrats are concerned that Barr prejudged the Mueller investigation in a 20-page memo written in June; the other argument, emerging this week, is spurring fears among conservatives that he’s personally too close to Mueller.
The friendship between Barr and Mueller wasn’t widely discussed before Wednesday, when Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters that he spoke with Barr and was surprised to learn that Mueller attended Barr’s daughters’ weddings and that their wives attend the same Bible study.
Pornography is a scourge of our age. Children have access to it on the internet. Adults get addicted to it now that you don’t have to sheepishly walk up to a salesman and buy it. It’s all right there for you.
It’s not clear to me what they will do or how they will square it with free speech requirements. But anti-obscenity advocates think the Trump administration will do something.
Is it hypocritical for President Trump to be our anti-porn crusader? Sure. Also, who cares?
Pornographers are bracing for the first major obscenity clampdown in three decades under President Trump’s new pick for attorney general, William Barr, a strident social conservative whose views threaten the lucrative industry.
Anti-porn campaigners were thrilled with Trump’s selection of Barr, previously attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, noting his enthusiastic obscenity prosecutions in the early ‘90s.
Barr, described by one Washington attorney as a “staunch Catholic conservative,” isn’t shy about his views, warning in a 1995 article that “secularists” were targeting “laws that reflect traditional moral norms” and that “we are seeing the constant chipping away at laws designed to restrain sexual immorality [and] obscenity.”
Federal obscenity law hasn’t changed in decades, leaving a juicy target for Barr, who left office 25 years ago, before the explosion of Internet porn that flourished under three presidents.