DThe surprise of Donald Trump Suggestion At a campaign rally last weekend that U.S. The president will deploy government prosecutors to try to put a brake on the vote count on election night, relying on someone else over the involvement of a federal official.
That officer is Attorney General William Barr, who, as head of the Department of Justice, leads an army of public prosecutors who will sue to stop the vote count.
Conveniently for Trump’s stated plan, Burr just doesn’t seem ready to accept, relying on challenging the election with weeks of misleading statements about the integrity of the mail-in ballot, he seems eager to sue.
To some observers, even the attorney general seems to have taken a more worrying step, answering the question of what action the Trump administration is prepared to take if it provokes large new protests in the November election.
For Trump to steal the election and then silence large-scale demonstrations – now it’s a nightmare. For open discussion In between Current And former officials, scholars, thinkers and Lots of others – Trump should be able to manipulate both the lever of law and its physical enforcement.
Critics say Trump not only achieves so much in Burma, but also enjoys the participation of a man whose biblical spirit of electioneering is drowning him out in the sense of a mission to re-elect Trump.
With a break of relativity in his first 18 months in office, Barry has presented his thinking with a series of recent speeches, interviews and internal discussions. Regular critics of Burr have also been attacked by Burr who now reveals himself.
Washington’s mildly pragmatic lawyer is clearly attacking the integrity of the election and the hostility to street protests – which he believes it represents – and, while clearly describing the epic campaign between the forces of “moral discipline and virtue” from a religious point of view. The individual is manifested by leftist opponents, among others, as sculpturalism, ambiguity, social chaos.
Donald K. Sherman, deputy director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a Washington-based group, said: Twelve have called for impeachment.
“I can’t put it more clearly than this: the Attorney General is a threat to American citizens with free and fair access to the vote, and Americans are a risk to count their votes.”
In recent weeks, Bare has been charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government, and criminal charges against the Seattle mayor for allowing residents to set up a small “police-free” protest zone have asked prosecutors to lift the weight of opponents charged under the sedition law. He has designated New York City, Portland and Seattle as “chaos” zones, saying they have “refused to take appropriate action to combat criminal activity, threatening federal funds.” ”
Such positions clearly feed Trump’s re-elected statement of public safety at risk. They also reflect the curiosity of the federal government to reach out to the bar in enforcing local laws, which are constitutionally questionable, and generally non-reach.
Twelve have shown this tendency before. In June, he, as attorney general, took a very unusual step, personally instructing federal officials to use crowdfunding tactics to drive peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square near the White House.
Burr later refused to give any direct orders, but the White House made it clear: “The AG Bar made the decision.”
Barry, meanwhile, has partnered with Trump to undermine confidence in the upcoming election, endorsing baseless conspiracy theories about printing fake ballots, about foreign nations – in a lie later pulled by the Justice Department – and expressing frustration. That the United States uses mail-in voting and multi-day voting, a common measure for voters to complete decades.
“We lose the whole idea of what an election is,” Barry complained in a presentation at Hillsdale K College Ledge in Michigan earlier this month.
Georgia State Law Professor Neil Kinkopf, who works in Bill Clinton’s Office of Legal Adviser, said the bar’s request for Trump’s political well-being was historic.
“I think this attorney general is more strongly committed to the president’s political success, and I can think of the president’s political agenda than any other attorney general in history,” Kinkoff said.
What drives the bar? For political observers familiar with Barr’s long Washington career, including the presidency of George HW Bush as attorney general, the idea that it could help lead American democracy off the cliff could provoke some cognitive contradictions. Like other powerful Republicans and everyday voters who have enabled Trump, the bar does not seem to be motivated by personal loyalty to Trump, but by a sense of Trump’s role in the larger plan.
Prior to his appointment by Trump, many insiders saw Barr as a committed institutionalist who would protect the independence of the Department of Justice from Trump’s most damaging stance, although Barr clearly had strong faith in a muscular president.
But others saw the bar coming. That includes Kinkoff, who testified against Barr before the Senate at Barr’s January 2019 confirmation hearing. In his testimony, Kinkofef warned of a subscription to the so-called unit executive principle bar, which reflects a “horribly” and “dangerously erroneous” view of the “executive power of the glorious space, subject to negligible limits.”
“It seems that, if confirmed, William Barr will set an example of a permanent vision of presidential power; One that could be deployed in the future administration to justify the exercise of power for a very different end.
But even today Kinkoff says they are “very surprised” by the extent to which Barrow has exceeded that warning.
“When I testify against it, I can acknowledge how dangerous the unit’s operating principle is.” “But what I don’t appreciate, and I don’t think anyone appreciates, is how much he would adapt to that principle, not just on the basis of the rule of law, but to further the President’s political agenda. Think more carefully for his own social and religious commitments for the Twelve. “
These commitments, in turn, are a matter of public record, including a speech bar given at the University of Notre Dame about a year ago. In the speech, Bairr described a political philosophy driven by the need to tackle “individual rape” in humans, which quickly produces “licenses” and destroys “healthy community life” if not controlled. In Bar’s view, the potential restraint is the same as “moral values [that] Men should rest on power independent of their will – they should flow from a transcendent supreme being.
In short, Barry argued that as he has elsewhere, the inevitable result of secularism is moral decay and social chaos.
It seems that this is just the kind of chaos Burr sees in the current street protests led by the anti-racism Black Lives Matter movement. He denounced the protesters in his Michigan speech. “This is a matter of so-called black live people” and claimed that “Not interested in black life.” They are interested [using] Props – A number of blacks killed by the police to achieve a very broad political agenda. “
If Bairr gives a shockingly short stance to the motives of the protesters surrounded by the repeated specter of police killings of people of color, he holds his own motives in high esteem.
Burr finds himself embroiled in a historic historical struggle against literal evil, and he sees the next election as the culmination of a war. Trump’s loss, Barry recently told a Chicago Tribune columnist that the United States is “irrationally committed to the socialist path.” He called the election “a clear fork in the road.”
“The attorney general clearly sees himself as a culture war that is moral and religious for him,” Kinkoff said. “And that’s federal, I think the commitment to them is more than the commitment to federalism. And so the balance of federal and state power that culture seeks to achieve in the wars it seeks to achieve, is ready to be cast on that side.
“So if there was no culture war on it, I think it would take a position that states and local governments should leave the police to their own communities, and the federal government should stop it. But in the current opposition he has staked something that threatens the perception of society as a proper order, so he is not in trouble to pursue what he sees as the right outcome using federal authority. “
