Skip to main content

Blumenthal vs Barr



The sound and fury over President Donald Trump’s now exploded "conspiracy" with Russian President Vladimir Putin to undermine the Trump/Clinton election in favor of Trump is abating following the publication of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s exhaustive 448 page report.

New York Times columnist Charles Blow reported last December, “Members of Trump’s team were extremely interested in and eager to accept any assistance that the Russians could provide.” The serpent coiled in that line is that the Trump team HAD colluded with the Russians.  Naturally, the mud throwers are perversely unrepentant. After a two year investigation, Mueller’s team “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign colluded or coordinated with the Russian government,” according to Mueller’s report.

In fact, the often touted suspicions of leading Democrat propagandists – first that Trump had “conspired” against the interests of the United States, a crime and a charge later lowered to “collusion” by those disappointed with the election results, U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal among them – turned out to be, Mueller said in language as plain as the ego te absolve of the confessional, a molehill blown into a mountain by Trump’s accusers.


Here is a colloquy that occurred between U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal and a reporter AFTER  Muller’s minimally redacted report had been released:

“Blumenthal: I want to review this document, again reaching no conclusion. But the American people deserve to see the full report.

“Reporter: And, in your mind, should Barr not be the attorney general, as far as you’re concerned? Should he be removed and replaced?

“Blumenthal: His credibility has been severely undermined, and his stature gravely diminished.”

Blumenthal, who for insufficient reasons opposed Trump’s nomination of Barr as US Attorney General, was largely responsible for the diminishment of Barr’s stature – prior to and after the release of the report. The Inspector Javert of “never-Trump” politics in Connecticut, Blumenthal was loathed to lay down his whip, even though his earlier depreciations of Barr have turned out to be unfounded.

Blumenthal told The Hill in February, “I will vote against his [Barr’s] nomination in committee on Thursday … The defining question for me was his declining to commit to release the Special Counsel’s report fully and completely. He chose not to make the commitment to release that report completely and directly to Congress and the American people.”

When Barr released a four page response to Mueller’s 448 page final report, falsely called a “summary,” Blumenthal and other partisan Democrats intimated that the response was intended to cloak damaging information on collusion in the pending report. That was not true. “Barr,” Andrew McCarthy wrote in a piece for National Review, “simply communicated Mueller’s bottom line [in his four page response] — yes, Russia meddled; no, Trump was not complicit in a criminal conspiracy; and hand-wringing on obstruction, leaving it to Barr to make the final call.”

In January, a Connecticut publication portrayed the heroic Blumenthal asking Barr, “Will you commit that you will explain to us any changes or deletions that you make to that special counsel report that’s submitted to you in whatever you present to us?” Barr “did not commit to explain to Congress ‘any deletions or change’ he made to Mueller’s report before it was released.”

It is important to understand that protocol does not permit  Barr to release court prohibited grand jury information or the names of those testifying before a grand jury who have not been charged with specific crimes, all of which must be rightfully deleted. Indeed, ruling on this very issue, “the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,” McCarthy reported, found “that grand-jury materials must be kept secret unless they fall under an exception prescribed in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) — which does not have an exception for disclosure to Congress.” And, McCarthy noted somewhat acerbically, “Instead of bloviating, Democrats could simply have proposed an amendment to Rule 6(e) that would have permitted the disclosure, but that would have been an implicit concession that Barr was right. They need Barr to be perceived as not just wrong but corrupt. That’s the strategy.”

Spearheading the strategy was Blumenthal – even AFTER 1) Mueller’s report was released by Barr with minimal redactions, each one of which had been tagged with a note justifying the redaction, 2) matters that might be utilized by the Javerts of the Democrat Party to further inflame 2020 voters against Trump were not excised from the report, and 3) the report itself justifies Barr’s claim that Mueller’s team “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign colluded or coordinated with the Russian government.”

“To be granite and to doubt!” Victor Hugo says of the relentless Javert, determined to haul Jean Valjean back to prison on the slightest pretext. “To be the statue of Chastisement cast in one piece in the mold of the law, and suddenly to become aware of the fact that one cherishes beneath one's breast of bronze something absurd and disobedient which almost resembles a heart! … To relax one's grip,—what a terrible thing!”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Donna

I am writing this for members of my family, and for others who may be interested.   My twin sister Donna died a few hours ago of stage three lung cancer. The end came quickly and somewhat unexpectedly.   She was preceded in death by Lisa Pesci, my brother’s daughter, a woman of great courage who died still full of years, and my sister’s husband Craig Tobey Senior, who left her at a young age with a great gift: her accomplished son, Craig Tobey Jr.   My sister was a woman of great strength, persistence and humor. To the end, she loved life and those who loved her.   Her son Craig, a mere sapling when his father died, has grown up strong and straight. There is no crookedness in him. Thanks to Donna’s persistence and his own native talents, he graduated from Yale, taught school in Japan, there married Miyuki, a blessing from God. They moved to California – when that state, I may add, was yet full of opportunity – and both began to carve a living for them...

Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA

Marissa P. Gillett, the state's chief utility regulator, watches Gov. Ned Lamont field questions about a new approach to regulation in April 2023. Credit: MARK PAZNIOKAS / CTMIRROR.ORG Concerning a suit brought by Eversource and Avangrid, Connecticut’s energy delivery agents, against Connecticut’s Public Utility Regulatory Agency (PURA), Governor Ned Lamont surprised most of the state’s political watchers by affecting surprise.   “Look,” Lamont told a Hartford Courant reporter shortly after the suit was filed, “I think it is incredibly unhelpful,” Lamont said. “Everyone is getting mad at the umpires.   Eversource is not getting everything they want and they are bringing suit. It was a surprise to me. Nobody notified me. I think we have to do a better job of working together.”   Lamont’s claim is far less plausible than the legal claim made by Eversource and Avangrid. The contretemps between Connecticut’s energy distributors and Marissa Gillett , Gov. Ned Lamont’s ...