Robert Barnes on the Trump Indictment
Robert Barnes is a well known attorney based in Chattanooga, TN. He has defended many high profile cases. I've been waiting for his analysis in the case against Trump, and it was finally posted a few hours ago...
(50 min) Thoughts below the fold...
I want to make it clear, I'm no Trumpeteer nor Bidenista. I find them both offensive. However, I find the use of the FBI/DOJ et al for political purposes even more disgusting. Personally I think, just like in the case of Russiagate, there is collusion between the FBI/DOJ etc and the DNC/Clintons/Obummer/Biden cartel.
In the case of the current indictment against Trump, to my mind the dimwits have struck again. Trump's poll numbers have risen since the indictment. Barnes conclusion was quite interesting, Biden will pardon Trump, and ...wait for it...his own family. The case against the Biden crime family continues to gather steam...not just the graft in Ukraine, but bribes from China totaling several million.
Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) revealed details after reading the file at the Capitol. Both said Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky allegedly told an FBI source that he paid $5 million apiece to Hunter and then-Vice President Joe Biden in an attempt to shake off a corruption investigation.
and
Now it seems to me this bribery and graft is a good bit more serious than keeping classified documents, which Barnes claims to be the President's constitutional right.
In case you missed this clip from several years ago...
(3 min)
I found this clip just as the dimwits impeached Trump for doing what Obummer did, withholding funds to Ukraine. Source
In January 2020, the Government Accountability Office determined that the Office of Management and Budget, under then-President Trump, violated the Impoundment Control Act––which governs what happens when a president wants to delay or not spend money appropriated by Congress–– by withholding approximately $214 million in Defense Department funds to Ukraine, which was a separate funding stream. The Trump administration contested the ruling. This came amid Trump’s first impeachment inquiry and trial, during which the administration's handling of funding to Ukraine was scrutinized.
Irony upon irony.
I'm curious about your thoughts of both the Trump indictment and the Biden accusations. Please, chime in below if you have ideas.
Comments
Barnes,
a solid lawyer and also a solidly pro-Trump partisan, describes a very sweeping, exclusive power the president has for classified docs which, from a modest amount of reading elsewhere on this issue, may be, probably is, a much more nuanced and conditional power than he would allow.
Alan Dershowitz, who defended DJT during impeachment and who's hardly a pro-D hack these days, even perceived as pro-Trump by many Ds, says that this latest indictment is stronger than expected, stronger than the NY AG recent indictment, while also less strong than the case presented against Nixon in 1974. He thinks that it will need more bipartisan public support to prevail at trial with a jury from a largely pro-Trump state. I.e, it just takes one juror to have a hung jury, and currently such an outcome in FL seems very possible.
I find AD more persuasive on this matter than Barnes, and even Bill Barr (also finds this indictment problematic for Trump) though it would be much more helpful for Barnes and Dersh (or Larry Tribe/Glenn Kirschner) to publicly hash out the legal issues in a vigorous discussion/debate format on Joe Rogan or similar indy outlet.
Barnes is pro-Trump...
and is supporting RFK with whom he's tried many cases. I'm no legal scholar, far from it, however I found his analysis interesting especially his suggested ending of a Biden pardon for both Trump and himself and his family.
Thanks for sharing the AD view. Wasn't he the Epstein defense atty? Yes, I see he was. As I remember he was told Epstein was a CIA asset...but that's a whole other can of worms.
Thanks for the comment.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
No question
AD has legally represented some notorious figures -- OJ, Claus von Bulow, Leona Helmsley, and others. It's what he does, defend the seemingly indefensible, and I don't condemn him or pass moral judgment on the attorney repping disreputable clients. Everyone is entitled to a competent and vigorous defense, even OJ, Epstein and Claus. It helps keep the prosecution and police honest, or at least somewhat in check. He also defended Bill Clinton in the 90s on his impeachment charges.
I mentioned AD's views on this indictment as a noteworthy instance of a prominent lawyer, previously in Trump's camp on several important public issues, who sees the current charges as a non-trivial legal risk for the Donald, even if less substantial than the Nixon charges. So AD's take, considered in context, gives it greater weight than the predictable take of pro-Trump Barnes. And, yes, I'm familiar with Barnes' legal work for the CHD, and know he's favorable towards RFK Jr (but don't know if he's said he would favor him against Trump).
Again, as the legal issues can be complex (far more than Barnes would have it), I would like to see both sides debate them in a public forum. Glenn Greenwald's System Update platform would be just about ideal.
Re Biden pardoning Donald and himself and his family, I strongly doubt it. The first pardon might help many Rs despise Biden a tad less, while it would also open up a huge rupture in the Dem party. And the second pardon, of himself, is constitutionally dubious and a political poison pill for the Ds. Even if somehow he were so inclined on all the above, his handlers would strongly discourage it, and that would be the end of it.
I enjoyed that.
His arguments about Constitutional powers giving the Executive Branch, especially the President, the right, in fact, the sole right to possess and classify or declassify any documents was compelling. I also found his discussion of the attorney-client privilege very spot on.
His belief that Biden might pardon himself and Hunter is pretty unreasonable. However, we may get to the point that the last day a president is in office is the day he pardons himself of any and all crimes may be the only way in the future to circumvent the new trend of incriminating your opponent to go for the win.
I would like to hear more about the whole prosecution of Trump exemplifying that our Deep State controls our government.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Is whataboutism the best they've got?
As Krystal and Saagar point out, it's not an interesting defense:
So you have criminals prosecuting other criminals. It does seem like an expected progression. Remember the sort of stuff that happened in the last episodes of The Sopranos?
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
Selective prosecution
is a defense. It would be malpractice not to use it in this case.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981