The Best You Chumps Can Hope For in our Corporate Democracy

Can former Vice-President O’Biden defeat Donald Trump in November 2020?  We will see, it appears.   He recently urged voters to go out, wait on long lines and cast votes for him in primaries held during nationwide public closures to slow the spread of the Coronavirus pandemic.   Biden and the DNC want to sew the Biden nomination up and end the debate and disunity among Democrats, plague be damned!   If you’re healthy, Biden idiotically tweeted, you have nothing to fear.   Go out and vote!

We are four months from the Democratic National Convention in July, twice as far from the actual presidential election.   What is the rush to anoint the chosen opponent to Trump without hearing the details of his actual policy positions?   No matter.  Would you rather have Biden or that Hitler-wannabe Trump?   No brainer! Shut this puppy down, say Biden’s surrogates, in the name of uniting to defeat Trump, the People have spoken!  

My fear is that this deeply flawed candidate with a compromising and anti-progressive policy record on many things [1] and a tendency to smoothly peddle untruths [2] will lose to an even more shamelessly proficient lying sack of shit.

This tweet summed up a lot in a few words:

Screen shot 2020-03-18 at 3.16.23 PM.png

On the other hand, like the oppressive and one-sided contracts we are all required to agree to when using any product or service (thank you, John Roberts), this substandard crap is the best we are fucking entitled to.   Get used to it, because well-paid people who know much better will always decide what is best for us in a corporately controlled democracy.  

That’d said, when the time comes, obviously, we all have to hold our noses and vote to support whichever corporately sponsored candidate runs against Trump.

If Trump winds up beating Biden like a drum next November, or even ekes out a surgical 10,000 vote, Facebook-algorithm-assisted Electoral College mandate, you may begin to think of history differently.   A brutal loop, that, with small variations, plays forever in favor of the most ruthless among us.    

The beauty part?   There is nothing you can do about it, we are told over and over again, except be very afraid and vote for another, less toxic, idiot in hopes of safely returning to politics as usual.

 

[1]  Biden’s consistent pro-corporate work on bankruptcy, predatory credit card practices, support for the Saudi war in Yemen (world’s current number one humanitarian crisis– but good for American munitions makers and their shareholders), mass incarceration, The Crime Bill, Welfare Reform, taking repeated positions for freezing or cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.  

In addition, as a friend put it nicely, Biden is “dumb as a bag of rocks”.

20200316_181635.jpg

[2] a short list of recent Biden lies:  his claim to have graduated in the top of his class in law school, 76th out of 85 — pretty close;  his repeated untrue story about being arrested in South Africa while visiting Mandela; his claim during the recent debate with Sanders that he can name all nine of Sanders’s Super PACs– when challenged by Sanders to do so he snorted “come on!” — he tends to laugh off direct, uncomfortable questions with that winning, affable bullshit artist smile of his.

 

Dr. Bandy Lee on the American Psychiatric Association’s 2017 gag order on shrinks commenting about Trump’s fitness for office

As for the fitness of this particular ignorant, opinionated, lying, braying jackass to be the president, I think this short video lays out an excellent case, with some bracing details about the recent “tightening” of the old Goldwater Rule [1] that psychiatrists can’t venture a diagnosis of a public figure unless they’ve examined him and he agrees to the disclosure of his psychiatric diagnosis.  Right after Trump took office the American Psychiatric Association made the rule much more restrictive, in effect a gag order.  Take a look.

There is also a transcription of the entire presentation below the video (click the “more” tab).  It’s a quick read, here’s a pertinent section:

The rule was changed to cover not just diagnosis, but any aspect that anyone can observe from the outside, such as speech, affect and behavior. None of that could be commented on as a professional. That was a change that was made in March 2017.

It reinterpreted the rule into something that an ethical rule never has been before.

The timing of this change by the American Psychiatric Association shortly after Donald Trump’s inauguration, as well as the APA’s dependance on federal funding and pharmaceutical industry support, require consideration.

Now, news programs regularly give the Goldwater rule as a reason for not covering both mental health experts and non experts. This way, professional opinion is made the same as any opinion, the way facts are made the same as alternative facts.

Many psychiatrists call the new rule a gag order, and many distinguished APA members, including officers, resigned as result, according to an informal poll. A large majority of psychiatrists disagree with the rule and believe it should be changed.

Why is this important with a new silencing of professionals? The public may have been deprived of critical information at a critical time to be able to protect itself, since knowledge is power. Suppressing knowledge is a form of control and an essential ingredient to tyranny.

We can see this from the general silencing of whistleblowers and journalists.

Given that Mr. Trump’s probable mental incapacity and dangerousness were a near consensus among mental health professionals, it might have been important for the public to know about.

This behavior is not random and dangerous behavior is often recurrent.

Above all, the public seemed to need to hear that mental impairment is real and not just a fabrication or an insult for those who already saw the signs.

 

[1] “… A psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

A snapshot of history

In the US government’s bungled response to the Coronavirus we see several generations of chickens coming home to roost, the predictable results of starving and shrinking government so that it can be “drowned in a bathtub.”   This widely held conclusion that democratic government is the enemy has become a mantra of millions  of our fellow citizens at the end of forty years of concerted effort by our most important citizens to permanently enshrine their privilege at the expense of the rest of the citizens.

Ronald Reagan is often seen as the tip of the spear of this movement, his “idea” that citizens of a free nation owe nothing to each other but personal success is the lasting legacy of his time in office.  Many believe that his movie star head should be carved into Mount Rushmore (I guess you take Teddy Roosevelt out of there, why should he be there over Reagan?)   Reagan famously broke the strike by Air Traffic Controllers (the only union that supported his presidential run — they went on strike for safer working conditions, not a raise– he fired them all) ushering in decades of anti-union action.  

Reagan wittily told Americans (as president) that the nine scariest words in the English language are “we’re from the government and we’re here to help.”   The “Great Communicator” also said “the right to life ends at birth” — we protect the fetus vigilantly but once the kid is born he’d better quickly pull himself up by his own diaper straps.   This is America, y’all.   Reagan was the often incoherent moral forerunner of this sick fuck we have now, standing at podiums babbling angrily and incoherently.  In Reagan’s defense, he suffered from documented dementia while serving as the president.

I found a yellowing International Herald Tribune (published with the New York Times and Washington Post) dated “Zurich, Friday, December 18, 1981.   It contained this front-page article about the end of the first session of the 97th Congress that beautifully summed up Reagan’s core beliefs, beliefs that have animated the Republican party’s wild forty year swing to the lunatic right:  

20200316_172649.jpg

The “crusade” identified in the first paragraph:  cut taxes, strengthen the military and reverse a half-century of growth in social welfare programs has been steady and ongoing as the corporate persons and hereditarily entitled “philanthropist” motherfuckers who put Reagan into office have remained increasingly dead set on paying little or no tax, spending trillions on the military (good for the old stock portfolio) and slashing the New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society programs — popular safety net programs that benefit only “takers” at the expense of the “makers”.

According to these liberty loving extremists, who revere ballsy guys like Reagan, we don’t need a social safety net.  We don’t need public health policies, or pubic hospitals or public agencies to deal specifically with uniquely challenging things like pandemics.  Those are the hallmarks of an unfree society, a coercive “nanny state” that robs us of liberty while purporting to take care of those too weak to survive on what they inherited from their parents.  

If you drink, or dispense, this toxic kool-aid, you deserve to die from it.

Unfortunately, many others, who do not benefit at all from this toxic swindle, will die too.  Speaking of beneficiaries of a toxic swindle, it turns out it was the great patriot John Bolton who ordered the dismantling of Obama’s agency to deal with pandemics.  The bullying ass-licker did this back in 2018 when he was still in the insane, unqualified president’s good graces.  Oopsie daisy!

As for the fitness of this particular ignorant, opinionated, lying, braying jackass to be the president, I think this short video lays out an excellent case, with some bracing details about the recent “tightening” of the old Goldwater Rule [1] that psychiatrists can’t venture a diagnosis of a public figure unless they’ve examined him and he agrees to the disclosure of his psychiatric diagnosis.  Right after Trump took office the American Psychiatric Association made the rule much more restrictive, in effect a gag order.  Take a look.

There is also a transcription of the entire presentation below the video (click the “more” tab).  It’s a quick read, here’s a pertinent section:

The rule was changed to cover not just diagnosis, but any aspect that anyone can observe from the outside, such as speech, affect and behavior. None of that could be commented on as a professional. That was a change that was made in March 2017.

It reinterpreted the rule into something that an ethical rule never has been before.

The timing of this change by the American Psychiatric Association shortly after Donald Trump’s inauguration, as well as the APA’s dependance on federal funding and pharmaceutical industry support, require consideration.

Now, news programs regularly give the Goldwater rule as a reason for not covering both mental health experts and non experts. This way, professional opinion is made the same as any opinion, the way facts are made the same as alternative facts.

Many psychiatrists call the new rule a gag order, and many distinguished APA members, including officers, resigned as result, according to an informal poll. A large majority of psychiatrists disagree with the rule and believe it should be changed.

Why is this important with a new silencing of professionals? The public may have been deprived of critical information at a critical time to be able to protect itself, since knowledge is power. Suppressing knowledge is a form of control and an essential ingredient to tyranny.

We can see this from the general silencing of whistleblowers and journalists.

Given that Mr. Trump’s probable mental incapacity and dangerousness were a near consensus among mental health professionals, it might have been important for the public to know about.

This behavior is not random and dangerous behavior is often recurrent.

Above all, the public seemed to need to hear that mental impairment is real and not just a fabrication or an insult for those who already saw the signs.

 

[1] “… A psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

Correction about Biden’s prior presidential runs

Biden did not run, as I mistakenly wrote a week or two ago, for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984, though one delegate loved him so much that a vote was cast for him at the 1984 convention.  In 1988 Biden “inadvertently” plagiarized a very fine speech by a British Labor Party politician (he wished afterwards that he’d simply added the guy’s name before passing off his quotes as his own).   He dropped out after the story broke, but got almost 1% of the delegates at the convention.

The Electable Mr. Biden’s 2008 run (from Wikipedia):

During the campaign, Biden focused on his plan to achieve political success in the Iraq War through a system of federalization. He touted his record in the Senate as the head of several congressional committees and experience in foreign policy. Despite a few notable endorsements, Biden failed to garner significant support in opinion polls, and was marred by controversial comments made while campaigning. He ultimately dropped out of the race on January 3, 2008, after coming in fifth place and capturing less than 1% of the vote in the Iowa caucus.[4]

Of course, this is not 2008.  This is Germany in the fall of 1932.   Unlike the current president, Mr.Biden has given no indication that if he could, he would become Hitler.  Biden has not openly expressed hatred of any ethnic or religious group.   He is famous for his public affability, in stark contrast to the snarling psychopath who, during a frightening pandemic, is busily tweeting about Hillary Clinton’s emails and Benghazi, and his renewed determination to finally get to the truth about the most dangerous woman in America, outside of Rosie O’Donnell.    

Of course, we could do worse than Biden (Trump).   We also deserve better (any one of several of the other Democratic candidates).  The time will come, because the scales are heavily weighted in favor of corporate interests, whose voices speak infinitely louder than everybody else’s combined, when we will have to hold our noses and vote for this seemingly pleasant chap who has also authored and supported some hateful laws and policies (Crime Bill,  Welfare Reform, War in Iraq, et al).   That time is not yet.   At the very least, Biden needs to be pushed as far as possible from his smiling cooperation with former segregationists, his draconian positions toward poor people, his generally vague policy positions, his inability to apologize for something as grotesque as his part, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in allowing Anita Hill to be publicly humiliated and her testimony dismissed.

To me, Biden’s inability to apologize for not protecting Hill during the Clarence Thomas “high tech lynching” is the single most despicable thing about this affable, smiling man whose best friend was the coolest black dude to ever inhabit the White House.   Joe’s ready to challenge critics to fist fights, as he did last week while campaigning in a factory when someone questioned his commitment to the sacred Second Amendment.  Saying to Hill “I wish there was more I could have done”– when he was chairman of the committee whose members did their best to publicly humiliate and discredit the woman who came forward to testify about her sexual harassment at the hands of the Black Klansman, merits a swift shot in the kisser.

Of course, most politicians are self-aggrandizing scumbags, many are outright psychopaths, no question.   Still.   We deserve better than this guy, though, obviously, even he is way, way better than this unredeemed sicko we have there now.  When the time comes hopefully two out of three Americans will hold their noses and click Biden, rather than the immature, churlish man who has made America so great, for the chosen few, these last few years.  If Biden wins by 15,000,000 votes, it will make a statement.   Even if Trump’s quants once again game the Electoral College, this time by a total of say 8,000 votes in three key states (as opposed to his whopping 78,000 vote Electoral College mandate in 2016).   

Remember, boys and girls, there was a very good reason the final say of who will be the president was left to the wealthiest citizens.  Left up to the majority, the right of the richest to employ slave labor might have been in trouble decades before the Civil War!

Meet 29 year-old John McEntee, Trump’s new Czar of Loyalty to Trump

I sometimes joke, when posting a story from them, that Business Insider is a Communist front.   Maybe it is [1].   Business Insider seems to be the first search hit for many important stories about the Trump administration, income inequality (they broke the Bezos makes almost $9,000,000/hour story), investigations into Trump criminality and the like.  

Check out this Business Insider piece on John McEntee.   McEntee is Trump’s former “body man” and “bag man” (I dread to consider either of those things),  He was fired, briefly (and unfairly, according to him) by  White House Chief of Staff John Kelly in 2018 for concern over financial problems including on-line gambling, tax reporting violations and for failing the background check for his security clearance.  Trump rehired him the next day for his 2020 campaign and in February named McEntee as his new director of the Presidential Personnel Office.   

McEntee is tasked with going through the hit lists of disloyal appointees compiled by, among others, Black Klansman Clarence Thomas’s right-wing superstar wife.  The new disloyalty Czar is seeking to root out not long-time “deep state” government workers who might not feel unquestioning personal loyalty to the president,  but possibly disloyal persons appointed by Trump himself. 

As a young college quarterback MCEntee produced a video showing off his eerily accurate passing ability, join 7,379,964 others and check it out.  

More about this new Czar of Loyalty, and a lot of sickening details about his current work, here in this article on Axios entitled Trump’s “Deep State” hit list.  Its author,  Jonathan Swan, was recently interviewed about this article by Terry Gross [2].    All unsurprising, but sickening and worth knowing about.

 

 

[1]  A tip-off is their spelling of “altar boy”:  alter boy.

[2] Terry plays a clip of Swan’s interview with Trump’s loyal son-in-law senior advisor Jared “Qualified because born rich, bitch” Kushner:

So here’s my guest Jonathan Swan with Jared Kushner in June of 2019.

(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, “AXIOS”)

SWAN: Do you believe the Palestinian people deserve their own independent sovereign state with a capital in East Jerusalem?

JARED KUSHNER: There’s a difference between the technocrats, and there’s a difference between the people. The technocrats are focused on very technocratic things. And when I speak to Palestinian people, what they want is they want the opportunity to live a better life. They want the opportunity to pay their mortgage. They…

SWAN: You don’t think they want their own state, free from Israeli government and military?

KUSHNER: I think that they want an – look; they’ve been promised a lot of things for a lot of years, and they’ve been lied to. I think that they’ve been misled. And I think that a lot of the things that people have held out for them have just not come through, for one way or the other. And you can blame all different types of things. But I do think that they should have self-determination. I’m going to leave the details until we come out with the actual plan. But I think that what’s most important is that they have the opportunity to better their lives, live in peace with their neighbors and have the same opportunities that Israelis have.

SWAN: Well, that’s sovereignty.

KUSHNER: Well, we’re talking about the people, not about the actual…

SWAN: Well, here’s what I want to know – how do you know what the Palestinian people want? Like, I’ve heard you say that in interviews before. I mean, you’re not exactly walking on the streets of Ramallah every day. I mean, you’re sort of representing what the Palestinian people want. I mean, how do you, frankly, know?

KUSHNER: So we’ve been talking with a lot of people privately for two years now. I’ve spoken with a lot of people from the region. I’ve spoken with a lot of people from the Israeli side, a lot of people from – who’ve been involved with this in the past, a lot of people…

SWAN: It seems mostly Gulf people. Have you really spoken to that many Palestinians?

KUSHNER: Again, Jonathan, one thing about the way I’ve conducted myself is not a lot of people know who I’ve been talking to and what I’ve been talking about, and that protects people. I mean, the Palestinian people do live under a fairly authoritative regime today, and a lot of people are afraid to step out.

SWAN: Do you understand why the Palestinians don’t trust you?

KUSHNER: Look – I’m not here to be trusted; I’m here to you…

SWAN: Well, you are, frankly. I mean, to look at it from their point of view – and you’re a businessman; you always look at things from their view. You’ve got three Orthodox Jews on the negotiating team. Two of you have, at different points, funded settlements, Jewish settlements in the West Bank. You’ve got the actions you’ve taken so far, moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. You’ve cut all aid to the Palestinians, including hospitals in East Jerusalem. And you’ve shut down the Palestinian diplomatic office in Washington. I mean, can you not see why they might not want to talk to you and that they might not trust you?

KUSHNER: All right, so there’s a difference between the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people, OK?

SWAN: And you think the Palestinian people would be OK with all of those things that you guys have done?

KUSHNER: The actions we’ve taken were because – America’s aid is not an entitlement, right? If we make certain decisions, which we’re allowed to as a sovereign nation, to respect the rights of another sovereign nation and we get criticized by that government, the response of this president is not to say, oh, let me give you more aid. So again, that was as a result of decisions taken by the Palestinian leadership. With regards to the Palestinian people, I do believe that they want to have a better life, and I do think that they’re not going to judge…

SWAN: They don’t mind the aid being cut.

Electronic Democracy

Whew.   Electronic democracy is as big an oxymoron as saying “social media” to describe sitting alone pounding at keys to interact with your “friends”.   Let us count your votes for you, on our state of the art computers, nothing to worry about.   We’ll count everything fairly, we’re all in this together, no need for paper any more.

There continue to be many irregularities at electronic polling places, with Democratic voters being turned away yesterday when their names didn’t show up on electronic data bases.  In a dramatic, made for TV incident, the mayor of Kansas City was told he wasn’t eligible to vote at the polling place where he’s cast his ballot since 2009.  He had just produced a video encouraging his fellow citizens to vote.   Then he was turned away.  Computer said you’re not eligible, man.

Representative Jim Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, urged the DNC to shut down the Sanders’ campaign, calling Biden the soon-to-be “prohibitive nominee”.   Dig it.   Clyburn, the Majority Whip, we learn, is the third most powerful Democrat in the House and the most powerful Black member.  His support of Biden played a large role in the popular gaffe machine’s Lazurus-like rise from the dead to take South Carolina, where Black voters were apparently swayed by Biden’s constant, loyal presence next to his best buddy,  our only African-American (more African than American, according to many haters) president. 

None of us can see the future, but it’s not hard to picture how well the emotional Biden will do in a debate against a brazen compulsive liar and bully who only has to refrain from openly masturbating or shitting on the debate stage in order to win.  It’s not hard to picture how well Biden will fare in a debate with Sanders.  It’s hard to picture the “prohibitive nominee” not blowing up or bursting out in tears, or both, when the bully president has him against the ropes, kicking him low,  using both knees to tenderize his kidneys and other parts, while repeatedly punching him in the face.  As the referees break for a commercial.

I watch Biden bumbling, I see Clyburn calling for an end to the Sanders campaign so Biden can focus on beating Trump like a drum, and I picture Zora Neale Hurston, looking down, shaking her head, mumbling “my people… my people…”

 

Red Baiting 101

Some tropes never go out of style.  If, for example, you in any way criticize the corrupt excesses of the largely unregulated “Free Market” and the political culture that enables them, most often you will be shouted down as a Communist, a Red, an apologist for the mass murders of Mao, Stalin, a defender of a failed ideology, an Un-American who hates our freedom.    It is an idiotically un-nuanced counter-attack to legitimate criticism of a power structure that openly favors the liberty of a few super-privileged individuals over the best interests, or even mere survival, of the vast majority of the earth’s population.   

You would think that an attack so simplistic, stupid and one-sided would simply stop working over time.  You’d be wrong to think that.   Some tropes never go out of style.   Check out Mike Bloomberg, a hideous modern-day avatar of the Eternal Jew of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example.    As despots have proved over and over, if an argument is made continually in the mass media, spoken by everyone, even some dissenters, and repeated in endless variations, the argument itself need not be particularly coherent to find itself on everyone’s lips.

The argument, for example, that Bernie Sanders could never be elected in America because he represents a vicious and failed extremist ideology that America finally defeated once and for all,  is advanced in sometimes subtle ways.

Here’s a nice one two punch from yesterday’s New York Times, often cited as the even-handed journal of record:

Screenshot_20200310-054522_NYTimes

So, we can see now, reading the thoughtful, nuanced, authoritative account in the NY Times,  that really only desperate people, America’s biggest losers, cling to the appeal of this Democratic Socialist and his promises to continue fighting for greater justice for all.   Most reasonably successful people, of course, (and it goes without saying) will have a more nuanced view of what’s really  important in the upcoming existential battle to unseat President Caligula.   They all know that “moderation” is the only way to defeat an “immoderate” presdient.   

As for Sanders’ call for paid health care as a human right for all Americans (including those hopeless desperados who are his loyal base) ?  The New York Times has that one covered too — won’t happen, forget about it, losers:

Screenshot_20200310-054544_NYTimes

 

The great Jeremy Scahill lays out, with great clarity, how Red Baiting works and how it’s being used against the Sanders campaign, here   in less than ten minutes.   Very much worth taking in.

I would weep for my country, but I’m too busy creating new dance grooves on my tenor ukulele and channeling the spirit of the martyred saint of the fucking First Amendment ,Mr. Lenny Bruce… 

American Exceptionalism

Barr.jpeg

“And as the [Mueller] [R]eport acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that [ ] President [Trump] was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with [ ] Special Counsel[] [Mueller’s] investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims…”

Attorney General William Barr, press conference before releasing heavily redacted Mueller Report.

 

A federal judge, US District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton — no doubt (if you believe in such things) a secret Communist appointed to a lifetime seat by George W. Bush (the last bit is a matter of public record, Dubya did appoint him, as his father and Reagan had previously) — stated the obvious in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ruling, that Barr presented an intentionally misleading picture of the findings of Mueller’s investigation and that his redactions were not to be trusted without verifying their legal necessity.  

Walton wrote in his March 5 ruling that Barr’s actions “cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary.”

He ruled that the unredacted Mueller report must be released to him for FOIA review because he does not believe Barr’s redactions, and ongoing refusal to turn over evidence related to the investigation, were necessarily done in good faith. 

Walton’s legal analysis begins:

The Court has grave concerns about the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller Report and its impacts on the Department’s subsequent justifications that its redactions of the Mueller Report are authorized by the FOIA. For the reasons set forth below, the Court shares the plaintiffs’ concern that the Department “dubious[ly] handl[ed] [ ] the public release of the Mueller Report.” EPIC’s Mem. at 40; see also id. (“Attorney General[] [Barr’s] attempts to spin the findings and conclusions of the [Mueller] Report have been challenged publicly by the author of the [Mueller] Report. [ ] Attorney[] General[] [Barr’s] characterization of the [Mueller] [R]eport has also been contradicted directly by the content of the [Mueller] Report.”); Leopold Pls.’ Mem. at 9 (“[T]here have been serious and specific accusations by other government officials about improprieties in the [Department’s] handling and characterization of the [Mueller] Report[.]”).

Barr’s “summary” of Mueller’s report contained legalistic gems like this, cited by Judge Walton in his decision:

“But as noted above, [ ] Special Counsel [Mueller] did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

Which leaves unexplained, of course, the many indictments and several convictions relating to this cooperation, or coordination, or collusion, between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. 

Also, unexplained by Barr, why Mueller found it necessary to open a second investigation into why he was only able to gather “insufficient evidence” of an actual “criminal conspiracy.”  He investigated, and reported on a shady pattern of actions that look very much like obstruction of justice by Trump and which kicked into high gear once Mueller was appointed to investigate the Trump-Putin connection.   Mueller explicitly did not exonerate Trump for obstruction of justice.

Judge Walton quotes Barr’s version of Mueller’s findings with respect to Trump’s impressively consistent pattern of obstruction of justice:

According to Attorney General Barr, “the [Mueller] [R]eport identifies no actions that, in [his] judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent[.]” Id., Ex. 5 (March 24, 2019 Letter) at 3. 

Judge Walton also references the lying Barr’s almost year-old claim (as further evidence of Barr’s lack of candor and credibility)

As my [March 24, 2019] letter made clear, my notification to Congress and the pubic provided, pending release of the [Mueller] [R]eport, a summary of its “principal conclusions”—that is, its bottom line. . . . Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own. I do not believe it would be in the public’s interest for me to attempt to summarize the full report or to release it in serial or piecemeal fashion.   [1]

Walton:

The speed by which Attorney General Barr released to the public the summary of Special Counsel Mueller’s principal conclusions, coupled with the fact that Attorney General Barr failed to provide a thorough representation of the findings set forth in the Mueller Report, causes the Court to question whether Attorney General Barr’s intent was to create a one-sided narrative about the Mueller Report—a narrative that is clearly in some respects substantively at odds with the redacted version of the Mueller Report.

Read the judge’s ruling HERE.

My hat is off to this man of principle who notes that the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 was passed “to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny,”

God bless America, y’all.

[1]  This shit, cited by Judge Walton, is perhaps Barr’s master turd in the Mueller investigation cover-up, this quotes one of Barr’s most infamous instances of bullshit:

[i]n assessing the President[] [Trump’s] actions discussed in the [Mueller] [R]eport, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as [p]resident, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President[] [Trump’s] personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the [Mueller] [R]eport acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that [ ] President [Trump] was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with [ ] Special Counsel[] [Mueller’s] investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, [ ] President [Trump] took no act that in fact deprived [ ] Special Counsel [Mueller] of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that [ ] President [Trump] had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.