Barr says Justice Department has ‘legitimate case’ in latest Trump indictment

[Kamaji]

Ex-AG William Barr says Justice Department has ‘legitimate case’ in latest Trump indictment

By Patrick Reilly
August 2, 2023

Former Attorney General William Barr believes the Justice Department has a “legitimate case” in the latest indictment against former President Donald Trump, who is accused of spreading lies about widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.

In a Wednesday night interview on CNN, Barr, who served a stint as the nation’s chief law enforcement under Trump, also said he has grown to believe that Trump has always known that he legitimately lost his White House reelection bid.

“As a legal matter I don’t see a problem with the indictment,” Barr told “The Source” host Kaitlan Collins. “I think that it’s not an abuse  — the Department of Justice is not acting to weaponize the department by proceeding against the president for a conspiracy to subvert the electoral process.”

Trump’s attorneys have claimed that the president was exercising his first amendment rights — a defense that Barr does not think will hold in court.

*  *  *

Source:  https://nypost.com/2023/08/02/william-barr-reacts-to-latest-trump-indictment-legitimate-case/

[Free Vulcan]

The Rats have spread election conspiracies at least since Reagan, but that's ok. Sorry but this is just weaponizing the legal system to go after your political opposition.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think Barr is a sharp guy, but I think he's wrong on this.

First, it's only fair to point out that he did say this, which suggests he would have found it legally invalid if they'd have charged Trump with conspiracy to subvert the electoral process:

“I think that it’s not an abuse  — the Department of Justice is not acting to weaponize the department by proceeding against the president for a conspiracy to subvert the electoral process.

But I still think the whole "fraud" claim is bogus.  The theory of the indictment potentially criminalize any future claims of election fraud by anyone if those claims were accompanied by efforts to change the result of an election.  All it takes is to be able to convince a jury that the claims were "fraudulent".  But I think that making such statements is well-within the realm of legitimate political speech/disagreements. 

Even worse, I think the principle could be expanded to not just elections, but to any proceeding -- including legislative proceedings -- of the federal government.  After all, the proceeding with which Trump allegedly tried to interfere was a congressional proceeding.  So if trying to influence the President of the Senate to act in a certain way is criminal if the arguments you make are deemed "fraudulent", then wouldn't the same logic apply to any legislation?   Make an argument deemed "fraudulent" in an effort to influence legislation, and you could go to prison.

We can't go anywhere near that line of reasoning.  Politicians -- and others -- lie about politics.  And very often, people on both sides of an issue accuse the other side of lying -- i.e., committing fraud.  We cannot ever give prosecutors/juries the right to decide what kinds of political speech are permissible.

[bigheadfred]

I think Barr is a sharp guy, but I think he's wrong on this.

First, it's only fair to point out that he did say this, which suggests he would have found it legally invalid if they'd have charged Trump with conspiracy to subvert the electoral process:

But I still think the whole "fraud" claim is bogus.  The theory of the indictment potentially criminalize any future claims of election fraud by anyone if those claims were accompanied by efforts to change the result of an election.  All it takes is to be able to convince a jury that the claims were "fraudulent".  But I think that makes such statements is well-within the realm of legitimate political speech/disagreements. 

Even worse, I think the principle could be expanded to not just elections, but to any proceeding -- including legislative proceedings -- of the federal government.  After all, the proceeding with which Trump allegedly tried to interfere was a congressional proceeding.  So if trying to influence the President of the Senate to act in a certain way is criminal if the arguments you make are deemed "fraudulent", then wouldn't the same logic apply to any legislation?   Make an argument deemed "fraudulent" in an effort to influence legislation, and you could go to prison.

We can't go anywhere near that line of reasoning.  Politicians -- and others -- lie about politics.  And very often, people on both sides of an issue accuse the other side of lying -- i.e., committing fraud.  We cannot even give prosecutors/juries the right to decide what kinds of political speech are permissible.

Good post. Can't emphasize the bolded enough.

[Kamaji]

I think Barr is a sharp guy, but I think he's wrong on this.

First, it's only fair to point out that he did say this, which suggests he would have found it legally invalid if they'd have charged Trump with conspiracy to subvert the electoral process:

But I still think the whole "fraud" claim is bogus.  The theory of the indictment potentially criminalize any future claims of election fraud by anyone if those claims were accompanied by efforts to change the result of an election.  All it takes is to be able to convince a jury that the claims were "fraudulent".  But I think that makes such statements is well-within the realm of legitimate political speech/disagreements. 

Even worse, I think the principle could be expanded to not just elections, but to any proceeding -- including legislative proceedings -- of the federal government.  After all, the proceeding with which Trump allegedly tried to interfere was a congressional proceeding.  So if trying to influence the President of the Senate to act in a certain way is criminal if the arguments you make are deemed "fraudulent", then wouldn't the same logic apply to any legislation?   Make an argument deemed "fraudulent" in an effort to influence legislation, and you could go to prison.

We can't go anywhere near that line of reasoning.  Politicians -- and others -- lie about politics.  And very often, people on both sides of an issue accuse the other side of lying -- i.e., committing fraud.  We cannot even give prosecutors/juries the right to decide what kinds of political speech are permissible.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Fraud is act, not speech.

A Grand Jury issued the indictment, not DOJ.

Trump will get a jury trial.  It should be televised so We The People can hear the arguments and see the evidence for ourselves to make our own judgements.

Spin-meisters on both sides will attempt to skew media coverage to their favor.

[Kamaji]

Fraud is act, not speech.

A Grand Jury issued the indictment, not DOJ.

Trump will get a jury trial.  It should be televised so We The People can hear the arguments and see the evidence for ourselves to make our own judgements.

Spin-meisters on both sides will attempt to skew media coverage to their favor.

Speech can be an act.  So theoretically, one can commit fraud solely with speech.

That being said, the First Amendment should trump a legislative definition of fraud that sweeps broadly.

[sneakypete]

What else is he going to say,"This is a bogus investigation and based entirely on damaging Trump's election chances."?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Speech can be an act.  So theoretically, one can commit fraud solely with speech.

That being said, the First Amendment should trump a legislative definition of fraud that sweeps broadly.