What Barr conceals will reveal what Trump fears
By Spocko
The Barr event today is not a news conference, it's a product launch. The event is designed to conceal, not reveal. It isn't about releasing the news, it's about controlling the message. The product is a narrow, specific message.
"Trump didn't PERSONALLY talk to Putin DIRECTLY about what the Russian GOVERNMENT did BEFORE the 2016 election. Therefore, no collusion."
Other people who did bad things don't count. They are bad people that Trump barely knows, and even if he did know them, he didn't personally do the specific thing that Mueller was supposed to look at.
People like Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Stone, Poppawhatchadopulous and the rest all acted on that Russian election stuff, but Trump didn't.
Message Repeats:
Trump didn't personally talk to Putin. Directly. About The ELECTION. BACK before the election.
Message repeats: "Look at the one law that WASN'T broken!" they will cry.
Remember how the Bush White House wanted people to believe in WMDs so
Colin Powell brought out photos and fake anthrax to push the WMD lie?
They wanted people to have something to look at and fear instead of the real reason for the war. And it worked. Because lots of people wanted to believe.
Barr is using redaction to hide Trump crimes. However, if you look at what is redacted and ask WHY it was redacted we can learn what Trump fears the most.
The Good News
It's quite possible what was redacted will already exist in court or public records. The trick will be to not be BORED by what it reveals.
"Oh, well, we knew That! That's just the usual Trump lying, violating campaign finance laws and conspiring with the Pecker at the National Enquire, about affairs and hush money. Stormy Daniels and pay offs are such old news."
That was a conspiracy, not collusion with Putin, so Barr will refocus on what didn't happen to Trump.
I listened to Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow Wednesday night analyse what Barr is doing.
It's good to hear that they and their experts aren't fooled by the shenanigans of Barr and the White House, but frankly I'm sick of congress and journalists waiting around for Trump to break norms, stall, delay and set the narrative.
Could someone please get ahead of their heavy handed mob tactics and schemes and back them into some legal corners? If you know what the will do, lay a trap for them!
I asked my friend Lisa Graves from Documented a few questions about executive privilege to answer the next time she is on the Lawrence O'Donnell show. Sadly these will probably be forgotten after the crush of news, but I'll put them here just as a reminders.
Who has authority to review and CANCEL Redaction Actions?
Which House and/or Senate committee? Which courts?
What laws do the reactions come under, and who interprets what they involve?
Can we get experts lined up to talk now? AND give us a strategy to bust them?
Are the reasons for redaction set in stone or open to interpretation?
Who opposes Barr in HIS REDACTION? Who asked for what when?
We know National Security is one redaction category, but who opposes his National Security redaction? Can they UNDO reactions? How quickly?
Has Barr broken any laws with his redactions?
We know the White House overextends executive privlidge all the time. WHO rules it isn't executive privilege?
How quickly can bogus executive privilege sections be UNREDACTED? By whom?
What laws are broken if the unredacted version is released?
Who could release the unredacted version and not break laws?
Could those people release it to someone in Congress and not break laws?
Who will prosecute the person who leaked it? Under what laws? Who will defend them and pay for their defense?
Legal Leaks
Is there a "mechanical" method to release something that can be used? I'm thinking about procedural tricks and legal jujitsu methods that get the report out to CONGRESS and then the public.
Are there procedures that force people to release the report?
(Are there other tricks like someone reading it out loud in the congressional record? .)
Can we find public versions of the redacted info that the public already has seen? Especially in the court documents.
It's not breaking the law to show an unredacted source document that is already public based on earlier findings.
That would be a legal, SMART and a fast way to show how the redaction was bogus.
Right now I'm flashing the Vulcan hand sign but three of my fingers are bent by Earth Gravity.
My message to Barr and The White House is, Redact This!
