Below, linking and excerpting from Guardian, (with an opening image proving the second sentence of the headline). With 650 pounds of meat deplaning, the aircraft heaves a sigh.
Health risk and body shaming dimensions aside, the first sentence of the Crabgrass headline is the one that matters day-to-day, and is the one requiring judgment and reliance upon those who have been entrusted to know applicable norms.
--------------------
First Guardian, dated Sat 5 Sep 2020, "Bill Barr is acting like Trump's attack dog, not his attorney general" and aptly categorized as OPINION. By: Austin Sarat and Dennis Aftergut.
Credibility of the author pair, from the item's footer: Austin Sarat is William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College and the author of Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty. Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor who writes on national affairs,
From the opening, excerpting:
[subheadline]
In a recent interview with CNN, Barr reached a new level of naked partisanship. Here are the worst examples
Earlier this year a slew of distinguished lawyers signed an open letter to the Washington DC legal bar, asking it to investigate and discipline the US attorney general, William Barr, for possible ethical violations.
The complaint charged him with violating his oath and the constitution by, among other things, representing “the personal and political interests of Donald Trump, not the interests of the United States”. It quoted a legal ethics professor, Stephen Gillers: “We don’t have an attorney general now. We have an additional lawyer for the president.”
If Barr’s outrageous interview with CNN on Wednesday is anything to go by, the professional discipline complaint gave him too much credit.
In his interview with Wolf Blitzer, Barr acted less like America’s highest law enforcement officer and more like a campaign press aide for Donald Trump.
The distinction is extremely important. Lawyers deal in evidence and law. Campaign press spokesmen mimic their candidate’s talking points. Prosecutors are careful not to speak publicly about a criminal investigation. Campaign press aides make unfounded charges to dip into culture wars.
This is not the way an attorney general should behave. After Watergate, Edward Levi affirmed that “our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose”. The next attorney general, Griffin Bell, proclaimed the justice department “a neutral zone” beyond politics.
Barr lowered the bar even on his prior public appearances. Let’s look at five things he said.
1. Mail-in voting [listing headers only - read the original for details]
2. Foreign ballot interference
3. Voting twice
4. China, not Russia
5. Kenosha culture war
With interview quoting and commentary mixed, rather than err in excerpting, readers have the link and should seek out the item to flesh out the opinion.
The Guardian item itself links to an earlier July 2020 report by Politico, "Past D.C. Bar Association chiefs call for probe of William Barr - In a new letter, the former bar presidents allege that the attorney general has broken the association's rules," statingt:
Four former presidents of the D.C. Bar Association have signed a letter calling on the group to investigate whether Attorney General William Barr has violated its rules. The District of Columbia Bar authorizes lawyers to practice in the city and has the power to punish them for breaking its rules and to revoke their law licenses.
The complaint argues that Barr has broken Washington's ethics rules by being dishonest and violating his oath to uphold the Constitution, along with other charges. And it highlights four episodes in Barr’s time as attorney general to make the case: his characterization of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russia’s 2016 election interference, his criticism of an inspector general report on the Russia probe, his criticism of FBI officials in a TV interview, and his role in the disbursement of peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House. A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment.
“Mr. Barr’s client is the United States, and not the president,” the letter says. “Yet, Mr. Barr has consistently made decisions and taken action to serve the personal and political self-interests of President Donald Trump, rather than the interest of the United States.”
Barr’s early description of the Mueller report and his handling of protesters in Lafayette Square have long drawn pointed criticism. But his comments on the inspector general report on the FBI’s Russia probe hasn’t drawn as much attention. In an NBC News interview after the report’s release, Barr called the FBI’s basis for opening the Russia probe “very flimsy.” The letter argues that the criticism was dishonest.
“Indeed, the notion that the legitimacy of an FBI investigation’s initiation should be judged by its end, if applied broadly, could easily chill the initiation of wholly legitimate inquiries for fear of being second-guessed,” the letter adds.
The letter also argues that Barr broke the D.C. Bar’s rules when he criticized former FBI officials’ decisions regarding the Russia probe and suggested they could be prosecuted. [...]
[...] The complaint’s signatories include a host of legal ethics experts and former government lawyers. Andrea Ferster, Philip Allen Lacovara, Marna S. Tucker, and Melvin White — all former presidents of the D.C. Bar — also signed on.
Bar associations can take years to review disciplinary complaints, and their processes are kept confidential. The letter comes as Barr faces sharp criticism from leaders in the legal profession. Late last month, the president of the New York City Bar Association and chair of its task force on the rule of law sent a letter to top members of Congress calling him “unfit” for his job and raising some of the same concerns raised in this letter.
So, there is a host of people able to form and argue informed opinions about Barr being an entirely "unfit" Attorney General.
He is a disaster. As much a train wreck as Trump.
Trump has a penchant for finding mediocrity, (a criticism a biased mind might level against Ivanka. However, Jarad can be argued to be a cut above the Trump offspring, which is faint praise, but among family, he distances himself).
Barr uniquely makes his predecessor Sessions look good. Not everyone with a law degree could do that. Barr is special, that way.