monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Nonsense. Barr isn't acting in the country's interest. He is only interested in acting to protect a corrupt president. Personal loyalty preempts constitutional loyalty for him.

No he is acting as a defense attorney for Donald Trump.

Barr's prepared press conference remarks ascribed "non-corrupt motives" to President Trump's consideration of impeding Mueller's probe, on the theory that 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," even though "there was in fact no collusion."

Yet frustration and anger provide no legal excuse for impeding a lawful investigation, and Barr has acknowledged the investigation was lawful. So how does this provide Trump any excuse?

It has been catastrophic. Not in my memory has a sitting attorney general more diminished the credibility of his department on any subject. It is a kind of trope of political opposition in every administration that the attorney general--whoever he or she is--is politicizing the Justice Department and acting as a defense lawyer for the president. In this case it is true.

Barr has consistently sought to spin his department's work in a highly political fashion, and he has done so to cast the president's conduct in the most favorable possible light. Trump serially complained that Jeff Sessions didn't act to "protect" him. Matthew Whitaker never had the stature or internal clout to do so effectively. In Barr, Trump has found his man.

Ironically, the redactions on the report--the matter on which I urged giving Barr the benefit of the doubt--are the one major area where his performance has been respectable. On this matter, he laid out a time frame for the release of the report. He met it. His redactions, as best as I can tell, were not unreasonable, though they were aggressive in some specific areas. To whatever extent he went overboard, Congress has a far-less-redacted version. The public, in any event, has access to a detailed account of Mueller's conclusions. On this point, Barr did as he said he would.

Where Barr has utterly failed, by contrast, is in providing "honest leadership that insulates [the department] from the predations of the president." I confess I am surprised by this. I have never known Barr well, but I thought better of him than that.

The core of the problem is not that Barr moved, as many people worried he would, to suppress the report; it is what he has said about it. I have spent a great deal of time with the Mueller report, about which Barr's public statements are simply indefensible. The mischaracterizations began in his first letter. They got worse during his press conference the morning he released the document. And they grew worse still yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Barr did not lie in any of these statements. He did not, as some people insist, commit perjury. I haven't found a sentence he has written or said that cannot be defended as truthful on its own terms, if only in some literal sense. But it is possible to mislead without lying. One can be dishonest before Congress without perjury. And one can convey sweeping untruths without substantial factual misstatement. This is what Barr has been doing since that first letter. And it is utterly beneath the United States Department of Justice.

The dishonesty only begins with the laughably selective quotation of Mueller's report in Barr's original letter, the scope of which Charlie Savage laid out in a remarkable New York Times article shortly after the full report was released. I urge people to look at Savage's side-by-side quotations. The distortion of Mueller's meaning across a range of areas is not subtle, and it's not hard to understand why Mueller himself wrote to Barr saying that the attorney general's letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions.

Shameless. Some members of Congress are acting as the mouthpiece for the theocratic dictatorship of Saudi-Arabia—literally reading off a script—as the Saudis spend millions to lock up American support for their genocidal war in Yemen & push for war w/ Iran

The Constitution says that his job is to serve the President. By helping our President do his job, he is serving the country's interest.

This is a good example of why Tulsi has some progressive credibility.

In my view there's no perfect system for representative democracy. The two-party system is here to stay, I would think, and rather than fantacize about getting rid of it (not saying that's what you're doing but a lot of people bitch about it) it would be more productive to try and make it work more for the people and less for the lobbies.

Sure. And McCain blew it by choosing Palin. Gore didn't know whether to run as Clinton's third term or try to be "his own man" -- he ended up choosing the latter and it may have been a mistake. We can all point to mistakes made by sub-optimal candidates.

I have never reported on you for your many, many personal attacks on myself and on others.
But the frequency and severity of this sort of post from you is increasing. I'm going to ask you to knock it off.

You went there.. Ok,

The Constitution grants the president the following exclusive powers: (1) he is commander in chief of the armed forces; (2) he can require "heads of departments" to give him their opinions in writing; (3) he receives ambassadors, and; (4) he grants pardons for federal offenses. In addition, he shares with the Senate the treaty power and the appointment authority ("advise and consent"), and can make "recess appointments" if Congress is not in session. He can veto a bill, subject to override by 2/3 of both Houses. He can convene Congress on "extraordinary occasions," but ordinarily may not force it to adjourn. He is required to send a state of the union message "from time to time," and he shall "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
I don't see anywhere the Attorney General serves the President.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-3-the-unitary-executive-is-a-dictator-in-war-and-peace/239627/