Barr vs. House Judiciary Cmte.

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,076
4,023
126
Gym Jordan opens his statement with "SPYING!" Down the rabbit hole we go...
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,076
4,023
126
I’m counting like 8 solid minutes of violent protest footage from Jordan’s statement, following prominent media personalities (and Obama) saying the words “peaceful protests”.

GOP is turning this hearing into a full on propaganda campaign for Trump’s re-election. Not a bad strategy. I don’t have the greatest faith in Nadler to counter this.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,076
4,023
126
And there’s the rub. AG Barr will not discuss whether he’s discussed the deployment of federal shock troops in connection with the President’s re-election campaign.
 

Grey_Beard

Senior member
Sep 23, 2014
521
438
136
This guy from LA is serving him softballs. His response was some fake outrage on how great of a job he is doing in “The Rule of Law!” What a fake.
 

Grey_Beard

Senior member
Sep 23, 2014
521
438
136
And there’s the rub. AG Barr will not discuss whether he’s discussed the deployment of federal shock troops in connection with the President’s re-election campaign.
Because he is doing it to get this freak re-elected.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,443
16,192
136
Outside of their own weakness for grandstanding I don’t understand why the House Democrats don’t just have their counsel question the witnesses. When they have done this in the past the witnesses were torn apart. Remember when Lewandowski said he didn’t feel any need to tell the truth to people? That was counsel.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
6,918
1,720
136
And there’s the rub. AG Barr will not discuss whether he’s discussed the deployment of federal shock troops in connection with the President’s re-election campaign.
I'm not able to watch? Was this literally a question he was asked which he refused to answer under oath? Under what grounds? That refusal would be something which needs to be pursued to the maximum including deployment of the sargeant at arms. The only way out of answering should be the 5th amendment which would be staggering.

On another note, here's my summary of Barr's opening statement:
1. The highest priority of the DOJ is fair, non-partisan application of the law
Also, Democrats are evil witches who completely made up a bogus Russiagate scandal
2. The President should not direct the AG on who to prosecute
Also, all those times Trump did that and I followed his orders it was only because he wanted to be sure I was doing my job and not telling me what to do
3. Given the history of American racism, black people have every justification to protest police injustices against
Also, the whole black lives matter thing is based on a false premise that black people face police injustices
4. Black people I know have told me their experiences which have affirmed to me that black people face police injustices
Also, we can't hold bad cops accountable because it's a complicated systemic issue with deeper root causes influencing whether someone will act inappropriately. We should address those root causes to find a solution to this problem which totally doesn't exist by the way
5. The real problem is that black people are a bunch of violent killers so we need to give police a whole bunch more resources to put those thugs in jail
Also, this isn't a complicated systematic issue with deeper root causes influencing whether someone will act inappropriately. That's a totally dumb thing to consider. Everyone knows if you just lock all the thugs up black people will all be peaceful. Or all of them will be in jail. Who cares, problem solved amirite?
6. Protesters have done bad things and therefore we'll do whatever it takes to stop them
Also, as long as I can find legal justification for some of the actions by federal officers, I totally don't have to acknowledge any of the illegal, violent, and/or unprovoked actions of the federal officers. Because reasons which I must have. Don't ask me what they are. This whole paragraph was missing from my statement altogether. No that's not a problem. Haven't you seen what those thugs are doing??!?!!!?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,443
16,192
136
I hope someone asks Barr if he has intervened in the prosecutorial decisions of any individuals other than associates of the president. Like, even a single one.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,076
4,023
126
Outside of their own weakness for grandstanding I don’t understand why the House Democrats don’t just have their counsel question the witnesses. When they have done this in the past the witnesses were torn apart. Remember when Lewandowski said he didn’t feel any need to tell the truth to people? That was counsel.
Agreed. I turned it off as this hearing is nothing more than political grandstanding from “BothSides”. Yes, I agree that AG Barr has abused his power and should be held accountable for his actions. But I’d rather see him disbarred vs. impeached. I don’t know what purpose impeaching Barr would have at this point.

I think this Committee would have better served it’s purpose if they had just laser focused in on a single issue—namely DOJ’s Operation Legend and whether it is tied to Trump’s re-election campaign, and ensuring that DOJ does not interfere in the upcoming election or disenfranchise any voters.

Instead, we’re getting an airing of grievances over the past year and a half with Barr as AG. The Lincoln Project, for all their faults, can do a better job of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HurleyBird

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,443
16,192
136
Agreed. I turned it off as this hearing is nothing more than political grandstanding from “BothSides”. Yes, I agree that AG Barr has abused his power and should be held accountable for his actions. But I’d rather see him disbarred vs. impeached. I don’t know what purpose impeaching Barr would have at this point.

I think this Committee would have better served it’s purpose if they had just laser focused in on a single issue—namely DOJ’s Operation Legend and whether it is tied to Trump’s re-election campaign, and ensuring that DOJ does not interfere in the upcoming election or disenfranchise any voters.

Instead, we’re getting an airing of grievances over the past year and a half with Barr as AG. The Lincoln Project, for all their faults, can do a better job of this.
I disagree, I think they should focus on Barr’s corruption and undermining of the rule of law to get associates of the president off.

A bunch of very simple questions would be very illuminating:

1) Have you intervened in prosecutorial decisions involving anyone other than the president’s associates?

2) If not, what objective legal or public policy interest caused you to intervene in these cases, and these alone?

3) You say they were prosecuted unfairly. If so, what department policies or guidelines did the conduct of the prosecutors violate?

Things of this sort.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,076
4,023
126
I disagree, I think they should focus on Barr’s corruption and undermining of the rule of law to get associates of the president off.

A bunch of very simple questions would be very illuminating:

1) Have you intervened in prosecutorial decisions involving anyone other than the president’s associates?

2) If not, what objective legal or public policy interest caused you to intervene in these cases, and these alone?

3) You say they were prosecuted unfairly. If so, what department policies or guidelines did the conduct of the prosecutors violate?

Things of this sort.
Sure, that would still be better than what we’re getting. Instead, Republicans will eventually spin this hearing as Dems defending violent protesters and blaming Barr for systemic racism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soundforbjt

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,443
16,192
136
Sure, that would still be better than what we’re getting. Instead, Republicans will eventually spin this hearing as Dems defending violent protesters and blaming Barr for systemic racism.
Well sure but they would do that no matter what. Gym Jordan will hysterically rant about Obama spying at a McDonalds drive through
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
13,769
2,722
126
I disagree, I think they should focus on Barr’s corruption and undermining of the rule of law to get associates of the president off.

A bunch of very simple questions would be very illuminating:

1) Have you intervened in prosecutorial decisions involving anyone other than the president’s associates?

2) If not, what objective legal or public policy interest caused you to intervene in these cases, and these alone?

3) You say they were prosecuted unfairly. If so, what department policies or guidelines did the conduct of the prosecutors violate?

Things of this sort.
Rep. Steve Cohen asked those questions quite directly, but he used up all his time and really got no response. Too much grandstanding going of on both sides. Lots of noise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burpo

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
13,769
2,722
126
Another reason to have counsel do it, and give them all the time. The few minutes each member gets is not sufficient for rigorous questions.
That would be my preference also. Unfortunately, we are less than 100 days to an election so....
 
  • Like
Reactions: HurleyBird

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
13,769
2,722
126
Oh the horror, not the spread of this loosely defined sort of Antifa like associated threat. We can't let this horror happen.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
12,708
2,168
126
Another reason to have counsel do it, and give them all the time. The few minutes each member gets is not sufficient for rigorous questions.
Sure counsel would do a better job of asking questions, but they would do a much worse job of getting those sweet, sweet sound bites to pair with the photo of the Senator looking all officious.
 

Grey_Beard

Senior member
Sep 23, 2014
521
438
136
He is talking about the Lafayette Square. It is irritating me more now, as he like the protesters were doing unruly things. WTF, Invading the beach and General McCarthy?
 

purbeast0

Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
49,378
2,352
126
Can someone explain to me why Barr keeps referring to Obama? Like what the hell does that have to do with anything?

Also I have no clue what this hearing is about but it's engaging television to watch that fatass squirm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jman19

ASK THE COMMUNITY