- Dec 12, 2000
- 24,824
- 9,047
- 136
Didn’t see a thread for this yet but the hearing is underway (after a 1 hour delay due to Nadler’s car accident).
AG Barr’s opening statement:
AG Barr’s opening statement:
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Well sure but they would do that no matter what. Gym Jordan will hysterically rant about Obama spying at a McDonalds drive throughSure, 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.
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.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.
Well sure but they would do that no matter what. Gym Jordan will hysterically rant about Obama spying at a McDonalds drive through
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.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.
That would be my preference also. Unfortunately, we are less than 100 days to an election so....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.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.