Barr vs. House Judiciary Cmte.

[fskimospy]

The only way is to enforce their own rules using the mechanism they have been afforded to do so. I think it would require more than once, and that harm would be done by reinforcing partisanship if the action is not consistently applied until the behavior stops.

Yes, that’s why I think it might be best to do to a member of the majority’s party. And yes, maybe more than once.

What we can be sure of is that the executive is not going to give them their balls back, they have to be taken back.

 

[interchange]

Yes, that’s why I think it might be best to do to a member of the majority’s party. And yes, maybe more than once.

What we can be sure of is that the executive is not going to give them their balls back, they have to be taken back.

Beware the extinction burst. Must be prepared to carry it through expecting the problem to amplify when you first start to enforce it.

 

[fskimospy]

Beware the extinction burst. Must be prepared to carry it through expecting the problem to amplify when you first start to enforce it.

I personally sincerely doubt Congress will do it and I think the US is on an inevitable path of decline into what amounts to some sort of elected autocracy. (and who knows how long after that the 'elected' part holds) After all, this has been the fate of basically every other electoral system modeled after ours, in the end I doubt we will turn out to be special.

The presidency will continue to amass more powers to it and care less about what Congress does until Congress becomes a thing where we still elect people to it, it just no longer does anything meaningful.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

To me this hearing was a complete failure & waste of time.
@fskimospy had a good idea, they really should have had council ask the questions simply because the questions would have a point and been intelligently delivered, plus it prevents off topic rants & grandstanding

 

[iRONic]

We're fucked...

 

[eelw]

Funny, Nadler scolded Gohmert, Jordan and one other for putting rest of committee at risk yesterday

 

[TheVrolok]

I personally sincerely doubt Congress will do it and I think the US is on an inevitable path of decline into what amounts to some sort of elected autocracy. (and who knows how long after that the 'elected' part holds) After all, this has been the fate of basically every other electoral system modeled after ours, in the end I doubt we will turn out to be special.

The presidency will continue to amass more powers to it and care less about what Congress does until Congress becomes a thing where we still elect people to it, it just no longer does anything meaningful.

Absolutely agreed. A shame we'll likely live to see dramatic fall (in global leadership, social progress, and economic standing) of this nation.

 

[fskimospy]

Absolutely agreed. A shame we'll likely live to see dramatic fall (in global leadership, social progress, and economic standing) of this nation.

What I find funny/depressing is that what appears to have kept our system together for so long was some sort of bipartisan elite agreement about the system. When America's rulers were basically selected in smoke filled rooms and then the public got to choose between those two you ended up with moderate governance that was invested in the system. (broadly speaking)

What really screwed us was, ironically, the democratization of politics. Now anyone can run for office and people have more choice than ever before. On one hand, that's great as that's the point of democracy. On the other hand, our system is too brittle to cope with it and so it's falling apart.

I think this is why Nixon resigned in disgrace and Trump survived. In the Nixon years the country's leadership was invested in the system that fed them at least as much as their own personal/party goals so when Nixon went too far the party threw him overboard to save the system. Republicans amply proved they no longer feel the same.

 

[Grey_Beard]

Beware the extinction burst. Must be prepared to carry it through expecting the problem to amplify when you first start to enforce it.

I personally sincerely doubt Congress will do it and I think the US is on an inevitable path of decline into what amounts to some sort of elected autocracy. (and who knows how long after that the 'elected' part holds) After all, this has been the fate of basically every other electoral system modeled after ours, in the end I doubt we will turn out to be special.

The presidency will continue to amass more powers to it and care less about what Congress does until Congress becomes a thing where we still elect people to it, it just no longer does anything meaningful.

Absolutely agreed. A shame we'll likely live to see dramatic fall (in global leadership, social progress, and economic standing) of this nation.

Once the horse gets out of the gate, not only is it hard to get back in, but it’s hard to keep it in. I agree the approach must be equally administered. Until the Democrats hit a Democrat administrative official, it will not be able to get reigned back in. It must be equally done and aggressively enforced because it does need to be taken back. Until it is, any executive, regardless of party, will try and stretch it beyond any recognition of Congress’s responsibility. A three legged stool without one leg is no longer something worth keeping. Autocrats will obliterate it and then there is no way back. Thinking we will continue to elect executives who are altruistic and do not want the power the position clearly has, is a fool’s errand.

 

[pcgeek11]

I’ll re-word my question: what question did you think Barr deserved to be given more time (or any time) to answer?

All of them. Why ask a question if you are not going to allow the subject the time to answer.

Lets be totally honest here. They did not want any answers. They wanted to brow beat and make political points against Trump and his AG.

It is really that simple. I don't believe you don't see it for what it was.

 

[pcgeek11]

Barr only came to do his own version of a dog and pony show. This is political theater on all sides, something you should know. The Dems weren't going to let him simply strut and preen and deliver his BS unhindered.

Dems convened this to get their political points across. They would have been fools and political neophytes to simply let Barr give his "substantial answers" i.e, his own version of the dog and pony show, which is why he consented to come testify in the first fucking place.

I believe you DO know and understand this. I mean, Bro, do you even "politics?"

I agree with everything you said here.
Dog and pony show all around. as you said: This is political theater on all sides. But when I say it all I get is a bunch of guff about #bothsides...

 

[ivwshane]

All of them. Why ask a question if you are not going to allow the subject the time to answer.

Lets be totally honest here. They did not want any answers. They wanted to brow beat and make political points against Trump and his AG.

It is really that simple. I don't believe you don't see it for what it was.

You are protecting and it’s obvious when you can’t even state a single question Barr deserved to have more time to answer.

 

[pcgeek11]

You are protecting and it’s obvious when you can’t even state a single question Barr deserved to have more time to answer.

They wanted to have a hearing with AG Barr and he complied with their request. When he appeared before them all they wanted to do was make political points and the when he tried to answer they reclaimed their time...

It was all a farce and a waste of time on all sides. Of course you won't see this for what it was. I'm not the only one making this claim.

Did you watch it? Oh wait you already admitted you didn't.

 

[ivwshane]

They wanted to have a hearing with AG Barr and he complied with their request. When he appeared before them all they wanted to do was make political points and the when he tried to answer they reclaimed their time...

It was all a farce and a waste of time on all sides. Of course you won't see this for what it was. I'm not the only one making this claim.

Did you watch it? Oh wait you already admitted you didn't.

I’ve watched many clips of it but not the whole thing which is why I asked you a very specific question, one you apparently can’t answer.

Here is another question you can dodge; do you think barr and the republicans were there to answer/ask questions or to make political statements?

 

[pcgeek11]

I’ve watched many clips of it but not the whole thing which is why I asked you a very specific question, one you apparently can’t answer.

Here is another question you can dodge; do you think barr and the republicans were there to answer/ask questions or to make political statements?

I can and have answered your question.
You just don't like the answer I gave.

I think that Barr and the Republicans were there for the same reasons as the Democrats, to score political points in a public dog and pony show. Other than that the entire thing was a sham and a waste of time.

 

[ivwshane]

I can and have answered your question.
You just don't like the answer I gave.

I think that Barr and the Republicans were there for the same reasons as the Democrats, to score political points in a public dog and pony show. Other than that the entire thing was a sham and a waste of time.

So if they were all there for the same reason then why would the democrats give any time to Barr to spew his propaganda? Seems a little silly to complain about not giving Barr time to answer questions when you’ve stated everyone’s goal was to score political points.

If you knew this was a waste of time and everyone was looking to score political points then I don’t understand why you think Barr should have been given more time to answer pointless questions.

Can you explain that?

 

[pcgeek11]

So if they were all there for the same reason then why would the democrats give any time to Barr to spew his propaganda? Seems a little silly to complain about not giving Barr time to answer questions when you’ve stated everyone’s goal was to score political points.

If you knew this was a waste of time and everyone was looking to score political points then I don’t understand why you think Barr should have been given more time to answer pointless questions.

Can you explain that?

Because it was supposed to be a Hearing to find out the truth and facts and not the dog and pony show that it turned into.

Are you that dense?

Never mind, I know the answer to that last question.

 

[ivwshane]

Because it was supposed to be a Hearing to find out the truth and facts and not the dog and pony show that it turned into.

Are you that dense?

Never mind, I know the answer to that last question.

You aren’t really in a position to call anyone dense. Especially after you just stated that Barr’s goal was to score political points but you think democrats should have let him answer their questions, whose purpose, according to you, was also to score political points while not being able to point out a single question you think Barr deserved more time to answer.

 

[Grey_Beard]

All of them. Why ask a question if you are not going to allow the subject the time to answer.

Lets be totally honest here. They did not want any answers. They wanted to brow beat and make political points against Trump and his AG.

It is really that simple. I don't believe you don't see it for what it was.

Kind of like the Benghazi hearings. Why is not good for one but good for the other? I remember all those not allowing Clinton time to answer questions because when she did, she shredded them.

 

[Grey_Beard]

Because it was supposed to be a Hearing to find out the truth and facts and not the dog and pony show that it turned into.

Are you that dense?

Never mind, I know the answer to that last question.

What are you talking about. If the purpose is to “find out the truth,” but the person you are seeking the truth from has a political agenda, why would you allow them to spew their propaganda? In search of “the truth?” How can that happen with the political agenda to have already said was the main things all parties wanted out of this? Are you dizzy yet?

 

[hal2kilo]

What I find funny/depressing is that what appears to have kept our system together for so long was some sort of bipartisan elite agreement about the system. When America's rulers were basically selected in smoke filled rooms and then the public got to choose between those two you ended up with moderate governance that was invested in the system. (broadly speaking)

What really screwed us was, ironically, the democratization of politics. Now anyone can run for office and people have more choice than ever before. On one hand, that's great as that's the point of democracy. On the other hand, our system is too brittle to cope with it and so it's falling apart.

I think this is why Nixon resigned in disgrace and Trump survived. In the Nixon years the country's leadership was invested in the system that fed them at least as much as their own personal/party goals so when Nixon went too far the party threw him overboard to save the system. Republicans amply proved they no longer feel the same.

If you only knew how this exact thought has run through my mind over the years, and much more recently. There once was a common ground that people pushed around the edges. That no longer exists, and some of the reasons are what you have brought up.

 

[pcgeek11]

You aren’t really in a position to call anyone dense. Especially after you just stated that Barr’s goal was to score political points but you think democrats should have let him answer their questions, whose purpose, according to you, was also to score political points while not being able to point out a single question you think Barr deserved more time to answer.

Why were they asking questions if they didn't want an answer?

 

[Perknose]

Why were they asking questions if they didn't want an answer?

They didn't want his lying answers. They asked questions in an attempt to get the truth out, despite the obese dissembler in the docket.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

They didn't want his lying answers. They asked questions in an attempt to get the truth out, despite the obese dissembler in the docket.

I get you point & I get @pcgeek11 ’s question. Ideally there would be minimal ranting, grandstanding and the questions would be clear & consice.
That never happens, all these sessions end up like the typical P&N thread where it goes far off topic and nothing gets accomplished.

 

[interchange]

To an extent, I agree with @pcgeek11 with this. However, I don't have much of a problem with the questions Democrats asked. Some were not fairly constructed, but in general they were pertinent. Asking "gotcha" questions is not a problem when there is someone to be got. I have been told more than once that a lawyer is not going to ask you a question on the stand for which they don't already know the answer. While this is not quite the same, getting someone on record about some malfeasance is appropriate.

But, predictably, they weren't going to get straight answers from Barr, and the time structure of these hearings makes it impossible to do so unless the witness is trying to be cooperative. It is possible to coordinate follow up questions with others and to have a counsel with extended time to mitigate that, but it's difficult. As we've discussed, the answer is to hold people accountable to the rules and be prepared to continue doing so with the ramifications that come with it.

Back to @pcgeek11. He's right that the function therefore is merely political if they weren't prepared to do that. I don't share his anger at lawmakers and particular bothsiderism here. There is a marked difference between the legitimacy of the content pursued in a half-assed politicized fashion between the D's and the R's, and the background situation that brought the hearing is one that should not be partisan.