• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News Should a Special Procecutor be appointed to investigate AG Barr for perjury?

Should a Special Prosecutor be appointed to investigate Willian Barr for perjury?

  • Total voters
    24
Weird that somebody who tried to cover up evidence and get people off with pardons during Iran-Contra might have severe ethical problems in the exercise of his office.

Oh wait that's why he was hired.
 
Pretty damn obvious why Trump picked Barr to represent him (as has been oft repeated) "as his personal attorney".

In this regard Barr needs to be held accountable for his "suspicious behavior" that gave Trump cover in such a specious way, up to and including calling for him to resign and disbarring him.

He deserves no less.
 
DarthKyrie said:
You should know better Jhhnn, glenn1 will take Trump and Barr over the rule of law.
Click to expand...


Most of Trump's supporters are trapped in a lose/lose situation that Trump put them in, including every Repub legislator up on the hill who must side with Trump or get primaried out of office. They are compelled to support him out of loyalty to party and in fear of being branded as traitors. On the flip side of this lose/lose deal is Trump's mouth and twitter fingers. He constantly forces his followers to support every stupid, racist Putin endorsing thing that comes out of his mouth, and that's not including the daily/hourly blatant lies they have to defend as facts or dream up some half-assed walk back and excuse they can force themselves to conjure out of thin air the moment after Trump farts them out.
 
No investigation necessary, we just ask Barr to decide if he lied or not. Apply the same standards he did to the Mueller report. /s
 
glenn1 said:
So you want to investigate Barr with a special prosecutor when the SP reports to the AG, the same guy you want to investigate? That sounds like a great use of taxpayer resources.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.8
Click to expand...

Yes, there is no point because Barr will not appoint one and if he did he would interfere with the investigation.

If nothing else this is a good lesson as to why the special counsel laws must be changed back as it is abundantly obvious that we can’t assume the executive branch will not be openly corrupt. Kind of amusing and sad that a Republican President was enormously corrupt, thus prompting the creation of the special counsel statute. Then a Republican special counsel massively abused the power of that statute, causing it to be scaled back, which then enabled a new enormously corrupt Republican to run wild again.

Starr being asked to investigate a land deal and ending up taking depositions about whether or not the President slept with an intern was stupid and wrong but it’s better than having it so that the executive branch is basically immune from investigation.
 
I can’t believe I’m saying this but we should be very glad Trump appointed Jeff Sessions AG, as he had at least a modicum of integrity and sense of duty to the country.

Had Barr been AG from the outset there would have been no special counsel and there may never have been even the halfway accounting for all the criminal activity the president is currently engaged in. No Michael Cohen campaign finance felonies, no James Comey obstruction of justice felonies, no Paul Manafort everything felonies, none of it. That should scare everyone here. That’s how close he was to getting away with it entirely.
 
HomerJS said:
Nah, I would just rather Barr be above the law and get away with perjury /s
Click to expand...

I didn't write the special counsel law or dictate who the SC reports to so hurling invective at me because I pointed that out hardly advances your argument. I'm not celebrating the current arrangement, just pointing out things as they actually exist and why that means "appointing a SC to investigate Barr" is a dumb idea. He would be not approve the appointment of one, and even if he did then when the findings came in Barr would simply ignore them.

fskimospy said:
Yes, there is no point because Barr will not appoint one and if he did he would interfere with the investigation.

If nothing else this is a good lesson as to why the special counsel laws must be changed back as it is abundantly obvious that we can’t assume the executive branch will not be openly corrupt. Kind of amusing and sad that a Republican President was enormously corrupt, thus prompting the creation of the special counsel statute. Then a Republican special counsel massively abused the power of that statute, causing it to be scaled back, which then enabled a new enormously corrupt Republican to run wild again.

Starr being asked to investigate a land deal and ending up taking depositions about whether or not the President slept with an intern was stupid and wrong but it’s better than having it so that the executive branch is basically immune from investigation.
Click to expand...

I don't know if "changed back" is the answer either although it's abundantly clear there's problems with the current law. I've heard ideas floated that seem like they'd work, such as have the special prosecutor report to SCOTUS. Ultimately the solution which would probably work best would also be the hardest to implement - make the inspector general/oversight functions of the government into a 4th branch of government that is charged with finding and prosecuting abuses by the other 3 branches and have the special counsel report to them. That would require a constitutional amendment but it's the best solution. I'm not in the weeds of DC politics to know if there's a politically plausible method of changing the law that's an improvement over status quo and as you pointed out the previous way wasn't exactly amazing either.
 
glenn1 said:
I didn't write the special counsel law or dictate who the SC reports to so hurling invective at me because I pointed that out hardly advances your argument. I'm not celebrating the current arrangement, just pointing out things as they actually exist and why that means "appointing a SC to investigate Barr" is a dumb idea. He would be not approve the appointment of one, and even if he did then when the findings came in Barr would simply ignore them.



I don't know if "changed back" is the answer either although it's abundantly clear there's problems with the current law. I've heard ideas floated that seem like they'd work, such as have the special prosecutor report to SCOTUS. Ultimately the solution which would probably work best would also be the hardest to implement - make the inspector general/oversight functions of the government into a 4th branch of government that is charged with finding and prosecuting abuses by the other 3 branches and have the special counsel report to them. That would require a constitutional amendment but it's the best solution. I'm not in the weeds of DC politics to know if there's a politically plausible method of changing the law that's an improvement over status quo and as you pointed out the previous way wasn't exactly amazing either.
Click to expand...

If we clean house in the White House and Senate in 2020 a CA IMO is doable. Dems have a higher sense of political morality and decorum. GOP will go for it if Dems have control of Congress and WH over concerns Dems would act like them.

Electing members of the oversight branch would have to be randomized in some fashion. Selecting them like the Supreme Court puts us right back in the same mess. We also damn sure don't want them elected. How about a citizens branch? Members selected like a jury and you serve for a period of time.
 
HomerJS said:
If we clean house in the White House and Senate in 2020 a CA IMO is doable. Dems have a higher sense of political morality and decorum. GOP will go for it if Dems have control of Congress and WH over concerns Dems would act like them.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what curbs on presidential power the GOP suddenly becomes interested in They day after Trump leaves office.

I’m not even sure how much a 4th branch would help though as the question as always would be how you determine who is staffed in it. Eventually that’s going to come down to a political question where the people of this new branch will either be elected, solving nothing, or appointed, which is what SCOTUS already is.

Probably best to go with glenn’s first idea of some sort of judicial branch special counsel although I have no idea how that would work.
 
soulcougher73 said:
I was thinking it sounds like a conflict of interests or authoritarian power myself.
Click to expand...

The original statute was written when the norm for the Attorney General was they viewed themselves as a quasi-independent part of the executive branch where they would enact the president’s policies but also independently enforce the law, even if that meant against other parts of the executive. It is very clear that Barr does not share this understanding so basically all ethics laws no longer function for executive branch political appointees.

Remember, the current legal position of the executive branch is that it is unconstitutional for Congress to investigate whether the executive branch leader the law as that’s a law enforcement function. The only people allowed to investigate if the executive branch broke the law is...the executive branch and they do so at their own discretion. So in effect the executive can commit unlimited crimes without consequences.
 
fskimospy said:
It will be interesting to see what curbs on presidential power the GOP suddenly becomes interested in They day after Trump leaves office.

I’m not even sure how much a 4th branch would help though as the question as always would be how you determine who is staffed in it. Eventually that’s going to come down to a political question where the people of this new branch will either be elected, solving nothing, or appointed, which is what SCOTUS already is.

Probably best to go with glenn’s first idea of some sort of judicial branch special counsel although I have no idea how that would work.
Click to expand...

Make it a two-fer and implement the "18 year term limit" on SCOTUS judges while you're at it. Each POTUS gets to nominate a SC justice every 2 years for an 18-year "active" term. At the end of those 18 years the justice goes into "reserve" status and can sit on cases where one of the "active" justices recused themselves. Also let the "reserve" SCOTUS justices serve as the Special Counsels as well on an "as needed" basis. Minimizes the partisanship, solves the "who does the SC report to" issue, and should have the trust of the American people to "do the right thing."
 
fskimospy said:
It will be interesting to see what curbs on presidential power the GOP suddenly becomes interested in They day after Trump leaves office.

I’m not even sure how much a 4th branch would help though as the question as always would be how you determine who is staffed in it. Eventually that’s going to come down to a political question where the people of this new branch will either be elected, solving nothing, or appointed, which is what SCOTUS already is.

Probably best to go with glenn’s first idea of some sort of judicial branch special counsel although I have no idea how that would work.
Click to expand...
It would random selection of citizens. They would serve like a jury. No political affiliation asked
 
fskimospy said:
The original statute was written when the norm for the Attorney General was they viewed themselves as a quasi-independent part of the executive branch where they would enact the president’s policies but also independently enforce the law, even if that meant against other parts of the executive. It is very clear that Barr does not share this understanding so basically all ethics laws no longer function for executive branch political appointees.

Remember, the current legal position of the executive branch is that it is unconstitutional for Congress to investigate whether the executive branch leader the law as that’s a law enforcement function. The only people allowed to investigate if the executive branch broke the law is...the executive branch and they do so at their own discretion. So in effect the executive can commit unlimited crimes without consequences.
Click to expand...

But you are not supposed to become King just because some watery tart lobs a scimitar at you....
 
If the question was should he be prosecuted for perjury, I would have answered yes. No need to waste time and resources with investigations, we already know he did it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top