Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
squistion

AG William Barr Thread

Recommended Posts

Just now, jonessed said:

I think Trump’s administrative team handed over a lot of internal communication documents.  I imagine anything gleaned directly from that will be redacted.

Eh classified stuff I see, ‘confidential’ or privilege claims probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Eh classified stuff I see, ‘confidential’ or privilege claims probably not.

:shrug:

I don’t know where they will draw the line on executive privilege, but I expect to see redactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jonessed said:

:shrug:

I don’t know where they will draw the line on executive privilege, but I expect to see redactions.

Probably the same place it was drawn for Nixon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth Warren‏ @SenWarren 2m2 minutes ago

William Barr has already expressed his bias against the Mueller investigation – that alone should disqualify him from serving as Attorney General. He also wants to gut the ACA, thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned, & has a troubling record on criminal justice. I'll vote no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonessed said:

Portions will most definitely be redacted.

Well sure. They were the Nixon tapes. But evidence of Trump’s innocence or guilt in terms of collusion with Russia/obstruction of justice is going to be revealed, one way or the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amy Klobuchar: Are you going to jail reporters for doing their job?

William Barr: Ummm (very pregnant pause)....I'm sure there will be a scenario....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, squistion said:

Elizabeth Warren‏ @SenWarren 2m2 minutes ago

William Barr has already expressed his bias against the Mueller investigation – that alone should disqualify him from serving as Attorney General. He also wants to gut the ACA, thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned, & has a troubling record on criminal justice. I'll vote no.

The last 3 items basically make him a conservative. And that’s my problem with people like Warren- they always reject ANYONE on the other side. (that doesn’t disqualify her for higher office necessarily, but it does make her partisan.) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Murray‏Verified account @mmurraypolitics 14m14 minutes ago

Klobuchar asks Barr what message he would sent to DOJ workers who have been furloughed or who aren't getting paid due to the shutdown.

Barr's answer: "I would like to see a deal reached whereby Congress recognizes that it's imperative to have border security."

 

If I were a DOJ worker I would not like that answer.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The last 3 items basically make him a conservative. And that’s my problem with people like Warren- they always reject ANYONE on the other side. (that doesn’t disqualify her for higher office necessarily, but it does make her partisan.) 

Yes. Her first sentence was good.  Her second sentence is the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, squistion said:

Mark Murray‏Verified account @mmurraypolitics 14m14 minutes ago

Klobuchar asks Barr what message he would sent to DOJ workers who have been furloughed or who aren't getting paid due to the shutdown.

Barr's answer: "I would like to see a deal reached whereby Congress recognizes that it's imperative to have border security."

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 1m1 minute ago

Amy Klobuchar asks if the Justice Department will jail journalists for doing their jobs.

William Barr doesn't directly answer, but says: "I can conceive of situations where, as a last resort ... there could be a situation where someone could be held in contempt."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1085236467641843712

Klobuchar asks if a president deliberately impairing the integrity of evidence would be obstruction.

Barr: Yes.

Then: What if a prez told witness not to cooperate? What if a prez wrote a misleading statement to conceal a meeting's purpose?

Barr: "I'd have to know the specifics."

 

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, he seems to be steadfast in the opinion of letting Mueller finish the investigation. That's good enough for me. We're going to get crap and more crap with every Trump appointee, at least this one believes in letting Mueller finish. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 1m1 minute ago

Amy Klobuchar asks if the Justice Department will jail journalists for doing their jobs.

William Barr doesn't directly answer, but says: "I can conceive of situations where, as a last resort ... there could be a situation where someone could be held in contempt."

 

In fairness to Barr - that's kind of a loaded, open-ended question. What does that mean, "jail journalists for doing their jobs?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

The last 3 items basically make him a conservative. And that’s my problem with people like Warren- they always reject ANYONE on the other side. (that doesn’t disqualify her for higher office necessarily, but it does make her partisan.) 

 

I don't fully agree. Sure its partisan - but if she think he's going to do harm to the country (which, if he still has his criminal justice beliefs he had in the 90s, he almost certainly will), then she should vote against him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1085257047304740864

Sen. Booker is up. To Barr: "You literally wrote the book for mass incarceration."

"When you have violent gangs ... you can take out a gang on drug offenses," Barr says, because it's easier to prosecute than finding the elements of other crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Schiff‏ @RepAdamSchiff 24h24 hours ago

Under Barr’s reading of the law, an obstruction case Mueller may be pursuing is “asinine.” He says results of Mueller’s report should be made public but nothing about its contents. And he has a view of presidential power that renders all of his promises moot.

Senate must vote no

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1084899227409494016

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

In fairness to Barr - that's kind of a loaded, open-ended question. What does that mean, "jail journalists for doing their jobs?"

Yeah that was a terrible question. There's no way to answer that question - especially if the answerer is a lawyer. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, squistion said:

Adam Schiff‏ @RepAdamSchiff 24h24 hours ago

Under Barr’s reading of the law, an obstruction case Mueller may be pursuing is “asinine.” He says results of Mueller’s report should be made public but nothing about its contents. And he has a view of presidential power that renders all of his promises moot.

Senate must vote no

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1084899227409494016

Eh I guess this didn’t go well today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, squistion said:

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 1m1 minute ago

Amy Klobuchar asks if the Justice Department will jail journalists for doing their jobs.

William Barr doesn't directly answer, but says: "I can conceive of situations where, as a last resort ... there could be a situation where someone could be held in contempt."

FWIW that was what happened to Judith Miller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Eh I guess this didn’t go well today.

I listened to about an hour of it (the introductory portion) and it wasn't that bad.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Eh I guess this didn’t go well today.

I listened to a few hours today & most of the questions were closed ended. No major missteps IMO. He’s an archaic dinosaur who thinks “weed and seed” was a success.

Dems don’t have the votes, ghis is a done deal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

I listened to a few hours today & most of the questions were closed ended. No major missteps IMO. He’s an archaic dinosaur who thinks “weed and seed” was a success.

Dems don’t have the votes, ghis is a done deal.

Yeah, I don't know if this is the battle worth going all out for.  I thought Feinstein did a good job locking him into some initial statements about Mueller and keeping the investigation open. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

Adam Schiff‏ @RepAdamSchiff 24h24 hours ago

Under Barr’s reading of the law, an obstruction case Mueller may be pursuing is “asinine.” He says results of Mueller’s report should be made public but nothing about its contents. And he has a view of presidential power that renders all of his promises moot.

Senate must vote no

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1084899227409494016

I'm not sure what the voting requirements are. 60 votes or just a majority?  Is this just another waste of time like the Kavanaugh confirmation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

I'm not sure what the voting requirements are. 60 votes or just a majority?  Is this just another waste of time like the Kavanaugh confirmation? 

Yes, all Barr needs is a simple majority of votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, squistion said:

Yes, all Barr needs is a simple majority of votes.

Why even bother with this.  Bottom line is, Trump picked a guy that he felt could offer him protection and the way the system is set up, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Not when you factor in the entire crop of Republican Senators want to protect him also.   Why even bother pushing back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Zow said:

Yeah, I don't know if this is the battle worth going all out for.  I thought Feinstein did a good job locking him into some initial statements about Mueller and keeping the investigation open. 

He’ll respect the process. That doesn’t mean we’ll ever see the unfiltered report.

Somewhere between Executive Summary & full report would be my guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:(

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1085310721779552256

Harris asks Barr if Trump violated the Presidential Records Act when he reportedly took his interpreter's notes from his Putin meeting.

Barr: I'm not familiar with that Act. At some time I was, but I really don't know what it says.

Harris: You don't know what it says?

Barr: No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be familiar with it...but now that it’s very relevant, I totally forgot..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

:(

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1085310721779552256

Harris asks Barr if Trump violated the Presidential Records Act when he reportedly took his interpreter's notes from his Putin meeting.

Barr: I'm not familiar with that Act. At some time I was, but I really don't know what it says.

Harris: You don't know what it says?

Barr: No.

This guy's amazing.

***

Q: Do you support this law?

Yes.

Q: Do you support this law as it applies to Trump?

I'll have to look at the facts.

Q: Do you support this law and here's the fact the pattern?

I don't know, I don't know anything about the law.

***

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1085347764723245056

Original e-mail in twitter link

 

Natasha Bertrand‏Verified account @NatashaBertrand

Natasha Bertrand Retweeted Peter Baker

Wow. Barr in November 2017: “I have long believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called ‘collusion.’”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walter Shaub is the former director of the United States Office of Government Ethics; he resigned in Trump's first year, exasperated the new PotUS and his associates ignored all his recommendations. He is now the Senior Director of Ethics for the D.C. based watchdog group, the Campaign Legal Center. .

(tweets listed oldest to newest)

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 23h

Sen. Graham opened questioning in Barr’s confirmation hearing by doubling down on attacks on those who would hold POTUS accountable, asking Barr to look into & report back on any agents who may have opened a counter intelligence investigation into whether POTUS is helping Russia.

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 22h

Walter Shaub Retweeted Amy Klobuchar

True — and even without this possibility of turning a profit, it comes down to what value one places on protecting national security and holding the president accountable to the rule of law. The Mueller investigation would be a bargain at twice the price.

Walter Shaub added,

Amy KlobucharVerified account @amyklobuchar

In Barr hearing, Sen. Grassley just attacked Mueller investigation for costs. He forgot to say that Mueller could actually turn profit for taxpayers based on fines & property from wealthy criminals: Mueller probe could turn a profit, thanks to Manafort https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/mueller-probe-could-turn-a-profit-thanks-to-manafort-assets.html …

 

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 22h

(For lawyers out there, I note that a literal reading of the language of 2635.502(c) might suggest it applies only when a person with whom he has a “covered relationship” is a party, but OGE has interpreted that paragraph to apply to the catchall provision at 2635.502(a)(2).) /2

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 22h

Barr is wrong in saying he could ignore ethics officials. 5 CFR 2635.502(c) says that, if he consults ethics officials and they say he must recuse, he is “disqualified from participation in the matter” and, under 2635.502(e), he “shall not participate.” /1

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 22h

In case it needs to be emphasized, this is an incredible departure from governmental norms!

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 22h

Sen. Leahy asks if Barr will seek AND FOLLOW the guidance of career ethics officials. Barr says he’ll seek their guidance, then make up his own mind. That’s what Whitaker did when he chose to ignore the career ethics officials. The Trump administration’s war on ethics continues!!

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 21h

Walter Shaub Retweeted CNN Opinion

Barr has said several times that he will not interfere with the Russia investigation. What he has avoided saying in his carefully worded responses is that he will not shut down ancillary lines of investigation. He must recuse from the investigation.

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 20h

Barr dodged Senator Coons’ question as to whether Mueller would have “carte blanche” to take the investigation wherever it goes. His carefully worded response that he would follow the regulations suggests that he would feel free to overrule Mueller’s investigative decisions.

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 20h

Will someone on the committee please ask Barr if he feels it would be appropriate for him to make decisions regarding the scope of the Mueller investigation?

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 19h

POTUS fired Sessions for refusing to stop the Mueller investigation. Now his nominee to replace Sessions suggests he would be free to shape the scope of the investigation. If Barr won’t recuse, the Senate should reject him. This is a subtle, slow motion Saturday Night Massacre.

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 19h

Barr just refused to give @SenBlumenthal a straight answer as to whether he will let Mueller and the U.S. Attorneys define the scope of their investigations. He says that he will follow the rules but that he will not “surrender” his authority to oversee their work!

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 19h

 

Sen. Hirono just called Barr to task for his refusal to commit to following guidance of career ethics officials. Thank you @maziehirono for standing up for the ethics program. By the way, he’s wrong about the ethics rules. 5 CFR 2635.502(c) requires him to follow their guidance.

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 19

Barr says he expects Mueller’s report to be limited to discussing decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute. He adds that he’ll only release his own report on that report. The president is picking his own investigator and he is picking one who seems well equipped to protect him.

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 19h

A PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT PICK HIS INVESTIGATOR

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 18h

Barr is asked again by @SenKamalaHarris about his failure to commit to following ethics officials’ guidance. He says he’ll substitute his own judgment for theirs when he disagrees with them. Barr fails to appreciate that he cannot be as objective about himself as they can be.

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 17h

Without a recusal commitment, Barr’s confirmation will unequivocally establish a precedent that future presidents can fire law enforcement officials for investigating them and pick replacements, even if the replacements have expressed doubts about the scope of investigation. /1

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 17h

Imagine if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election and fired the FBI Director and AG for investigating her. We wouldn’t be watching a confirmation hearing. We’d be watching an impeachment hearing right now — oh, and today would be May 10, 2017, the day after Comey’s firing. /2

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 16h

 

Listening to the destruction of government ethics during the Barr hearing, in the background today while doing other work, has been too depressing. I’m done tweeting for the day.

Walter Shaub‏Verified account @waltshaub 2h

The normalizing of the Barr hearing is a shameful failure of the media. POTUS fired the AG for refusing to end an investigation of him, and his replacement nominee won’t recuse from it. Whatever you think of Barr, why isn’t this being covered as the dangerous precedent it is?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, timschochet said:

The last 3 items basically make him a conservative. And that’s my problem with people like Warren- they always reject ANYONE on the other side. (that doesn’t disqualify her for higher office necessarily, but it does make her partisan.) 

Isn't the justice department supposed to be a non partisan undertaking? Just calling balls and strikes? Not pushing an agenda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

Guess that explains why Trump nominated him.

Nominated because he was previously confirmed on a, what, 96-0 vote?   Same guy as last time and I'm sure a lot of the same Senators.

 

8 hours ago, Jackstraw said:

Isn't the justice department supposed to be a non partisan undertaking? Just calling balls and strikes? Not pushing an agenda. 

After Jarrett and Holder literally any warm body is an improvement in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sand said:

Nominated because he was previously confirmed on a, what, 96-0 vote?   Same guy as last time and I'm sure a lot of the same Senators.

Looks like just 4

McConnell, Grassley, Leahy, and Shelby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sand said:

Nominated because he was previously confirmed on a, what, 96-0 vote?   Same guy as last time and I'm sure a lot of the same Senators.

 

After Jarrett and Holder literally any warm body is an improvement in this area.

Why do you assume Barr hasn’t changed in 30 years?  Look at what’s happened to Giuliani for example.  Maybe Barr used to be reasonable but isn’t anymore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

I guess they all look alike, huh?

HINT:  One of those two was never Attorney General, or in the Justice Department at all, for that matter.  

Wow, dude, and you wonder why this is such an echo chamber.   Turning a Freudian slip confusing the name of Lynch and Jarrett into a statement that I'm a racist is so far beyond the pale.

Seriously, how shameful.  You should be deeply embarrassed at posting this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

I guess they all look alike, huh?

HINT:  One of those two was never Attorney General, or in the Justice Department at all, for that matter.  

:own3d:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dedfin said:

:own3d:

And the same for you.  Utterly shameful.  But you, of all people here, are used to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Sand said:

Wow, dude, and you wonder why this is such an echo chamber.   Turning a Freudian slip confusing the name of Lynch and Jarrett into a statement that I'm a racist is so far beyond the pale.

Seriously, how shameful.  You should be deeply embarrassed at posting this.

Mixing up or confusing names is racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 3:21 PM, BobbyLayne said:

He’ll respect the process. That doesn’t mean we’ll ever see the unfiltered report.

Somewhere between Executive Summary & full report would be my guess. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/house-judiciary-subpoena-mueller-report-cnntv/index.html

House Judiciary Chairman Nadler says if necessary they would subpoena Mueller’s report and have him testify. I suspect this would also happen if what appears to be our soon to be AG Barr were to send us his version of the report.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lazyike said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/house-judiciary-subpoena-mueller-report-cnntv/index.html

House Judiciary Chairman Nadler says if necessary they would subpoena Mueller’s report and have him testify. I suspect this would also happen if what appears to be our soon to be AG Barr were to send us his version of the report.

Yeah but he’s a democrat liar that likes Hillary and Obama, so there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin Miller‏Verified account @justinjm1 13h13 hours ago

"If a President...suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity of available evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction." — William Barr

https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1086105094037356544

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is - I kind of liked Barr.  I don't like most of what he stands for, but I appreciate the skill it takes to parse language, and to find nuance in the legal world.  He came across as a very sharp legal mind.

 

So, I suppose that is why, in retrospect, it is even more satisfying that it looks like he was played like a cheap fiddle - and he never saw it coming in his testimony.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

The funny thing is - I kind of liked Barr.  I don't like most of what he stands for, but I appreciate the skill it takes to parse language, and to find nuance in the legal world.  He came across as a very sharp legal mind.

 

So, I suppose that is why, in retrospect, it is even more satisfying that it looks like he was played like a cheap fiddle - and he never saw it coming in his testimony.

That's a long memo he wrote, 19 pages. It was chock full of detail. All they had to do was read it back to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Schiff says that William Barr's testimony that he wouldn't commit to recusing himself from the Mueller probe or commit to making the Mueller report public "ought to be reasons not to confirm him, but the combination of both would be completely disqualifying."

Via CBS

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1087054762011430913

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, squistion said:

CNN Breaking News @cnnbrk 2h2 hours ago

The Senate confirms William Barr as attorney general. He will oversee special counsel Mueller's investigation as it nears its conclusion.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/william-barr-senate-confirmation-vote/index.html

I like how they just slip this in like it's an accepted fact this thing is almost over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.