Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
squistion

AG William Barr Thread

Recommended Posts

On 2/14/2020 at 10:26 PM, dkp993 said:

Was there any doubt he ever left?

I think I had a less than 24 hour turnaround on updating my ignore list.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 2:54 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

On this day, February 14, 2020, I hereby call on Attorney General William Barr to resign. I trust he will consider my petition scrupulously. This post is serious.

It seems I’ve started a trend. More than 1,100 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials call on Bill Barr to resign. About 85% of them served under Republican administrations.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

It seems I’ve started a trend. More than 1,100 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials call on Bill Barr to resign. About 85% of them served under Republican administrations.

Not planned....at all 

so we can’t even have a disagreement on whether 7 years or 4 years is an appropriate recommendation without Immediately going nuclear? 
 

This is insane.

Share this post


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

or 4 years

The DOJ didn’t ask for 4 years in its revised memo, it didn’t specify any recommended time at all. Basically Barr adopted Stone’s own position and asked the judge to forget about all this.

Share this post


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

It seems I’ve started a trend. More than 1,100 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials call on Bill Barr to resign. About 85% of them served under Republican administrations.

How many former Justice Department officials and federal prosecutors are there?

Share this post


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

Not planned....at all 

so we can’t even have a disagreement on whether 7 years or 4 years is an appropriate recommendation without Immediately going nuclear? 
 

This is insane.

This is a bit of a straw man.  To respond, I think it would help if you were more clear that you understand what the underlying issue(s) is(are) here.

Edited by cobalt_27
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

How many former Justice Department officials and federal prosecutors are there?

A lot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

New York is ground zero

The fears over potential political interference are particularly acute in New York, where prosecutors with the US attorney's office in Manhattan handle high-profile cases with a broad range of geopolitical implications, including terrorism prosecutions as well as investigations involving foreign governments and financial institutions, all of which can intersect with White House interests.

Manhattan prosecutors have also generated cases that are of concern to Trump personally, including the prosecution of Cohen and an investigation of the Trump Organization that ended without charges.

And for the past few months, prosecutors there have been investigating Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, as well as Trump's inaugural committee.

Still, despite the alarm sounded in recent days, Southern District of New York prosecutors believe that their leader, Geoffrey Berman, has defended the office's relative autonomy, particularly since Barr's arrival, according to people familiar with the matter.

Barr, these people said, has attempted to micromanage certain cases, asking more questions and for more frequent updates than his predecessors on matters from Berman. 

Berman has bristled at those demands, according to these people, and has repeatedly pushed for actions on certain politically sensitive cases in opposition to Justice Department leadership, most notably the indictment in October of the state-owned Turkish bank, Halkbank.

According to a person familiar with the discussions, Barr personally spearheaded an effort last year to negotiate a settlement with the bank that would have allowed it to sidestep an indictment after Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, pressed Trump in a bid to avoid charges. Berman, however, insisted on criminal prosecution, according to the people familiar with the matter.

A spokesman for the Manhattan US attorney's office declined to comment for this story.

Those types of actions have pacified Berman's staff in New York, who recall a message that Berman, a Trump appointee, delivered soon after taking his oath of office in 2018: "I want to be clear: Politics is not going to have a role in what we do. We're going to keep doing business as we always have." 

CNN

- Barr also intervened on behalf of Erdogan and Halkbank for Trump.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger Stone

>>WASHINGTON – A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting Tuesday to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases, the group’s president said Monday.
 

Philadelphia U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who heads the independent Federal Judges Association, said the group “could not wait” until its spring conference to weigh in on a deepening crisis that has enveloped the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr.

“There are plenty of issues that we are concerned about,” Rufe told USA TODAY. “We’ll talk all of this through.”

Rufe, nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, said the group of more than 1,000 federal jurists called for the meeting last week after Trump criticizedprosecutors' initial sentencing recommendation for his friend Roger Stone and the Department of Justice overruled them.<<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 12:22 PM, jonessed said:

How many former Justice Department officials and federal prosecutors are there?

I’m not sure but apparently 2000+ have now signed on. Considering 3 of the last 5 administrations are GOP and that something like 85% of the signatories have worked in GOP administrations, Barr’s own former GOP boss (who called for his resignation), and the federal judges association have coalesced in defense of independence at Justice... it’s become a chorus of condemnation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

CNN

- Barr also intervened on behalf of Erdogan and Halkbank for Trump.

A few years down the line when all the stories come out we’ll find that all the seemingly random decisions Trump made were all for personal benefit. Erdogan either has dirt on Trump or he’s getting something from him. Seems to be a common theme with many world leaders when dealing with Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger Stone

>>WASHINGTON – A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting Tuesday to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases, the group’s president said Monday.
 

Philadelphia U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who heads the independent Federal Judges Association, said the group “could not wait” until its spring conference to weigh in on a deepening crisis that has enveloped the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr.

“There are plenty of issues that we are concerned about,” Rufe told USA TODAY. “We’ll talk all of this through.”

Rufe, nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, said the group of more than 1,000 federal jurists called for the meeting last week after Trump criticizedprosecutors' initial sentencing recommendation for his friend Roger Stone and the Department of Justice overruled them.<<

I do not recall any precedent for such action, though maybe my memory fails. This seems significant.  I will watch to see if there is any action or consensus resulting from the meeting.  I imagine it may end up split on political affiliate lines which would be a tragedy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I do not recall any precedent for such action, though maybe my memory fails. This seems significant.  I will watch to see if there is any action or consensus resulting from the meeting.  I imagine it may end up split on political affiliate lines which would be a tragedy.

Of course it will.   It doesn't matter what the subject or topic is, all that matters is the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I do not recall any precedent for such action, though maybe my memory fails. This seems significant.  I will watch to see if there is any action or consensus resulting from the meeting.  I imagine it may end up split on political affiliate lines which would be a tragedy.

IMO the courts have been awful in enforcing the civil actions against Trump - the subpoenas, the emoluments, walls and regulatory claims - just so time consuming and clouded. Even when victories are won the decisions are immediately suspended on appeal even when they involve the clearest overreaches of executive power.

But on the criminal stuff - Manafort, Stone, etc - they’ve been steadfast and thorough, even the Trump and GOP appointed ones.

I’ll hold out hope the federal judges come out strong here. They clearly see how Congress has allowed itself to be neutered. I can’t imagine they want to just surrender their power the same way.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’m not sure but apparently 2000+ have now signed on. Considering 3 of the last 5 administrations are GOP and that something like 85% of the signatories have worked in GOP administrations, Barr’s own former GOP boss (who called for his resignation), and the federal judges association have coalesced in defense of independence at Justice... it’s become a chorus of condemnation.

The 85% seems rather meaningless.  I imagine most career employees have worked under both Democrat and a Republican administrations.  Very few of these positions are political appointees.

I have no idea what 2,000 represents or how they are defining it.  We are talking about an arm of government that employees 250K+ people at any given time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The 85% seems rather meaningless.  I imagine most career employees have worked under both Democrat and a Republican administrations.  Very few of these positions are political appointees.

I have no idea what 2,000 represents or how they are defining it.  We are talking about an arm of government that employees 250K+ people at any given time.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/17/leftwing-group-organized-barr-attack-letter/

Share this post


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

The 85% seems rather meaningless.  I imagine most career employees have worked under both Democrat and a Republican administrations.  Very few of these positions are political appointees.

I have no idea what 2,000 represents or how they are defining it.  We are talking about an arm of government that employees 250K+ people at any given time.

Well that's sort of the point, these people are career prosecutors, hence not political.

It's prosecutors only. That's far fewer than 250K people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Max Power said:

The four prosecutors who resigned have never donated one dollar to any Democrat.

Where is this letter itself getting connected to "Protect Democracy" in any way? (eta - the NYT piece does state that Protect Democracy gathered signatures, but they did not pen the piece and obviously the signatories cover a wide swath of former prosecutors across different administrations).

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well that's sort of the point, these people are career prosecutors, hence not political.

It's prosecutors only. That's far fewer than 250K people.

:confused:

Being a career prosecutor doesn’t make one not political.

Share this post


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

Being a career prosecutor doesn’t make one not political.

And having political views doesn't make one biased.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

And having political views doesn't make one biased.

And?  I’m simply responding to your statement.  We don’t know their political motivations.

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


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

And?

And as an example Bill Barr's own former boss is one of the signatories and has written his own piece calling for Barr to resign.

Share this post


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

And as an example Bill Barr's own former boss is one of the signatories and has written his own piece calling for Barr to resign.

I have no idea why that should matter to me.  Were they good friends or something?

Share this post


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

And?  I’m simply responding to your statement.  We don’t know their political motivations.

True...but it was also in response to people claiming they were all just left wing anti Trump people...which was a very dubious claim in the first place.  The fact that 85% of them worked for GOP leadership would indicate that is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Max Power said:

There seems to be little proof of the claim there from a right biased source with issues dealing in factual reporting.  Nor does it really dispute anything in the letter or those who signed on to it.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-greatness/

Share this post


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

I have no idea why that should matter to me.  Were they good friends or something?

The obvious thrust is that the letter is not representative or somehow partisan. Yeah I'd say 2000+ signatories is broad enough coverage - there are roughly 90 US Attorneys and 2000 prosecutors in any given administration. So obviously this is a good chunk of the alumni. And the fact that a GOP Bush Deputy AG who knew and worked with Barr is a part of this should demonstrate familiarity and seriousness. I really don't want to convince you of anything but the claims are meritless.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


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

The four prosecutors who resigned have never donated one dollar to any Democrat.

Where is this letter getting connected to "Protect Democracy" in any way? (eta - the NYT piece does state that Protect Democracy gathered signatures, but they did not pen the piece and obviously the signatories cover a wide swath of former prosecutors across different administrations).

It's just an anti trump group collecting signatures.  I'm sure they don't have a mailing list. 

Share this post


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

There seems to be little proof of the claim there from a right biased source with issues dealing in factual reporting.  Nor does it really dispute anything in the letter or those who signed on to it.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-greatness/

Just showing there is anti-trump sting attached to it

Share this post


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

It's just an anti trump group collecting signatures.  I'm sure they don't have a mailing list. 

But your point is refuted by the presence of 85% having worked in the GOP administrations and also William Barr's own former boss who worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations, right?

Share this post


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

True...but it was also in response to people claiming they were all just left wing anti Trump people...which was a very dubious claim in the first place.  The fact that 85% of them worked for GOP leadership would indicate that is not the case.

:confused:

It doesn’t indicate anything.  I imagine most of these people have worked under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

If this was 70% of all former federal prosecutors I would definitely take notice. I have no idea what 2,000 represents though and no one has been able to put it in perspective.  If it’s like 5%, why would I care?

Share this post


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

But your point is refuted by the presence of 85% having worked in the GOP administrations and also William Barr's own former boss who worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations, right?

No. Former GOP can still be anti trump.  

Share this post


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

No. Former GOP can still be anti trump.  

Well see there's the rub. Criticism of Trump automatically makes one anti-Trump, right? And we're talking devotion - not to party - but to a single leader.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, the only defense left for Dictator Donny is:

EVERYONE IS LYING

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

:confused:

It doesn’t indicate anything.  I imagine most of these people have worked under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

If this was 70% of all former federal prosecutors I would definitely take notice. I have no idea what 2,000 represents though and no one has been able to put it in perspective.  If it’s like 5%, why would I care?

Then you too have a problem with the claims that these were all just anti Trump people?  As claimed 

Just dem schtick...

Trump hating DOJ

And yes...we are crossing threads here as there are two about Barr.

Share this post


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

The obvious thrust is that the letter is not representative or somehow partisan. Yeah I'd say 2000+ signatories is broad enough coverage - there are roughly 90 US Attorneys and 2000 prosecutors in any given administration. So obviously this is a good chunk of the alumni. And the fact that a GOP Bush Deputy AG who knew and worked with Barr is a part of this should demonstrate familiarity and seriousness. I really don't want to convince you of anything but the claims are meritless.

It says prosecutors and officials.  How are they defining official?

If you are going to make a case that this is an important number then it needs some perspective.  What does 2,000 really represent?

Share this post


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

Well see there's the rub. Criticism of Trump automatically makes one anti-Trump, right? And we're talking devotion - not to party - but to a single leader.

Not at all.  You can criticize Trump and not be anti-trump.  I see anti-trumpers as people who criticize everything he does.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Then you too have a problem with the claims that these were all just anti Trump people?  As claimed 

Just dem schtick...

Trump hating DOJ

And yes...we are crossing threads here as there are two about Barr.

I have no idea if they are anti-Trump.  I’m not the one making the case that this is is a significant number of people, you are.

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


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

It says prosecutors and officials.  How are they defining official?

If you are going to make a case that this is an important number then it needs some perspective.  What does 2,000 really represent?

I think it's a fair point. Like I said I think there are roughly 90 US Attorneys and 2000 prosecutors in any given administration. 

Share this post


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

I have no idea if they are anti-Trump.  I’m not the one making the case that This is is a significant number of people, you are.

Im agreeing with the case that its a pretty significant number of former officials signing off against the current AG.  Much of the numbers posted have been disputing the narrative by a few that they were Anti Trump or just Dem Schtick.  A decent percentage having worked for GOP and Dems would refute that on the surface.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Not at all.  You can criticize Trump and not be anti-trump.  I see anti-trumpers as people who criticize everything he does.  

That's fair, but the fact that these are substantially Republican and also Barr's own former boss should give some idea that this is a broad swath of people. Obviously that article you posted made it sound like some libprog shadow group creating false claims about Trump. That's clearly not the case. I mean even the piece describes Republicans being involved in Protect Democracy - but as such instead of calling them "Republicans" or "conservatives" they're called "Never Trumpers". You really don't see the self-fulfilling nature of this?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


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

I think it's a fair point. Like I said I think there are roughly 90 US Attorneys and 2000 prosecutors in any given administration. 

It says prosecutors and officials? How is an “official” in the DOJ defined?

Share this post


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

That's fair, but the fact that these are substantially Republican and also Barr's own former boss should give some idea that this is a broad swath of people. Obviously that article you posted made it sound like some libprog shadow group creating false claims about Trump. That's clearly not the case. I mean even the piece describes Republicans being involved in Protect Democracy - but as such instead of calling them "Republicans" or "conservatives" they're called "Never Trumpers". You really don't see the self-fulfilling nature of this?

They are substantially Republican now?  Where is this information coming from?

Share this post


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

That's fair, but the fact that these are substantially Republican and also Barr's own former boss should give some idea that this is a broad swath of people. Obviously that article you posted made it sound like some libprog shadow group creating false claims about Trump. That's clearly not the case. I mean even the piece describes Republicans being involved in Protect Democracy - but as such instead of calling them "Republicans" or "conservatives" they're called "Never Trumpers". You really don't see the self-fulfilling nature of this?

I wish all media could tone down the leading words and report only the facts, I'm just not sure that middle sells enough to stay afloat. 

I put stock into 2000 signatures, But I will also consider other things like who organized it and along Jonesseed's comments that this probably doesn't represent a major % of former DOJ members.  

I find the call to ask for Barr to resign to be silly and think Stone probably does deserve a new trial.  Although I'd rather the US not waste any more time and money on it.  Give him the 2-3 years.  Let him serve until after Trump wins 2020 and call this over.  

Share this post


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

They are substantially Republican now?  Where is this information coming from?

It comes from the Just Security site, I’ll post a link when I get a chance.

Share this post


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

It comes from the Just Security site, I’ll post a link when I get a chance.

They looked up the signatories political association?  Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It’s Ryan Goodman, who writes for Just Security.

“About 85% in Republican admin. Over 100 in Trump admin.”

- I’m not sure where he arrived at the number but he’s a solid source.

Most of these aren’t even political appointees.  The administration they served under is irrelevant.  Serving during a Republican administration doesn’t mean the are registered Republicans.

This is getting ridiculous.  I’m done.  Good luck.

 

Share this post


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

Most of these aren’t even political appointees.  The administration they served under is irrelevant.  Serving during a Republican administration doesn’t mean the are registered Republicans. ...

I think you’re just lining up with my point these are career line prosecutors. Thanks for the discussion.

  • Like 1

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.