What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

William Barr Thread (1 Viewer)

Stealthycat said:
no

you singled out things you didn't like because the people/cases/instances were targeting Democrats - right or wrong ?
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Comey and Mueller are lifelong Republicans, not Democrats

And It was showing that Barr has preexisting bias against not only both Comey and Mueller but also the Mueller investigation.

That is not the same as saying "as long as the candidate doesn't want to investigate or come down on Democrats he's a good one then is what you mean ?" and mischaracterizes my post, which is a Straw Man.

 
Stealthycat said:
no

you singled out things you didn't like because the people/cases/instances were targeting Democrats - right or wrong ?
Click to expand...
No...Benghazi has been investigated.  Uranium One has always been a joke from the right.

Calling Mueller team biased for donations is simply ridiculous.

 
Biff84 said:
And by blue side you mean Republican Jeff Flake?
Click to expand...
Definitely.   :P

TobiasFunke said:
Yeah that's the problem.  Not the fact that the White House barely vets their nominees and has a disturbing tendency to nominate white collar criminals and/or women abusers and/or reactionary dooshbags who post racist screeds on Facebook and/or supremely unqualified idiots who bought their administration jobs.
Click to expand...
As you well know Democrats have taken a tack to require a voice vote for every single position.  This evidently slows down everything a great deal.

When President Harris takes office in a couple years you can expect the same treatment.  I doubt the red side will forget these maneuvers.

 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/william-barr-attorney-general-nominee-asylum-seekers-haiti-hiv-positive-patients-guantamano-bay-2018-12-10/

"A stain on U.S. history": Trump's attorney general pick used Guantanamo Bay to hold thousands of Haitian refugees

In the 1990s, William Barr, President Trump's pick for attorney general, oversaw a program that sent some 12,000 Haitian asylum seekers to Guantanamo Bay, effectively creating what one detractor called "the world's first HIV detention camp." After operating for about 18 months, the detention system was forcibly ended by a judge in 1993, but Barr defended the practice as recently as 2001.

At the time, Barr was serving as attorney general for President George H.W. Bush, and a military coup in Haiti had led to mass executions that targeted thousands of supporters of the overthrown leader. The bloodshed sent thousands of Haitians fleeing to Florida to seek asylum.

But soon the United States Coast Guard began intercepting the boats at sea and conducting preliminary screenings of the refugees on board. Those who didn't make it past the initial interview were immediately sent back to Haiti. When that practice was challenged in court, the Coast Guard quickly ran out of room to house the would-be migrants aboard ships. Federal immigration officials, wanting to avoid an influx of thousands of Haitian refugees in the U.S., instituted a policy of shuttling them to the U.S. naval station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, rather than the States.

A return to Haiti was a near certain death sentence for many of those who fled, said Ira Kurzban, an attorney and refugees' advocate who in 1991 fought against the program. The Haitian military would regularly patrol neighborhoods on the island, "literally pulling people out their homes to execute them in the streets," Kurzban said in a telephone interview with CBS News on Friday.

Those who made it to Guantanamo would go through a "credible fear" interview to determine whether they had a strong asylum case. Those who passed were eligible to enter the United States and begin asylum proceedings.

But Haiti was also going through an AIDS crisis and some refugees were HIV-positive. Those who tested HIV-positive were forced to undergo a second interview at Guantanamo Bay and questioned again, facing a higher standard for proving their eligibility for asylum, according to a law paper published by Michael Ratner, the attorney who successfully fought against the HIV screening. Ratner died in 2016. The paper, titled "How We Closed the Guantanamo HIV Camp: The Intersection of Politics and Litigation," was released by the Harvard Human Rights Journal in 1998.

In Ratner's brief, he wrote that a "high-level attorney in the Bush administration told us that Attorney General Barr believed that everyone who was HIV-positive should be returned to Haiti."

The process effectively segmented off the HIV-positive asylum seekers and held them indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, a military base where they weren't protected under any sovereign laws, including those of the United States. The system created "the world's first and only detention camp for refugees with HIV," according to Ratner's paper.

Aaron C. Morris, the executive director of Immigration Equality, an immigration rights organization focused on LQBTQ issues, called the program an effective "prison camp" and "a stain on United States history."

[...]

 
Sand said:
Definitely.   :P

As you well know Democrats have taken a tack to require a voice vote for every single position.  This evidently slows down everything a great deal.

When President Harris takes office in a couple years you can expect the same treatment.  I doubt the red side will forget these maneuvers.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm sure that the party behind systematic obstruction of Obama judicial nominees, the Merrick Garland fiasco, the blocking of Obama's nomination for Bahamanian ambassador for  2+ years out of pure political spite even as the nominee battled the cancer that eventually took her life before she was able to serve her country as she had dreamed, the reversal of "blue slip" deference on judicial nominees, the hurried confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee whose records were not fully produced and who was credibly accused of sexual assault and responded by threatening partisan revenge, and God knows how many other norm-busting extremist partisan tactics over the last decade, would happily step aside for Dem nominees but for Dems (gasp!) requiring public accountability and transparency for support of Trump nominations.

Not even Liz Lemon could pull off an eye roll big enough to reply to this post.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Bill Barr will say at his confirmation hearing "it is vitally important" Mueller be allowed to complete his probe, AP reports.

"It is in the best interest of everyone ... that this matter be resolved by allowing the Special Counsel to complete his work."

https://apnews.com/181415fe1f054d899dafc5deb0d98f2e
Click to expand...
The problem isn't if Barr supports Mueller, the problem is if Barr believes Trump has the proper constitutional authority to instruct him to fire Mueller.

Fwiw Barr did say this in his controversial memo:

Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed, the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts.
Click to expand...

 
I posted the link in the Russia thread but something that emerged recently is that Barr sent his memo to the personal attorneys for Trump (Raskins & Sekulow) and Kushner (Lowell).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 7m7 minutes ago

William Barr: "I don't believe Mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt."

 
:(

William Barr is repeatedly asked whether he will release the Mueller report to the public. He does not commit to releasing it in full, only "as much as" he can, saying he will do what the law allows.

 
Dude's giving all the right answers so far.  Taken at face value he seems legit.

Not that I think there's a comedic angle here, but if SNL does a skit, John Goodman is a shoe-in for this guy.  

 
Bucky86 said:
Natasha Bertrand‏Verified account @NatashaBertrand

FollowingFollowing @NatashaBertrand

More

Barr says "I don't recall" getting any confidential information about the investigation. Doesn't recall?

7:26 AM - 15 Jan 2019
Click to expand...
That was my initial reaction also - I would hope that was something you would remember.

 
timschochet said:
Barr sounds knowledgeable, highly intelligent, and very reasonable. 
Click to expand...
@rgoodlaw - Senator @LindseyGrahamSC asks Bill Barr about report that FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation on President Trump. Graham: Are there any "checks and balances" for such an action? Barr: "Not outside the FBI." Upshot: Leaves impression FBI uncontrolled.

--

@asharangappa - This is also not true. The FBI is a part of DOJ, and the Attorney General Guidelines which govern CI investigations are promulgated by the AG. Further, CI investigations are checked by:

1) field office checks by FBIHQ; 2) compliance audits by NSD at DOJ (which reports stats to Congress); 3) direct Congressional oversight; 4) judicial checks for the most intrusive measures. What is Barr talking about???

 
squistion said:
:(

William Barr is repeatedly asked whether he will release the Mueller report to the public. He does not commit to releasing it in full, only "as much as" he can, saying he will do what the law allows.
Click to expand...
I think everybody is making too big a deal out of this. Given the public attention and demand, there won’t be any part of this report that is hidden 

 
timschochet said:
I think everybody is making too big a deal out of this. Given the public attention and demand, there won’t be any part of this report that is hidden 
Click to expand...
Kind of what Grassley just said.  It remains to be seen how it plays out - but the GOP at least are saying the right things now.

 
:(

William Barr says that he has not researched the emoluments clause. "I couldn't even tell you what it says."

 
Has he been asked about his stance on criminal justice reform/imprisonment? Back in the 90s it was ... bad.

 
Barr says that he talked about Mueller with the White House.

FEINSTEIN: Have you discussed the Mueller investigation with the president or anyone else in the White House?

BARR: I discussed the Mueller investigation, but not in any particular substance.

 
Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 2m2 minutes ago

Leahy asks if William Barr will seek and follow the advice of DOJ ethics officials on whether he must recuse himself from the Mueller investigation.

Barr says that he will seek out their advice "but under the regulations, I make the decision."

Uh, oh, I would want him to follow the advice of the DOJ ethics officials if they want him to recuse.

 
Ari Melber‏Verified account @AriMelber 3m3 minutes ago

Barr flatly says the Russians interfered in the election, something Trump won’t do

 
squistion said:
Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 2m2 minutes ago

Leahy asks if William Barr will seek and follow the advice of DOJ ethics officials on whether he must recuse himself from the Mueller investigation.

Barr says that he will seek out their advice "but under the regulations, I make the decision."
Click to expand...
Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 4m4 minutes ago

Remember that Matthew Whitaker reportedly rejected the advice of a senior DOJ ethics official that he recuse himself from the Russia probe. It seems Barr may follow suit.

 
Bill Barr says he can't answer whether Trump has the authority to dip into Pentagon funds to build the border wall, says he'd need to consult with the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel first.

 
All from twitter - 

Barr went from praising Comey in Oct. 2016, saying his announcing no charges against Clinton did not appear to usurp power — to citing that same action as “crossing a line” that justified Trump firing him.

Both assertions came in WashPo op-eds he wrote defending Republicans at key inflection points, the final week of the 2016 campaign an days after the Comey firing. Headlines:

“COMEY DID THE RIGHT THING” (10/16)

“TRUMP MADE RIGHT CALL ON [FIRING] COMEY” (5/17)

Barr defends his reversal by claiming he thought DOJ authorized Comey’s July statement on Clinton — but Comey said the *opposite* at the top of that address: “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the DOJ.. They do not know what I am about to say.”

--

Is Barr sloppy or lying?

 
whoknew said:
All from twitter - 

Barr went from praising Comey in Oct. 2016, saying his announcing no charges against Clinton did not appear to usurp power — to citing that same action as “crossing a line” that justified Trump firing him.

Both assertions came in WashPo op-eds he wrote defending Republicans at key inflection points, the final week of the 2016 campaign an days after the Comey firing. Headlines:

“COMEY DID THE RIGHT THING” (10/16)

“TRUMP MADE RIGHT CALL ON [FIRING] COMEY” (5/17)

Barr defends his reversal by claiming he thought DOJ authorized Comey’s July statement on Clinton — but Comey said the *opposite* at the top of that address: “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the DOJ.. They do not know what I am about to say.”

--

Is Barr sloppy or lying?
Click to expand...
Why make us choose? For a Trump appointee, the answer is almost always “both.”

 
timschochet said:
I think everybody is making too big a deal out of this. Given the public attention and demand, there won’t be any part of this report that is hidden 
Click to expand...
The Trump supporters will back any excuse he makes to block release of the report. He could claim executive priviledge or make it classified so that the important parts are redacted. He won't get any pushback from GOP politicians or the right wing media. The GOP will at least be able to stall it as it winds it's way through the courts.  

 
Walter Shaub‏ @waltshaub 13m13 minutes ago

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

(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

 
Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 5m5 minutes ago

William Barr seems to concede that Trump and the W.H. may try to push him into unethical or at least murky territory and that others might even resign over those actions, but he seems to argue that because he's older and at the end of his career, he can't and won't be influenced.

Yeah, right...

 
squistion said:
Walter Shaub‏ @waltshaub 13m13 minutes ago

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

(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
Click to expand...
And if he ignores this I'm sure there will some sternly worded tweets.  Some may even be deeply troubled.

 
whoknew said:
What portions? Like how Mueller learned of the information? The process/methods of the OSC?
Click to expand...
I think the Trump administration handed over a lot of internal communication documents.  I imagine anything gleaned directly from that will be redacted.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HellToupee
The GG Appreciation Thread. The Savior of the PSF
2 3 4
Replies
188
Views
6K
GoBirds
GoBirds
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
5K
timschochet
timschochet
Memphis Foundry
  • Locked
  • Sticky
The Politics Forum Is CLOSED.
Replies
0
Views
3K
Memphis Foundry
Memphis Foundry

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top