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)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yeah Trump will try that but it will fail.
jonessed
Footballguy
I don’t know where they will draw the line on executive privilege, but I expect to see redactions.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Probably the same place it was drawn for Nixon.
I don’t know where they will draw the line on executive privilege, but I expect to see redactions.
squistion
Footballguy
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.
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.
timschochet
Footballguy
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.
timschochet
Footballguy
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.)
squistion
Footballguy
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
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."
squistion
Footballguy
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."
:(
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."
:(
squistion
Footballguy
Ex-acting U.S. solicitor general Neal Katyal: "This nominee is better than Matt Whitaker, but so is this coffee cup."
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/katyal-william-barr-is-better-than-matt-whitaker-but-so-is-this-coffee-cup-1426178627978
John Bender
Footballguy
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.
whoknew
Footballguy
In fairness to Barr - that's kind of a loaded, open-ended question. What does that mean, "jail journalists for doing their jobs?"
whoknew
Footballguy
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.
squistion
Footballguy
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.
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.
squistion
Footballguy
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
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
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
Yeah that was a terrible question. There's no way to answer that question - especially if the answerer is a lawyer.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
I listened to about an hour of it (the introductory portion) and it wasn't that bad.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
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.
Zow
Footballguy
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.
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?
squistion
Footballguy
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?
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
:(
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.
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.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
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.
***
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.’”
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.’”
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
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?
(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?
Sand
Footballguy
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.
the moops
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
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.
Sand
Footballguy
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.
Dedfin
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
jonessed
Footballguy
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.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
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
"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
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.
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.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
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.Sinn Fein said:
squistion
Footballguy
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
Via CBS
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1087054762011430913
squistion
Footballguy
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
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.
