Author Topic: General Barr's Hearing  (Read 484 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
General Barr's Hearing
« on: July 28, 2020, 07:07:48 PM »
So I just watched the House Judiciary Committee's hearing where they had the opportunity to ask questions of the Attorney General on the record and I'm appalled.  I am note sure how the Democrats on the committee could have possibly wasted any more time than they did.  They pontificated for 5 minutes at a time, made knowing false statements, repeated propaganda and their most common response to any answer that Barr actually tried to provide was to immediately interrupt him and state "I am reclaiming my time."

What's the point of an oversight hearing where the person asked to be there is not allowed to respond to even direct questions?

In the five hour plus hearing, we got to hear multiple speaches on whether the Trump admin's response to Covid-19 has been good or bad - what is the DOJ supposed to do on that point?

Multiple speeches on whether mandatory voting by mail will cause fraud - you might think there was a question in there but you'd largely be wrong as any time Barr tried to answer what seemed to be a question, the Democrat asking it immediately declared it wasn't a question and "reclaimed their time."

Repeated insistence that Federal Troops are assaulting peaceful protesters, even though literally everyone is aware that this is not true.  Not one second of response admitting that trying to burn down a federal court house is not a peaceful protest.  Lots and lots and lots of straight up propaganda and lies on this point.

I've said it before, but the format of these hearings needs to be permanently changed.  Allowing Congress people to lie and put words in the witnesses mouth and refusing the witness a right to respond even when accused of crimes or slandered is absurd.  This is not remotely what the founder's had in mind and it serves no real purpose in our society.

it's beyond offensive to be lectured by children engaged in naked partisan behavior while lying and claiming that the otherside is the one responsible.

My favorite response to a question asked about whether Barr would commit not to x, was "I will follow the law," to which the Democratic Congressman responded with something like, well since you won't give a clear answer I'm moving on.

Or how about the demand that Barr give up the challenge to Obamacare, not because the Congresswoman made a case at law but because people are dying and she's sick with cancer and he's trying to kill her (paraphrase) and it's the "right" policy anyway.  Barr responded that he has 2 children that have been treated for Cancer and whatever he thinks of the policy (implying he may agree) his job is not to set the policy but to apply the law, but was interrupted because apparently admitting the actual legal standard that an AG should apply is not the answer that was called for.

Or  when Horowitz's conclusion was misstated (deliberately) by the Congressman, Barr responded that this was not Horowitz's conclusion, to which the Congressman told Barr he was a liar and doubled down on the false statement.

If you want to see why reasonable people should not give Democrats power, watch this hearing.  It has nothing in common with any legitimate purpose of Congress and was solely conducted to let Democrats read a list of Presidential campaign promises.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2020, 08:34:25 PM »
Glad to hear the Democrats took him to task over firing the SDNY Federal Prosecutor.

Or about the "weaponized Justice Department."

Instead they decided to weaponize their committee meetings in pursuit of political grandstanding.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2020, 10:02:36 PM »
Quote
Repeated insistence that Federal Troops are assaulting peaceful protesters, even though literally everyone is aware that this is not true.  Not one second of response admitting that trying to burn down a federal court house is not a peaceful protest.  Lots and lots and lots of straight up propaganda and lies on this point.

A guy with a speaker phone, this was caught on video.

Quote
Police, who appear to be federal officers, throw a canister that lands at his feet, which he lightly tosses away from him and toward the officers. It lands partway across the street.

A few seconds later, a firing sound can be heard, and the man collapses to the ground, dropping the speaker.

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/07/police-shoot-portland-protester-in-head-with-impact-weapon-causing-severe-injuries.html

There are other incidents I've heard of.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2020, 10:36:07 PM »
Repeated insistence that Federal Troops are assaulting peaceful protesters, even though literally everyone is aware that this is not true. 
It's impressive in just how many ways such a short statement can be anti-factual, Seriati.

Literally NOT everyone is aware of your claim (that "this is not true"), since a number of people here have given separate examples of the stormtroopers assaulting peaceful protesters; assuming you have read any of the posts on the topic, you would know this.  Additionally, those same examples show that your claim that "this is not true", in reference to the "Repeated insistence that Federal Troops are assaulting peaceful protesters" is itself untrue.

You can argue that it is rare, that the vast majority of stormtrooper interactions do not involve them abusing their authority or denying citizens their constitutional rights, but your blanket claim is just silly in being absolute.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2020, 10:22:01 AM »
Glad to hear the Democrats took him to task over firing the SDNY Federal Prosecutor.

Or about the "weaponized Justice Department."

Instead they decided to weaponize their committee meetings in pursuit of political grandstanding.

This is so new! Because we all know the Benghazi hearings were not weaponized right? I don't agree with the process of making speeches during committee hearings, but let's not pretend it is so unusual or one sided. I promise when Republicans had their questions, they speechified also without even having to watch.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2020, 10:28:03 AM »
Quote
Instead they decided to weaponize their committee meetings in pursuit of political grandstanding

They have.

I agree that the committee hearings are farce. A Farce in which all members should be ashamed of themselves. The GOP and DNC have lost their way

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2020, 03:26:58 PM »
In case anyone wants to see the exchange, or read about it, here is the full transcript.

Johnson does indeed repeatedly interrupt Barr as he denied changing the Stone sentence improperly in response to Trump pressure. This exchange happened at 1:22

Immediately following that, Buck gives a four minute speech before finally asking if RICO statutes could be used against Antifa. That was his only actual question during his five minutes.

Then this:

Quote
Mr. Cicilline: (02:58:23)
That video is of Christopher David, a Navy veteran, being beaten and teargassed by the officers. Do you think that was appropriate?

Wiliam Barr: (02:58:31)
Well, I didn’t see him teargassed. There seems to be gas in the area, I don’t know what kind of gas it was and I don’t know whether it was directed at him.

Mr. Cicilline: (02:58:39)
Do you think what happened to David was appropriate Mr. Barr?

Wiliam Barr: (02:58:42)
The Inspector General is reviewing that particular incident.

That is a straight up refusal to answer the question. If no one has seen the video, here's the description of what happened from David's own mouth. video

The actual incident is at 1:30. I'm not sure how the top official in the DOJ can watch that and not simply answer, "No, it was not appropriate."

Barr repeatedly refused to answer clear direct questions, and he was doing that again when the interruptions start happening.

Just like with this questioning.

Quote
Mr. Cicilline: (02:55:16)
Is it ever appropriate sir for the president to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election?

Wiliam Barr: (02:55:24)
It depends what kind of assistance.

Mr. Cicilline: (02:55:26)
Is it ever appropriate for the president or presidential candidate to accept or solicit foreign assistance of any kind in his or her election?

Wiliam Barr: (02:55:38)
No, it’s not appropriate.

Mr. Cicilline: (02:55:39)
Okay. Sorry you had to struggle with that one, Mr. Attorney General.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2020, 05:18:27 PM »
Then this:

Quote
Mr. Cicilline: (02:58:23)
That video is of Christopher David, a Navy veteran, being beaten and teargassed by the officers. Do you think that was appropriate?

Wiliam Barr: (02:58:31)
Well, I didn’t see him teargassed. There seems to be gas in the area, I don’t know what kind of gas it was and I don’t know whether it was directed at him.

Mr. Cicilline: (02:58:39)
Do you think what happened to David was appropriate Mr. Barr?

Wiliam Barr: (02:58:42)
The Inspector General is reviewing that particular incident.

That is a straight up refusal to answer the question. If no one has seen the video, here's the description of what happened from David's own mouth. video

The actual incident is at 1:30. I'm not sure how the top official in the DOJ can watch that and not simply answer, "No, it was not appropriate."

Barr repeatedly refused to answer clear direct questions, and he was doing that again when the interruptions start happening.

Context matters, and that video provides none. Barr's response, based on that one video is appropriate and measured.

The behavior shown is 100% questionable in the context provided and warrants investigation, which the IG is doing.

Until the IG, who has access the Federal Side of the story--and probably unedited surveillance video as well, has a conclusion that answer is the correct one.

Quote
Just like with this questioning.

Quote
Mr. Cicilline: (02:55:16)
Is it ever appropriate sir for the president to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election?

Wiliam Barr: (02:55:24)
It depends what kind of assistance.

Mr. Cicilline: (02:55:26)
Is it ever appropriate for the president or presidential candidate to accept or solicit foreign assistance of any kind in his or her election?

Wiliam Barr: (02:55:38)
No, it’s not appropriate.

Mr. Cicilline: (02:55:39)
Okay. Sorry you had to struggle with that one, Mr. Attorney General.

The first question was exceedingly broad. I'd even say the second question is a trap as well, and should have also correctly received a "it depends on what kind of assistance" as well.

Because saying it is inappropriate for a candidate to accept "foreign assistance," especially how the context Dems would try to spin it  to mean Trump's administration as whole, not just his campaign. They just got Barr to opine in such a way that they can twist it to mean that if the UK shows up at DOJ tomorrow with iron clad proof that China is meddling in this years election cycle, he'd have to reject it because it is "foreign assistance."

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2020, 06:33:03 PM »
TheDrake,

I agree with you that it's aggravating to see various people in contempt of the Congress, which includes Fed board members, party members, corporate people like Zuckerberg. Telling the elected officials to F off in so many words should have consequences. Maybe be criminal. But it goes both ways, because they need to earn the trust of having the power to require answers. If they're corrupt then I'd rather they had less power, not more.

However:

Quote
Mr. Cicilline: (02:55:16)
Is it ever appropriate sir for the president to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election?

Wiliam Barr: (02:55:24)
It depends what kind of assistance.

Mr. Cicilline: (02:55:26)
Is it ever appropriate for the president or presidential candidate to accept or solicit foreign assistance of any kind in his or her election?

Wiliam Barr: (02:55:38)
No, it’s not appropriate.

Mr. Cicilline: (02:55:39)
Okay. Sorry you had to struggle with that one, Mr. Attorney General.

This was a dumb question probably meant to generate sound bites to be used against people. I have seen very straightforward, factual questions rebuffed with the likes of "I will have to look into the matter" when there is a 0% chance they didn't know the answer already. I mean, numbers questions, factual yes/no questions about did X happen. But this is not like this, this is "will you denounce Trump" phrased as a factual question. There cannot possibly be an acceptable definition of "foreign assistance" for this question to be answerable. There cannot be a proper definition of "accept" for it to mean anything beyond "do you admit Trump is a no good cheater dumb guy". Upon reading that question my first response was "...uh? maybe?" How can there be a quick answer to that, it's practically a question of how all of politics works, and you're asking the AG for his 'opinion' on the matter as if that proves something. The notion of a candidate 'refusing' foreign assistance would itself bear a massive amount of detailing. What does it even mean? That if Russia conducts a poll via the internet and it shows that you're more popular, you have to publicly announce that you're not more popular in order to be sure you're not being "assisted" by the poll? If websites or chat groups have people talking you up, do you need to send in your people to argue back and say you're a bad candidate? Because these are the types of things Russia actually did last election; brigading, talking up, Twitter stuff. You know, the stuff corporations do all the time (even foreign ones or ones with foreign offices and operations).

The entire question feels bogus to me. And if there is a matter to bring up about NGO's or 'foreign actors' participating in some way in the national conversation, that's not a topic to pursue with the AG, but rather with the Congress itself if they want to make some specific laws about this.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2020, 10:35:07 PM »
Even if that guy had thrown a bottle earlier, that's still excessive force. Corporal punishment is unconstitutional plus they didn't cuff or arrest the guy, they just beat on him and let him walk away.

The word "accept" implies active participation. A government saying something nice about you is not accepting anything. IF a foreign government asks a candidate if they'd like to have them voice support, a yes is accepting. Having a foreign government offer you research on your opponent and agreeing to hear them out is accepting. It isn't so complicated.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2020, 11:40:29 PM »
The word "accept" implies active participation. A government saying something nice about you is not accepting anything.

Uh-huh. Except that all the information we have so far about Russia "meddling" in the election involved independent online activities that neither Trump nor anyone else could actively participate in anyhow. They were probably run by guys in some room in Russia, not much room to 'participate' other than enjoying that someone online is saying nice things about you and bad things about Hillary. The one event trotted out time and again is the meeting with that one Russian dude, which amounted to nothing and contributed nothing material to the election since nothing was either solicited or exchanged.

Quote
IF a foreign government asks a candidate if they'd like to have them voice support, a yes is accepting.

Do we have any reason to believe that happened? And if we don't, does the question posed to the AG have any relevance other than implying that it happened? It's stating a false fact in the form of a factual question, with either answer seemingly making Trump look bad. Say "yes it should be allowed" and it sounds like he's defending what Trump did. Say not and it sounds like he's throwing Trump under the bus. Sounds like a kafkatrap to me.

Quote
Having a foreign government offer you research on your opponent and agreeing to hear them out is accepting. It isn't so complicated.

Actually it is. It's not like Putin got on the phone and said "yo Trumpie, let's talk!" It's more like your people tell you one day they got some opposition research, and if you think to ask where they got it they say "private sources", which can mean anything from a PAC, intelligence community, Wikileaks, foreign agents, you name it. You demand to know and that could cause trouble since sources sometimes like to be unnamed. They say it's from Wikileaks, and that gets into another can of worms; did they hack to get it? from a leaker? are they really a Russian puppet undermining America? or honorable Americans exposing corruption? Good luck sorting that out. So what are you going to do, refuse all research that comes into your team's hands?

The 24 show actually had a sub-plot with something like this, where someone on a candidate's team 'got ahold of' the playbook for the other candidate. Basically flat out espionage and theft. The moral dilemma was whether to use it and plan for the debates based on it, or throw it out. That case I can see a clear line being crossed, because you have been told it's stolen from the other side directly. But if you're told "we've accumulated some research" it could be quite convoluted to determine where all of it came from or was sourced. Maybe they outsourced data analysis to an Indian firm; does that mean a "foreign country" is interfering? Except I bet this happens all the time. These things are probably rarely as simple as you make them out to be. Maybe on occasion it's pretty clear-cut like on 24.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2020, 12:27:22 AM »
Actually it does have a legitimate oversight purpose. It's asking Barr if he would investigate and pursue any future situation where these things happened. Of course there is the other purpose, but also this.

If someone didn't know that the ultimate source involved a foreign government, then you're not accepting help from a foreign government. If they pass it to some middle man and the source is obscured, the statement doesn't apply.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2020, 04:47:51 PM »
So some of the many attacks and lies that were leveled, rather than seeking answers:

From Jerry Nadler – in his opening statement.  There are so many lies per minute it’s impossible to catch them all, yet here’s a massive and partial list from just that 10 minute slice of the five hour hearing:

Quote
Your tenure has been marked by a persistent war against the department’s professional core in an apparent attempt to secure favors for the president. Others have lost sight of the importance of civil rights laws, but now we see the full force of the federal government brought to bear against citizens demonstrating for the advancement of their own civil rights.

Every part of that statement was false.  Nothing attacking the “professional core” just exposing their manipulation in politics and conduct that should result in criminal charges.  Nadler endorsing corruption of the “professional core” and denouncing exposing it is blatant corruption and propaganda.  Not one statement from the DOJ or Barr supports any kind of abandonment of civil rights laws.  And the full force of government hasn’t be brought against any citizens, the limited force of arresting those violating federal law hasn’t even been brought against all those violating federal law, just those for whom they have an airtight case.

Quote
here is no precedent for the Department of Justice to actively seek out conflict with American citizens under such flimsy pretext or for such petty purposes.

Nor does Nadler have any evidence suggesting that the DOJ is seeking any conflict.  Congress obligated the federal government to protect federal property.  Congress created the laws that are violated by destruction of federal property.  Nadler and his party are openly supporting violent rioters and anarchists in their war against federal property.  Every single precedent in our history in respect of open insurrection and sedition is far more violent and oppressive than the exceedingly limited current federal response.

Quote
We are coming to grips with a civil rights struggle long swept under the rug, if not outright ignored, by our government.

That is quite true, yet not one word for the state and local governments that have been applying the police power in that manner?  It’s Democrat controlled cities and police departments that head every list of oppressive police departments.  Is Nadler serious about civil rights, or only serious about criticizing for political gains?

Quote
We are as a nation witnessing the federal government turn violently on its own people.

Flat lie.  We are witnessing one of the single most measured responses in history to anarchists destroying American property and lives.  The amount of deaths, injuries and sexual assaults is rising on the backend of everyone of these protests.  Police officers have been shot, murdered and assaulted with deadly weapons.

What we are really witnessing, is the Democrats in federal government openly supporting an insurrection and lying about the situation in a naked grab for power.

Quote
And although responsibility for the government’s failure to protect the health, safety and constitutional rights of the American people belongs squarely to President Trump, he could not have done this alone.

Really?  He did this how.  The laws are those passed by Congress, the actions have been measured by even the contours of what the laws allow.  Every part of the violation of constitional rights, health and safety in those communities can be laid at the feet of the Democratic local officials and their persistent inability to create just application of law or at the feet of the violent protestors, rioters and looters that have actually violated those rights.  Nadler seemingly believes the feds going there is attack of storm troopers but that its also President Trump’s fault for not stopping the riots.

Quote
He needed help and after he finished utterly humiliating his first attorney general, he found you.

This one’s petty, but Sessions humiliated himself.  He let dirty cops convince him to give them control over the only investigation of their  own dirty acts.

Quote
First, under your leadership, the department has endangered Americans and violated their constitutional rights by flooding federal law enforcement into the streets of American cities against the wishes of the state and local leaders of those cities to forcefully and unconstitutionally suppress dissent.

Open propaganda.  The lack of any enforcement of the laws in Portland and other leftist cities has endangered Americans – and in fact has lead to increased violent crimes, massive destruction of property and looting.  “Flooding” apparently means sending less that 50 people to defend a courthouse against crowds of hundreds or thousands of anarchists.  Not in any real world.  Just in the world of a compliant media with market tested messaging. 

Flooding is an explicit lie.  If Barr said it in his response he could be brought up on lying to Congress charges.

In any event, enforcing federal law – even if done by actually flooding the streets with agents – is not a violation of anyone’s Constitutional rights.  That a senior member of Congress would not know this is unbelievable (in fact don’t believe it, its just another lie).

“To forcefully and unconstitutionally suppress dissent” is a pernicious lie.  And you on the left are complicit in it if you don’t challenge it.  The only people in Portland whose dissent is being suppressed are those that dissent from the mob.  They can be murdered with impunity, assaulted with impunity, doxed, have their family and friends attacked.  Nadler knows all this.  He wants all this.  He’s a fascist and so is everyone that supports this.

Quote
Second, at your direction, department officials have downplayed the effects of systemic racism and abandoned the victims of police brutality, refused to hold abusive police departments accountable for their actions, and expressed open hostility to the Black Lives Matter movement.

None of this is spoken with a strong regard for the truth.  Systemic racism is a concept that could have a meaning, but as it’s used today is just a lie.  It’s a way to claim racism without being able to demonstrate any way in which that racism is effected.  Barr pointed that out later in his responses, and specifically asked to be directed to the racism they are ignoring. 

And I love the charge that they “refused to hold abusive police departments accountable,” charge.  All those departments directly controlled by the Democrats, in many cases for decades that are abusive, that the federal government is going to “hold accountable.”  By what, sending the federal stormtroopers  “against the wishes of the state and local leaders of those cities” to interfere?  Is there any world where Trump inserts federal troops into state and local policing situations that Nadler would support.  Of course not.  He’s talking about consent decrees (which are a violation of the Constitution as they’ve been used, but fat chance the  Roberts court does anything about them) and as we all know are only “acceptable” if a Democrat President enters into them.  No word from Nadler how he reconciles that all the crimes committed by the police are a matter of state law (again almost always controlled by member of his party).

Quote
Third, in coordination with the White House, the department has spread disinformation about voter fraud, failed to enforce voting rights laws, and attempted to change the census rules to flaunt the plain text of the Constitution, and even defied court orders on this subject, all in the apparent attempt to assist the president’s re-election.

By “disinformation” about voter fraud, he means accurate, legitimate and OBVIOUS information about the risk of fraud from universal mail in ballots (the same thing prior Congresses identified as the single largest fraud vector).  Nadler and his party are masters of spreading disinformation about voter fraud.  Voter fraud exists in every election, and the Democrat’s goal is to maximize its spread.  There’s no legitimate conversation though, this is an all or nothing party loyalty test.  Either you support an election process that facilitates fraud or you are “spreading disinformation.”

There’s no failure to enforce voting rights laws.  That’s just a flat lie.

The Constitutional question is interesting, I think the President is misinterpreting that provision, but it’s not clear what the remedy actually is.  I suspect, they will ignore his report and have the new President resubmit a “corrected” report (which also ignores the Constitution – bet you won’t hear Nadler repeat his newfound concern for the Constitution then).

None of those points really tie into the President’s reelection.

Quote
Fourth, at the president’s request, the department has amplified the president’s conspiracy theories and shielded him from responsibility by blatantly misrepresenting the Mueller report and failing to hold foreign actors accountable for their attacks on our elections, undermining both national security and
the department’s professional staff in the process.

Just a lie.  Barr’s statement about the Mueller report is STILL accurate.  Barr’s conclusion about it, that there was no obstruction was in fact the conclusion that was required under law, even under Mueller’s misstated version of the law. 

The revealed facts on this, now make it 100% clear that Mueller’s investigation was never legally justifiable.  It was based on KNOWN false information.  He rewrote his mandate months later to try and create a justification and still failed to include anything that wasn’t refuted by the facts.  And in fact, it's obvious that Mueller knew that Russian collusion was a myth early in his investigation, and deliberately delayed reporting that to influence the 2018 election.  That manipulation put the Democrats in charge of the House, and to my knowledge is the only successful manipulation of a recent election as a result of foreign disinformation.  Propagated, without consequence, by the deep state.

Mueller should be facing criminal charges.

What foreign actors were not held accountable?  Was that the UK national that influenced our election at the behest of Hillary’s campaign?  That’s true neither Steele nor anyone involved in that blatant foreign influence were held accountable (interesting that you above make a note of Barr’s answer on foreign influence being so clear cut, when this interference was the single most consequential foreign influence in our history).  Maybe he meant the Ukrainians who the Obama admin solicited to fabricate evidence on Manafort so that they could justify investigating him?  Or maybe they mean the foreign agents that they coordinated with to spy on Trump campaign staff overseas, or the foreign intelligence networks they accessed to get intel on the Trump campaign?

In that case, I agree, not one of the Democrats that heavily violated our laws on soliciting foreign influence has been brought to account for those crimes.

Quote
Fifth, again and again, you personally have interfered with ongoing criminal investigations to protect the president and his allies from the consequences of their actions. When career investigators and prosecutors resisted these brazen unprecedented actions, you replaced them with less qualified staff who appear to be singularly beholden to you.

Firstly, this is a lie, there is no ongoing criminal investigation that was interfered with.  Stone was post trial and conviction – a trial and conviction that Barr supported.  Barr was 100% right that the line prosecutors were acting vindictively and treating Stone differently and more harshly because he was Trump’s friend.  You don’t have to take my word for it, nothing at all stopped the judge in that case (who was no friend of Stone’s) from applying the higher sentence if she deemed it appropriate.  The fact that she didn’t is pretty clear evidence that the line prosecutors were out of line.

Anyone, who’s read the additional evidence in the Flynn matter and thinks that is a righteous prosecution at heart is not a believer in any of the principals America was founded on.  There is no conception of classical liberalism or civil rights underwhich what was done to him is okay.  The latest (just today) grant of an en banc hearing by the DC circuit just demonstrates how political our judges have become.  Go back and read the amicus brief at the trial court level, it’s straight up, grade A conspiracy theory garbage.  The evidence the DOJ presented far exceeds what it was obligated to provide, and is way more than adequate for a dismissal.  The hidden lie here, is that even if the judge were allowed to rule on Flynn’s guilt (which he’ll never get to as this fight is about whether he’s allowed to rule to deny the governments motion to dismiss – he’s not under the SC precedents – he’ll never get to declare Flynn guilty in a manner that sticks.  The SC has decisively state the DOJ can drop a prosecution post-conviction).

The only reason this is playing out, is to try and force Trump to pardon him.  Maybe someone can point to the law that makes that legitimate?  Show where a judge may refuse to dismiss charges to try and force a President to make what will be deemed a political act.

Any precedent here is going to be one off, cause I can tell you 100% confidence, that Biden will have no problem with and face no scrutiny for dismissing charges against any of the criminals that Durham ultimately seeks to prosecute.

Quote
The message these actions send is clear. In this Justice Department, the president’s enemies will be punished and his friends will be protected, no matter the cost, no matter the cost to liberty, no matter the cost to justice.

Nah, the “clear” message is that Nadler and the Dems have their thumbs on the scales of justice, which decisively tilt in their favor, and that they will fight, lie, propagandize and do everything on earth to prevent justice from being applied equally.

Quote
Finally, and perhaps most perniciously, the department has placed the president’s political needs over the public health by challenging stay-at-home orders in the states hit hardest by the pandemic.

Seriously?  Wasn’t Nadler just lecturing us on the federal storm troopers violating civil rights by seeking to suppress protests?  So, it’s a dangerous risk to demand that churches be treated equally as the Constitution requires to other gatherings, but it’s unconscionable (even assuming Nadler’s lies were true) to seek to stop mass gatherings of protestors.

Freedom of religion is in the same Amendment as freedom of speech.

Quote
In the hands of President Trump, a Department of Justice that adopts a dangerously expansive view of executive power and demonstrates a willingness to shield him from accountability represents a direct threat to the liberty and safety of the country.

That’s counterfactual.  President Obama openly adopted an expansive view of executive power, which has been grossly curtailed under President Trump – both by his choice and by the excessive lengths leftist judges will go to stop him. 

Quote
We want to give you a chance to respond to our questions to these and other matters and we hope and expect that you will do so in a clear and forthright manner.

That’s the most blatant lie of all.  They had no interest in hearing his responses.  If they were in the right, they would have wanted to get him on the record on everything.  However, they know they’re in the wrong and that it’s obvious and easy to see if one isn’t willfully blind and therefore he can’t be allowed to speak.

The transcripts really don't do the hearing justice.  The nastiness of the Dems is softened by reducing it to text.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2020, 08:46:22 PM »
I'm looking forward to reading how the Republicans treated the "Masters of the Universe" and if they calmly waited for them to answer questions. I'll report back later.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2020, 01:29:20 AM »
I'm looking forward to reading how the Republicans treated the "Masters of the Universe" and if they calmly waited for them to answer questions. I'll report back later.

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.

In the meantime, I'm wondering about what kind of bizzaro funhouse world we're in right now where Donald Trump is the strongest candidate for law and order rather than mob rule. That's insane, but that's what the Democrats are presenting the voting public with.

But the Democrats have cast their lot with the angry mob, and the agitators, so that's what we have.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2020, 07:06:31 AM »
In the meantime, I'm wondering about what kind of bizzaro funhouse world we're in right now where Donald Trump is the strongest candidate for law and order rather than mob rule. That's insane
Yes, it is.  Especially given that Donald Trump's actions in instigating violence completely put the lie to his claims to be the law and order candidate.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2020, 11:45:46 AM »
I'm looking forward to reading how the Republicans treated the "Masters of the Universe" and if they calmly waited for them to answer questions. I'll report back later.

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.

In the meantime, I'm wondering about what kind of bizzaro funhouse world we're in right now where Donald Trump is the strongest candidate for law and order rather than mob rule. That's insane, but that's what the Democrats are presenting the voting public with.

But the Democrats have cast their lot with the angry mob, and the agitators, so that's what we have.


The discussion at hand is that Barr was treated with mass disrespect, totally unfair, and rude. With little to no decorum, or letting a witness answer a question. It has nothing at all to do with mob rule, unless you have a secret esoteric connection to the same.

Seriati's assertion, as I understood it, is that this is uniquely a travesty perpetrated by members of Congress affiliated with the Democratic Party. The transcripts from the tech CEO hearings are not yet available, my point is that the Republican members of Congress will be at least as disrespectful to them as the Democrats were to Barr. I'll check back in when that transcription is available, because I'd rather puncture my eardrum with a lawn dart than listen to any Congressional hearing in real time.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2020, 03:58:53 PM »
...The transcripts from the tech CEO hearings are not yet available, my point is that the Republican members of Congress will be at least as disrespectful to them as the Democrats were to Barr.

Three is no need to look at the transcript. Unlike the Barr hearing, The tech moguls were allowed to speak, and were generally given softball questions. If you actually heard the hearing at all, that is not arguable. What Barr was subjected to was damning to the Democrat bloviators. They were rude and blatantly lied, and gave no chance of measured response. The Democrat members in that hearing should all be impeached.

Didn't you consider the rudeness of Nadler denying Barr a bathroom break? Nadler is not just mean and rude, he is stupid.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2020, 06:31:11 PM »
So regarding the hearing from the tech companies. Regarding the questioning:

Quote
Mr. Buck: (02:52:22)
I really don’t want to even engage with my office half the time. Will you guys agree that slave labor is not something that you will tolerate in manufacturing your products or in products that are sold on your platforms?

Mr. Pichai: (02:52:36)
I agree, Congressman.

See what he did there? He just agreed. Even though Buck's main point was about Chinese manufacture and setting them up to get pummeled if they unknowingly had that in their supply chain. He didn't say "it depends" or "I'd have to look into it". So there was no need for Buck to have to demand answers to his question and interrupt a long explanation about the problem.

Quote
Mr. Pichai: (03:05:10)
Congressman, with respect, I strongly disagree with that characterization. We don’t approach this work with any political viewpoint. We do that to comply with law, known copyright violations, very narrow circumstances, and we have to do that to comply with the law. And in many cases, those requests can come from law enforcement agencies [crosstalk 03:05:28].

Mr. Gates: (03:05:28)
Your own employees are saying-

Mr. Cicilline: (03:05:30)
Time of the gentleman-

Mr. Gates: (03:05:30)
… you’re doing it for a different reason.

Mr. Cicilline: (03:05:30)
… has expired.

Mr. Gates: (03:05:31)
Your own employees are saying it’s political bias. I yield back.

Do you think he didn't plan that out to make sure he'd have no chance to respond to that dig?

Quote
Mr. Pichai: (04:23:43)
Congressman, yes, I do. It was in the context of through the election across both sides, there was a lot of opinions. And as you know, elections are kind of a polarizing moment generally in the country. And there was a lot of rhetoric about certain issues which were affecting our employees and-

Mr. Gates: (04:24:01)
I understand rhetoric. I guess the question is…

Mr. Pichai: (04:24:03)
Certain issues, which were…

Mr. Gates: (04:24:03)
Oh, I understand rhetoric…

Mr. Pichai: (04:24:03)
Affecting our employees…

Interruptions, not letting him finish his answer.

I'm sure none of this will be compelling to those who think Republicans are respectful questioners and Democrats are evil badgerers.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2020, 06:41:18 PM »
Here's one more log on the fire since I kept reading.


Quote
Mr. Zuckerberg: (04:30:37)
Congressman, I’m not sure I’d characterize it in that way. I think this was part of a broader policy…

Mr. Johnson: (04:30:44)
Onavo did get kicked out of the App Store. Isn’t that true?

Mr. Zuckerberg: (04:30:49)
Congressman, I believe we took the app out after Apple changed their policies about what type of…

Mr. Johnson: (04:30:52)
And it was because of the use of the surveillance tools.

Mr. Zuckerberg: (04:31:01)
Congressman, I’m not sure that the policy was worded that way or that that’s exactly the right characterization of it, but in that particular policy…

Mr. Johnson: (04:31:11)
Okay. Well, let me ask you this question. After Onavo was booted out of the App Store you turned to other surveillance tools such as Facebook research app, correct?

Mr. Zuckerberg: (04:31:25)
Congressman, in general, yes. We do a broad variety of market research…

Mr. Johnson: (04:31:32)
And also isn’t it true, Mr. Zuckerberg, that Facebook paid teenagers to sell their privacy by installing Facebook research app?

How many times did he attempt to answer the question?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: General Barr's Hearing
« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2020, 06:48:47 PM »
And as to the now infamous "reclaiming my time" tactic:

Quote
Rep. Cicilline: (02:35:11)
Mr. Bezos.

Jeff Bezos: (02:35:11)
… have all of that selection. And I think we were right. And I think it’s worked out well [crosstalk 02:35:16]-

Rep. Cicilline: (02:35:16)
Reclaiming my time. Unfortunately, this is one of [crosstalk 00:23:17]… Reclaiming my time, Mr. Bezos.

Cicilline is a Democrat, but still used the tactic. Nadler did it too later on. That one does seem to be one used only by Democrats in a limited sampling.