Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Hellbound]

Nancy Pelosi sounds like she's getting ready to begin impeachment proceedings against Barr.

Attorney General Barr’s decision to mislead the public in his testimony to Congress was not a technicality — it was a crime.​

So, anyone think we'll be dis-Barr-ed?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I respectfully disagree: You don't like it, I don't like it, but it's quite evident that a large portion of the general population; even those in elected positions, have entrenched themselves into two sides. I don't recommend denying it simply because you think it shouldn't be that way. "Not intended" does not imply "Does not exist".

I don't disagree with your addendums, they are valid but I still say that having the government try to enforce some parity in the parties is something that simply can't end well.

 

[Crossbow]

[citation needed]

If you do not mind me jumping in, ...

the only person that I have found who has tried to make a serious case for changing the results of the 2016 election is Trump (see below citation).

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims-revisited/

Trump’s Bogus Voter Fraud Claims Revisited

President Donald Trump continues to claim — without any evidence — there was massive voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election.

On Jan. 23, the new president told congressional leaders that between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused him to lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. Trump won the election with a convincing victory in the Electoral College, even as Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes.

...

In fact, voting experts we talked to pointed to numerous studies that have found such in-person voter fraud — the type of fraud Trump is alleging — is virtually nonexistent. A Government Accountability Office report released in October 2014 said that “no apparent cases of in-person voter impersonation [were] charged by DOJ’s Criminal Division or by U.S. Attorney’s offices anywhere in the United States from 2004 through July 3, 2014.”

...

We should also note that on Jan. 24, the bipartisan National Association of Secretaries of State released a statement saying that its members are “not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump.”

..

 

[Cabbage]

I don't disagree with your addendums, they are valid but I still say that having the government try to enforce some parity in the parties is something that simply can't end well.

I do agree with that.

 

[Stacko]

Nancy Pelosi sounds like she's getting ready to begin impeachment proceedings against Barr.

Attorney General Barr’s decision to mislead the public in his testimony to Congress was not a technicality — it was a crime.​

Jerry Nadler is also on the same page.

BREAKING: Chairman Nadler says if AG Barr doesn’t provide Congress with the information they need in the next 48 hours, they will hold Barr in contempt of Congress. Barr could wind up in prison, where he belongs.​

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh keep dreaming. The Dems will hold him in Contempt and Trump will say something that's functionally "No he isn't because I say so" and that will, like always, be the end of it.

 

[Venom]

I usually don't watch these hearings because of the theatrics and gotcha questioning. "I didn't ask you about x, answer this straight!"

Like when Kamala Harris asked Barr about whether anyone in the White House had suggested he open an investigation on anyone. I can easily imagine how he could be undecided on that, especially if all you have are winks and nudges from your colleagues and nothing explicit. He's just being pedantic and there's nothing wrong with that.

There is a boatload of scrutiny Barr deserves, but I don't like how the media hangs onto that
Kamala Harris STUNS William Barr with ONE QUESTION. *insert suggestive photo of Barr looking nervous

 

[The Great Zaganza]

going after Barr is a safe trial balloon for impeaching Trump.
Basically, it forces the GOP to shield Barr, allowing Dems to point out that impeaching Trump is a waste of time, since it will be smacked down anyways.

 

[Belz...]

Oh keep dreaming. The Dems will hold him in Contempt and Trump will say something that's functionally "No he isn't because I say so" and that will, like always, be the end of it.

Nothing good will come of this presidency. It's setting a dangerous precedent where congress could become progressively powerless. Were that to happen, of course, it would make STOCUS an instrument of the President as well.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nothing good will come of this presidency. It's setting a dangerous precedent where congress could become progressively powerless. Were that to happen, of course, it would make STOCUS an instrument of the President as well.

Yeah but the small silver lining is that... that's all Trump has set, social precedent.

Like I said earlier since nearly everything Trump is doing is being done by simple "Because I say so, make it happen" methods, there's not nearly as much officially getting changed as far as policy written in stone is concerned.

The best and worst, most and least dangerous thing about the Trump Administration is that it is all about appeasing a man-child in real time, which is a double edged sword with two very sharp edges.

Like I said SCOTUS is as right now the only thing that can't be undone as quickly as it's been done. All the next President has to do is go "No it isn't" to all of Trump's "Yes it is."es.

*Sighs* I'm gonna get grief for this but I stand by it. The Dems need to decide now, like right now, do they want to take Trump out legally (impeachment, indictments, etc) or politically (the 2020 Presidential and Congressional election) and... stick with one and just forget about the other. I think trying to both is not working.

 

[plague311]

I usually don't watch these hearings because of the theatrics and gotcha questioning. "I didn't ask you about x, answer this straight!"

Like when Kamala Harris asked Barr about whether anyone in the White House had suggested he open an investigation on anyone. I can easily imagine how he could be undecided on that, especially if all you have are winks and nudges from your colleagues and nothing explicit. He's just being pedantic and there's nothing wrong with that.

There is a boatload of scrutiny Barr deserves, but I don't like how the media hangs onto that
Kamala Harris STUNS William Barr with ONE QUESTION. *insert suggestive photo of Barr looking nervous

This seems off to me. So you're not ok with "gotcha" questioning, but you're totally cool the pedantic answers? Am I not reading that right?

ETA: Also, winks and nudges are suggestions. By all definitions "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" is used to generally "imply sexual innuendo" as it comes from Monty Python. Are "suggesting" and "implying" really that different?

 

[Venom]

This seems off to me. So you're not ok with "gotcha" questioning, but you're totally cool the pedantic answers? Am I not reading that right?

The setting makes the latter difficult to process for most people. They want to see sharp back and forth without what they perceive to be mealy-mouthed answers. That doesn't sit well with me.

 

[plague311]

The setting makes the latter difficult to process for most people. They want to see sharp back and forth without what they perceive to be mealy-mouthed answers. That doesn't sit well with me.

I'm not huge into the "most people want" style of thinking as I have no clue what most people want and generally don't really care.

I'm still lost on what doesn't sit well with you and why? As I stated, they both seem to be the same thing, but you only dislike half of it.

 

[alfaniner]

I love how the younger guy (obviously an (R)) tried to voice his opinions after the meeting had been adjourned. They had to cut off his mic.

 

[jimbob]

I was anti the GOP establishment before I was anti Hillary. Giving them the finger was a once in a lifetime opportunity. But if I thought for a moment that our institutions could not handle Donald Trump, I would never have voted for him. I consider the past two+ years a clear vindication of my assessment. 5/7 perfect score, would vote again.

So if I understand your position correctly, you're perfectly happy that your President...

- enables right wing hate groups
- divides the country along race lines
- promotes the separation of children from their families
- supports keeping those children in cages
- has lied to the American public over 10,000 times in this two years
- promotes the use of fossil fuels
- has used emergency powers to build a vanity monument
- is a verifiable criminal and fraudster
- is a confirmed misogynist and fine with assaulting women
- has alienated your traditional allies while rolling over for the dictator of a hostile foreign power
- has made your country a laughing stock to the rest of the world

To understand my position correctly, you'd have to talk to me about it, and listen to what I say about it, and accept what I say about it. Assigning my position to me according to your stereotypes and fallacies isn't going to work.

Do you want to take a step back and look for a way to have a civil conversation about my position?

I am unclear about your disagreement with Smartcooky.

I understand that you reject the claim that you are happy with Trump acting as in the list he provided. Is it that you don't believe that Trump has done that? Or is it something else, if so what?

I kinda stop considering a candidate as soon as I feel compelled to ask, "Can our institutions keep this guy in check?" I mean, maybe it's just me, but I regard asking that question as a little red flag.

I know some like the feeling of living on the edge and that's okay. There are many sports and activities that feed the need for thrill and danger. I'd just prefer that voting wasn't one of them. Have you considered skateboarding? Maybe skydiving?

Indeed

 

[Venom]

I'm not huge into the "most people want" style of thinking as I have no clue what most people want and generally don't really care.

I'm still lost on what doesn't sit well with you and why? As I stated, they both seem to be the same thing, but you only dislike half of it.

I'm lost on what you're confused about.

I just want to be fair to Barr or whoever is being interviewed for that matter and not jump at every little non-straightforward answer or roll eyes. That stuff's for the cameras.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I usually don't watch these hearings because of the theatrics and gotcha questioning. "I didn't ask you about x, answer this straight!"

Like when Kamala Harris asked Barr about whether anyone in the White House had suggested he open an investigation on anyone. I can easily imagine how he could be undecided on that, especially if all you have are winks and nudges from your colleagues and nothing explicit. He's just being pedantic and there's nothing wrong with that.

There is a boatload of scrutiny Barr deserves, but I don't like how the media hangs onto that
Kamala Harris STUNS William Barr with ONE QUESTION. *insert suggestive photo of Barr looking nervous

He was being evasive and there very much is something wrong with that. If he said yes, it would be evidence Trump committed obstruction. If he said no it would be perjury, because of course that's exactly what Trump did and we all know it. So he suddenly comes down with a case of acute indecision and can't quite remember his own name until the next question comes around.

 

[theprestige]

​

I am unclear about your disagreement with Smartcooky.

I understand that you reject the claim that you are happy with Trump acting as in the list he provided. Is it that you don't believe that Trump has done that? Or is it something else, if so what?

It varies from point to point. I didn't feel like arguing each point in detail, and this isn't really the thread for it anyway. Sometimes when there's a thread on a specific point, I might chime in with what I think and why. But since the replies usually turn into the kind of ****-show that smartcooky posted, I often lack the motivation to invest that much effort.

 

[Paul2]

I must respectfully disagree with you, Vox, and evidently a lot of others. While I generally agree with Hirono about Barr, I cannot support the grandstanding. It may make us feel self-righteous, but I don't think it actually accomplishes anything.

Barr was there so that we could learn more about the goings-on with the DOJ, the White House, and the various investigations. Instead, we heard Hirono's opinions.

Look at it this way: Did we learn more from Hirono's 5 minutes, or from Harris'?

IMO, we can learn a lot more from a non-answer than from a non-question.

I agree with everything you said, but there is also value in naming in plain terms ("lying") what is happening. It also pushes the Overton window in the right direction.

 

[theprestige]

I kinda stop considering a candidate as soon as I feel compelled to ask, "Can our institutions keep this guy in check?" I mean, maybe it's just me, but I regard asking that question as a little red flag.

I see it as more of a question about our institutions in general, than about specific candidates. A significant property of our system of government is that it's designed to keep everyone who works in the government in check. Every president is a risk, and the risk of every presidency is mitigated by the system of government that we have instituted. Trump no more so than any of his predecessors. Is that enough? I think so, and I think events have borne me out on this.