Should Barr be confirmed?
- Thread starter dave
- Start date
Yes he should be confirmed. No his statements don't disqualify him. Confirm him this morning and get that acting hack out.
I'm hoping for another Spartacus moment, although it would be funner if Elizabeth Warren were to have it this time around.
Surely one of the dem 2020 hopefuls will use this moment to destroy some credibility but who knows.
Agreed. Some 2020 knob will probably be looking to make waves. Should be smooth sailing though.
Nothing the left can do to stop it. He could upset republucans somehow but that would have to be unlikely at this point.
My laid off lazy butt watched it , he didn't say anything that would disqualify him , only thing dems didn't like was he said he wouldn't recuse himself from the Muller case
Unless they have a concrete reason outside of him being appointed by Trump, I don't think he needs to recuse himself. I agree with Bru on this one. I probably wouldn't have picked Barr specifically, but I think he's qualified and capable. Also, if you really pressed me on the matter, I have no idea who I would have chosen ... maybe the lead DA from Law & Order?
During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, U.S. Attorney General nominee William Barrmade a series of promises to committee chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), including investigations that may be seen as politically motivated.
Graham began by asking, “Do you know Lisa Page and Peter Strzok?”
“I’ve heard their names,” Barr responded, smiling.
Graham then read a text message from 2016 that said, “Trump’s not ever going to become president, right? Right.” That one was from FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Then FBI agent Peter Strzok, who worked on the Hillary Clinton email investigation, responded by saying, “No, no. We’ll stop it.”
After that, Graham asked Barr if he would “look into what happened in 2016,” and Barr simply replied, “Yes, Mr. Chairman.” Barr would add that he was “shocked” when he saw these texts for the first time.
Strzok and Page have, of course, became frequent targets of President Donald Trump‘s ire.
-----
From there, Graham shifted to the subject of “Michael Steele” (he meant Christopher Steele, after whom the “Steele Dossier” was named). Graham asked Barr to look into Fusion GPS, the Carter PageFISA warrant, and the use of the unverified Steele Dossier to surveil Page. Graham said that the Dossier was deemed “reliable” on four occasions as a main source to monitor Page.
“Would you look into whether that was an accurate statement and hold people accountable if it was not?” Graham asked.
Again Barr answered, “Yes, Mr. Chairman.”
Barr otherwise admitted that he knows Special Counsel Robert Mueller personally, believes he will do the best thing for the country, and is not conducting a “witch hunt.”
Four commments:
1. Go back a few years. Suppose a Special Counsel had been appointed to investigate Hillary Clinton (pick an issue for an investigation, lots of choices). There comes a vacancy in the Attorney General position. President Obama appoints a qualified lawyer who has publicly spoken out attacking the H.Clinton investigation (similar to Barr’s article attacking the obstruction of justice investigation of Trump). Would such a nominee be acceptable to Republicans, and could the public have confidence in his/her impartiality?
2. Barr said he would listen to a recusal recommendation from Ethics Counsel, but would not necessarily follow it if he disagreed with it. Lawyers are required to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”, not pick and choose when to avoid it based on their own whims. Troubling attitude.
3. Barr said he may not release the Mueller report, even after legitimate narional security redactions. This partisan, divided country needs to see the report for ourselves, to have the opportunity to read the evidence, and form our own opinions. This is supposed to be a country of, for, and by the people, not the elite who decide what to spoonfeed us.
4. Barr will be confirmed by the Stepford politicians of both parties.
I hate to be picky, but there is only one DA. I assume you mean lead ADA? Idiot.
PS - I think Jack McKoy is too controversial to be confirmed. IMO
In scenario 1 any AG choice by Obama who was critical of a SC investigating Hillary would be touted a hero by the media and anyone who spoke out against it would be labeled a racist.
Very good commentary.
I tried to pay attention to what transpired yesterday. Biggest problem I had was how he answered making the Mueller report known to Congress and the public. Under no circumstances should the report be kept from the Intelligence committees of both the House and Senate.
Not good enough as it pertains to the chairman and ranking member of those committees. They need the entire report, imo.
Huh? I believe when Mueller submits his report, those parts of the investigation should be completed.
The leaders of those committees along with the Congress leadership have the highest level of security clearances. It is up to the AG what he will release to them. I'm saying Barr's answer along these lines aren't sufficient. Disagree with my opinion all you want but the facts are not disputable.
Yes but if the DOJ opens investigations because of the report or the report references other open investigations those would be concealed.
The report is not limited the the President. Sad I actually had to explain that to you.
Yeah, but everyone else is being indicted, convicted and pleading guilty as the investigations progresses.
LOL!
So since you posted that you shoud understand why some information in his report might still be concealed. The sad part is you thought it was a gotcha moment and it was. Sad for you.