No, they are going to wait until the 2020 elections and have the people vote the criminals out. The Democrats in the House are smart enough to remember the lessons of 1998 and not pursue a quixotic impeachment proceeding that is doomed to fail in the GOP controlled Senate and would instead cause the Republicans to circle the wagons around Trump and potentially alienate many moderates who are needed to retake the Rust Belt in 2020.
Do you mean 'they're'? I'm just saying...kinda weird to point out another's worthlessness without even spelling properly. Do you ever say things, or just ask questions? Do you live with a lot of doubt?
At least the Dems admitted such in so far as seeking to use professional counsel for Barr hearings ... the existing crop of lawmakers are mostly not qualified with few exceptions. If everyone in Congress were to be as on point as Kamala Harris was yesterday, it wouldn't be an issue.
I gotta say, I watched some (maybe 30 minutes total) of the summary yesterday, including Kamala's questioning and I saw nothing but political pandering on all parts. Somebody above mentioned Kamala's interrogation skills - I thought she did a crap job. Barr looked much more reasonable than her in that interaction as she kept on asking and implying things that really had nothing to do with Barr's legal responsibilities and trying to make him look bad, but he just kept his cool and gave reasonable answers based on established protocols.
Every time a repub came up to bat, they would thank him, kiss his ass and talk about the Steele dossier.
Every time a democrat came up to bat they would bring out some kind of politically loaded attack that didn't actually address the issue but just bantered press-friendly soundbites.
Barr just sat there, gave simple answers without getting tangled up and stuck to his legal defense.
At least, that's what I saw.
Are they exhibiting any level or degree of worthlessness?
What Kamala said was "Has the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation on someone?"
It's a bullshit question that she asked to snare him and he didn't fall for it. Anyone? Who the fuck is anyone? The janitor? Suggest? What does that mean? If someone in a conversation talked about the possibility of investigating someone but then ruled it out, is that considered suggesting? She asked a bullshit question to grandstand and put him in a position where it would look like he was hiding something, but of course any decent lawyer would've poked holes in her question immediately and he did. She didn't want a real answer - she was shooting for a TV prop moment, that's all.
At another point she kept on railing about how he hadn't examined the evidence and went off on that over and over. He calmly responded (accurately) that it was Bob Mueller's job to review the evidence and make a suggestion, something that he weaseled out of. Barr calmly explained that it wasn't his role to review the evidence, which it wasn't. It was his job to review Mueller's report. But of course she went on and on for the cameras about how he hadn't reviewed the evidence.
Again, political grandstanding for the cameras. Leave the emotions out. Write the words down on paper and analyze them. Then you can see the substance (or lack thereof) in those words.
>>>>Barr calmly explained that it wasn't his role to review the evidence, which it wasn't. It was his job to review Mueller's report.
He over turned Mueller in two critical areas. On obstruction of justice - Mueller said he wouldn’t indict a sitting president because to indict someone who can’t be indicted leaves them no forum to defend themselves, but then went on to lay out 10 areas where Trump absolutely obstructed justice. Barr made the judgment call WITHOUT READING THE EVIDENCE that Trump shouldn’t be indicted based on the evidence in the Mueller report that Barr didn’t even read.
On collusion Mueller went out of his way to say there was no such thing as collusion, but that the Russians absolutely worked as hard as the Trump campaign at getting Trump elected and that there were over 60 contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian. He went on to say that the US should write laws to make what the Trump campaign did illegal in the future. Barr in his summary that apparently wasn’t a summary said that the report said there was no collusion. He said it again in the press conference before the report was released, and he said it again in the hearing this week.
Am I take flight? You can react like kids on a schoolyard all you want, but if you read what I wrote you'll see I'm not wrong. I wasn't talking about what Barr did or didn't say - I was specifically talking about the questions and answers given and that they were carefully crafted by ALL involved to further their political agendas, NOT to get to the truth...
Am I take flight? You can react like kids on a schoolyard all you want, but if you read what I wrote you'll see I'm not wrong. I wasn't talking about what Barr did or didn't say - I was specifically talking about the questions and answers given and that they were carefully crafted by ALL involved to further their political agendas, NOT to get to the truth...<<
Bullshit. Trying to elicit whether the president is seeking to punish his "enemies" (whether directly or indirectly) isn't campaigning.
BETHESDA, Maryland (The Borowitz Report)—Attorney General William Barr on Thursday proved unable to give honest answers to a drive-thru window at a Bethesda, Maryland, Arby’s restaurant.
Barr, who drove up to the window just after noon, appeared evasive and halting after the drive-thru attendant asked to take his order.
“I cannot recall what I would like to order at this time,” Barr said, according to the attendant.
When pressed repeatedly to name a sandwich, drink, or side order that he preferred, Barr stonewalled, the attendant said.
“The questions I was asking him couldn’t have been clearer,” the attendant told reporters. “I asked him if he wanted to order a Smokehouse Brisket sandwich. He refused to give me a yes-or-no answer.”
“I came away feeling that he had been less than candid,” the attendant said.
Speaking through an official spokesperson later in the day, Barr said that he would never appear at Arby’s again.
"Bullshit. Trying to elicit whether the president is seeking to punish his "enemies" (whether directly or indirectly) isn't campaigning."
I see why you would think that, and I guess that's what she's trying to do, but she wasn't asking legally sound questions. Language is important, especially in situations with high-stakes legal implications. Someone like Barr, asshole though he may be, has tons of experience in the manipulation of language into legalese to fit his needs and descriptions. Kamala knows that. Kamala also has a lot of experience in the same area; she knows perfectly well what the language that she uses means or doesn't mean. By asking "Did the President or anyone in the White House..." she left it open for a speculative question. Anyone? Who? The AG has perfect grounds for playing dumb with that, but she knows that, which means she's just using the question to make a point on camera - not to elicit an actual response from him. Same with the word 'suggest'. It's broad, ambiguous, not legal terminology. How do you define it? What are its limits? Barr knows this and played dumb again. She knew it and knew he would play dumb with the question. In other words, she's putting on a show for the camera. Not for campaigning but to make her point in a symbolic rhetorical manner rather than in a legally binding manner.
Barr just doesn't come across as believable to me. If he wasn't playing politics he would just do his job and answer the questions and the truth should be enough to convince anyone. if he was picked to lie for little donnie he isn't doing a very good job of it. imo
Kamala also has a lot of experience in the same area; she knows perfectly well what the language that she uses means or doesn't mean. By asking "Did the President or anyone in the White House..." she left it open for a speculative question. Anyone? Who? The AG has perfect grounds for playing dumb with that, but she knows that, which means she's just using the question to make a point on camera - not to elicit an actual response from him. Same with the word 'suggest'. It's broad, ambiguous, not legal terminology. How do you define it? What are its limits? Barr knows this and played dumb again. She knew it and knew he would play dumb with the question. In other words, she's putting on a show for the camera. Not for campaigning but to make her point in a symbolic rhetorical manner rather than in a legally binding manner. <<<
Lets grant that your assertion that Harris knows that her question is a "no win" for Barr, so what?
If we've gotten to a point where such a question needs to even be asked in the general sense, why should the administration be afforded a "safe space" pertaining to the line of questioning? It seems to me that Barr unilaterally opened this door all by himself; and as you said, he has tons of experience in the manipulation of words, so why couldn't he have easily qualified his answer to be constrained strictly to the president (and not anyone in the white house)? I realize it's a bit childish to purport a "he started it" argument, but sadly it reflects the state of affairs that we've devolved into. It's not as if Harris was pulling the "or anyone else in the White House" out of thin air ... the overall climate within the entire administration has been contentions from the get go (to say the least). So, even if we accept your argument as being accurate in terms of Harris using a "trick question" for political gain, do you really believe it's in the same league as how the GOP have generally approached related hearings overall?!? Watch the House Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on Russia’s election interference tactics below and ask yourself if Harris' "theatrics" are even CLOSE to what the GOP are engaged (on a matter of critical national security no less):
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D. Portland_ken
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 11:16 am
No, they are going to wait
No, they are going to wait until the 2020 elections and have the people vote the criminals out. The Democrats in the House are smart enough to remember the lessons of 1998 and not pursue a quixotic impeachment proceeding that is doomed to fail in the GOP controlled Senate and would instead cause the Republicans to circle the wagons around Trump and potentially alienate many moderates who are needed to retake the Rust Belt in 2020.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jazfish Jazfish
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 11:45 am
High hopes for the Moderates.
High hopes for the Moderates.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Jay Siobud
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 11:50 am
High hopes for the moderates
High hopes for the moderates indeed. I feel like most Americans are between the 40 yard lines, to use a football analogy.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jonaspond Jonas
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 12:01 pm
Unless there is a complete
Unless there is a complete change in course Trump is winning 2020. It's a sad reality that will put us one more step towards Idiocrasy.
How's that 'anyone but Hillary' feeling now?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call" Knotesau
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 12:05 pm
Has she been useful since she
Has she been useful since she lost? Does she have any good ideas for the 2020 candidates?
What is she good at?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight Javs Corner
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 12:23 pm
Do you mean 'they're'? I'm
Do you mean 'they're'? I'm just saying...kinda weird to point out another's worthlessness without even spelling properly. Do you ever say things, or just ask questions? Do you live with a lot of doubt?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call" Knotesau
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 12:30 pm
They are worthlessness?
They are worthlessness?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Jay Siobud
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 12:55 pm
"Their" is used correctly in
"Their" is used correctly in the thread title.
You wouldn't say "Why Don't Democrats Admit They Are Worthlessness" would you?
Perhaps "Why Don't Democrats Admit They Are Worthless". That would work.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight Javs Corner
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 02:35 pm
You are correct. My bad.
You are correct. My bad.
So, do you (Slack) ever say anything? Or only questions? I've noticed that and have started wondering about the whole 'sea-lioning' thing...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees FaceOnMars
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 02:41 pm
At least the Dems admitted
At least the Dems admitted such in so far as seeking to use professional counsel for Barr hearings ... the existing crop of lawmakers are mostly not qualified with few exceptions. If everyone in Congress were to be as on point as Kamala Harris was yesterday, it wouldn't be an issue.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Rasputin O'Leary Rasmataz
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 02:41 pm
I dont belong to any
I don't belong to any organized political party.
I'm a Democrat --- Will Rogers
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call" Knotesau
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 02:49 pm
We obviously don't have
We obviously need more attorneys. Nothing but attorneys.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call" Knotesau
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 04:33 pm
Are they exhibiting any level or degree of worthlessness?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dr. Benway daylight
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 04:36 pm
>>>Idiocrasy
>>>Idiocrasy
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: surjade Treeflo
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 06:42 pm
“A little bit of knowledge is
“A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing”
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call" Knotesau
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 07:38 pm
Only a sea lion would ask all these questions.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Thumbkinetic (Bluestnote)
on Thursday, May 2, 2019 – 07:53 pm
Slacker's gonna rag on Adam
Slacker's gonna rag on Adam Schiff until Schiff finds him a below-market apartment.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Franklin Page HotnannySF
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 01:18 am
Slacker what the fuck is that
Slacker what the fuck is that stupid as hell "javs corner" bullshit you posted?
Harris grilled Barr quite well and asked him an extremely pertinent question he COULD NOT answer, which was
HAS ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE ASKED YOU TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE
Because Trump threatened retribution against anyone and everyone after Barr's 4 page whitewash and Barr was going to be his attack dog
OF COURSE TRUMP ASKED BARR TO INVESTIGATE HIS ENEMIES!
Barr is a phony AG protecting a frauduent president!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: g-reg gregulator
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 09:51 am
He's phoney baloney and a
He's phoney baloney and a total stooge.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call" Knotesau
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 09:58 am
The Democrats aren't really
The Democrats aren't really trying to remove Trump.
They're just campaigning.
https://my.democrats.org/page/contribute/help-democrats-fight-back
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight Javs Corner
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 01:08 pm
What Kamala said was "Has the
What Kamala said was "Has the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation on someone?"
It's a bullshit question that she asked to snare him and he didn't fall for it. Anyone? Who the fuck is anyone? The janitor? Suggest? What does that mean? If someone in a conversation talked about the possibility of investigating someone but then ruled it out, is that considered suggesting? She asked a bullshit question to grandstand and put him in a position where it would look like he was hiding something, but of course any decent lawyer would've poked holes in her question immediately and he did. She didn't want a real answer - she was shooting for a TV prop moment, that's all.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight Javs Corner
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 01:11 pm
At another point she kept on
At another point she kept on railing about how he hadn't examined the evidence and went off on that over and over. He calmly responded (accurately) that it was Bob Mueller's job to review the evidence and make a suggestion, something that he weaseled out of. Barr calmly explained that it wasn't his role to review the evidence, which it wasn't. It was his job to review Mueller's report. But of course she went on and on for the cameras about how he hadn't reviewed the evidence.
Again, political grandstanding for the cameras. Leave the emotions out. Write the words down on paper and analyze them. Then you can see the substance (or lack thereof) in those words.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: g-reg gregulator
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 01:28 pm
Just write lack of substance.
Just write lack of substance.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino kxela
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 01:32 pm
>>>>Barr calmly explained
>>>>Barr calmly explained that it wasn't his role to review the evidence, which it wasn't. It was his job to review Mueller's report.
He over turned Mueller in two critical areas. On obstruction of justice - Mueller said he wouldn’t indict a sitting president because to indict someone who can’t be indicted leaves them no forum to defend themselves, but then went on to lay out 10 areas where Trump absolutely obstructed justice. Barr made the judgment call WITHOUT READING THE EVIDENCE that Trump shouldn’t be indicted based on the evidence in the Mueller report that Barr didn’t even read.
On collusion Mueller went out of his way to say there was no such thing as collusion, but that the Russians absolutely worked as hard as the Trump campaign at getting Trump elected and that there were over 60 contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian. He went on to say that the US should write laws to make what the Trump campaign did illegal in the future. Barr in his summary that apparently wasn’t a summary said that the report said there was no collusion. He said it again in the press conference before the report was released, and he said it again in the hearing this week.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: a lullaby the breezes whisper T.O.D.
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 01:34 pm
How dare you tell someone
How dare you tell someone what to write, even though they don't have a dog in the fight?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead love matters
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 01:38 pm
Take flight
Take flight
good idea
Sometimes you’re the company that you keep, or the delusions that you share
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call" Knotesau
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 01:54 pm
>>>>>he wouldn’t indict a
>>>>>he wouldn’t indict a sitting president
Nobody will. We voted for Democrats that aren't going to indict any Trumps unless Democrats win majority of House and Senate and the POTUS.
Keep believing the other shoe is going to drop. It won't.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight Javs Corner
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 02:54 pm
Am I take flight? You can
Am I take flight? You can react like kids on a schoolyard all you want, but if you read what I wrote you'll see I'm not wrong. I wasn't talking about what Barr did or didn't say - I was specifically talking about the questions and answers given and that they were carefully crafted by ALL involved to further their political agendas, NOT to get to the truth...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: g-reg gregulator
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 03:11 pm
Sorry Tod. Im just goofin
Sorry Tod. Im just goofin around
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jazfish Jazfish
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 03:28 pm
The Democrats aren't really trying to remove Trump.
They're just campaigning. <<<
Thank you for statement.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Thumbkinetic (Bluestnote)
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 03:51 pm
Am I take flight? You can
Am I take flight? You can react like kids on a schoolyard all you want, but if you read what I wrote you'll see I'm not wrong. I wasn't talking about what Barr did or didn't say - I was specifically talking about the questions and answers given and that they were carefully crafted by ALL involved to further their political agendas, NOT to get to the truth...<<
Bullshit. Trying to elicit whether the president is seeking to punish his "enemies" (whether directly or indirectly) isn't campaigning.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: thinthread hillman
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 04:11 pm
they can't admit reality.
they can't admit reality. "manufactured immigration crisis" my ass. repugs are no better, practically useless.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Thumbkinetic (Bluestnote)
on Friday, May 3, 2019 – 04:14 pm
BETHESDA, Maryland (The
BETHESDA, Maryland (The Borowitz Report)—Attorney General William Barr on Thursday proved unable to give honest answers to a drive-thru window at a Bethesda, Maryland, Arby’s restaurant.
Barr, who drove up to the window just after noon, appeared evasive and halting after the drive-thru attendant asked to take his order.
“I cannot recall what I would like to order at this time,” Barr said, according to the attendant.
When pressed repeatedly to name a sandwich, drink, or side order that he preferred, Barr stonewalled, the attendant said.
“The questions I was asking him couldn’t have been clearer,” the attendant told reporters. “I asked him if he wanted to order a Smokehouse Brisket sandwich. He refused to give me a yes-or-no answer.”
“I came away feeling that he had been less than candid,” the attendant said.
Speaking through an official spokesperson later in the day, Barr said that he would never appear at Arby’s again.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dan 2Dank
on Saturday, May 4, 2019 – 01:48 am
they are too stupid and
they are too stupid and brainwashed?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead love matters
on Saturday, May 4, 2019 – 02:27 am
They. ?
They. ?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight Javs Corner
on Saturday, May 4, 2019 – 10:02 am
"Bullshit. Trying to elicit
"Bullshit. Trying to elicit whether the president is seeking to punish his "enemies" (whether directly or indirectly) isn't campaigning."
I see why you would think that, and I guess that's what she's trying to do, but she wasn't asking legally sound questions. Language is important, especially in situations with high-stakes legal implications. Someone like Barr, asshole though he may be, has tons of experience in the manipulation of language into legalese to fit his needs and descriptions. Kamala knows that. Kamala also has a lot of experience in the same area; she knows perfectly well what the language that she uses means or doesn't mean. By asking "Did the President or anyone in the White House..." she left it open for a speculative question. Anyone? Who? The AG has perfect grounds for playing dumb with that, but she knows that, which means she's just using the question to make a point on camera - not to elicit an actual response from him. Same with the word 'suggest'. It's broad, ambiguous, not legal terminology. How do you define it? What are its limits? Barr knows this and played dumb again. She knew it and knew he would play dumb with the question. In other words, she's putting on a show for the camera. Not for campaigning but to make her point in a symbolic rhetorical manner rather than in a legally binding manner.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: g-reg gregulator
on Saturday, May 4, 2019 – 10:34 am
Barr just doesn't come across
Barr just doesn't come across as believable to me. If he wasn't playing politics he would just do his job and answer the questions and the truth should be enough to convince anyone. if he was picked to lie for little donnie he isn't doing a very good job of it. imo
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees FaceOnMars
on Saturday, May 4, 2019 – 11:20 am
Kamala also has a lot of
Kamala also has a lot of experience in the same area; she knows perfectly well what the language that she uses means or doesn't mean. By asking "Did the President or anyone in the White House..." she left it open for a speculative question. Anyone? Who? The AG has perfect grounds for playing dumb with that, but she knows that, which means she's just using the question to make a point on camera - not to elicit an actual response from him. Same with the word 'suggest'. It's broad, ambiguous, not legal terminology. How do you define it? What are its limits? Barr knows this and played dumb again. She knew it and knew he would play dumb with the question. In other words, she's putting on a show for the camera. Not for campaigning but to make her point in a symbolic rhetorical manner rather than in a legally binding manner. <<<
Lets grant that your assertion that Harris knows that her question is a "no win" for Barr, so what?
If we've gotten to a point where such a question needs to even be asked in the general sense, why should the administration be afforded a "safe space" pertaining to the line of questioning? It seems to me that Barr unilaterally opened this door all by himself; and as you said, he has tons of experience in the manipulation of words, so why couldn't he have easily qualified his answer to be constrained strictly to the president (and not anyone in the white house)? I realize it's a bit childish to purport a "he started it" argument, but sadly it reflects the state of affairs that we've devolved into. It's not as if Harris was pulling the "or anyone else in the White House" out of thin air ... the overall climate within the entire administration has been contentions from the get go (to say the least). So, even if we accept your argument as being accurate in terms of Harris using a "trick question" for political gain, do you really believe it's in the same league as how the GOP have generally approached related hearings overall?!? Watch the House Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on Russia’s election interference tactics below and ask yourself if Harris' "theatrics" are even CLOSE to what the GOP are engaged (on a matter of critical national security no less):
https://www.c-span.org/video/?459258-1/house-intelligence-committee-exam...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Old Fart Message Board Mr_timpane
on Saturday, May 4, 2019 – 08:06 pm
Slacker has been all
Slacker has been all politically savvy lately