From "Why the Democrats Can’t Nail Bill Barr/The long-awaited testimony of Trump’s most powerful Cabinet member yielded more venting than questions, and few answers. There’s a reason for that" by Russell Berman (The Atlantic).
That's the best I could come up with as I looked for articles covering yesterday's hearing and mostly noticed the absence of news articles. The top of the NYT homepage is full of items about various longterm ongoing struggles: the coronavirus, the wealthy, Trump. If Our Masks Could Speak, Amazon Has Too Much Power, Trump Is Trying to Bend Reality to His Will. I'm not doing parody. Those are all real headlines at the top of the NYT today. I'm just documenting the absence of coverage of what happened at the Barr hearing and too lazy to make links for things I don't believe are worth clicking on. I'm citing them as evidence of a vacuum.
Scrolling to the lower portion of the NYT homepage, I do find an article: "Barr Clashes With House Democrats, Defending Responses to Protests and Russia Inquiry/The deployment of federal agents to confront protesters and rioters and attacks on the Russia investigation highlighted a contentious hearing." The news is that Barr clashed with Democrats and the hearing was contentious — not that the Democrats clashed with Barr or that anyone in particular was contentious. The Democrats get cover as the squander the opportunity to investigate and appropriate the occasion to make political speeches.
But I'm just judging the headline. Let me be fair to the reporters, Nicholas Fandos and Charlie Savage. From the body of the article:
Mr. Barr’s defenses punctuated an outright hostile election-season oversight hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. Democrats tried to portray him as a dangerous errand boy for the president.... The five-hour hearing... grew increasingly heated as Democrats spoke over his attempts to respond to their accusations. At one point, the attorney general exclaimed, “I’m going to answer the damn question.”
Democrats were clearly angered as Mr. Barr quibbled over small details or ignored questions about his rationale or actions. But amid frequent sniping, lawmakers came away with few, if any, new facts or admissions....
“You have aided and abetted the worst failings of the president,” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the committee chairman.... “The president wants footage for his campaign ads, and you appear to be serving it up to him as ordered,” Mr. Nadler said. “You are projecting fear and violence nationwide in pursuit of obvious political objectives. Shame on you, Mr. Barr.”...
For all the grab-bag of policy issues raised by the questioning, the exchanges proved to be more heated than illuminating. At one point, [Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the panel’s top Republican] complained that Democrats were talking over Mr. Barr. “For months you have tried to get the attorney general to come,” Mr. Jordan interjected. “He is here. Why don’t you let him speak?”
“The gentleman’s rudeness is not recognized,” Mr. Nadler replied, trying to move on to the next lawmaker in line to question Mr. Barr.
“Rudeness? Rudeness? Rudeness?” Mr. Jordan shot back. “Time after time, you refuse to let the attorney general answer the questions posed to him.”
Posts
132 comments:
The fusion fools, yes lets take them ar face value now.
Silence too can be fake news.
Nadler wouldn't let Barr use the bathroom for 5 minutes. Class act.
The Fake News won't cover the story because censorship, covering for Biden and trying to destroy Trump is their mission. They don't want regular Americans to see what happened. This is their religious mission. Barr, in fact, destroyed the Dems.
Think about it. Not a single Dem would agree with Barr that the federal courthouse in Portland is worth defending. The Hatfield federal courthouse is this century's Ft. Sumpter and the Dems are lawless. Why don't people get this?
In the battle of wits the Democrats came unarmed...
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/29/barrs-testimony-may-have-revealed-another-obama-biden-scandal/
If I follow the rules the media normally applies, this article would include counts of:
# of times Democrats said "I reclaim my time" when Barr started to respond to questions
# of minutes spent talking by democrats, republicans, and Bill Barr across five hours
What's so frustrating about this is Barr had a beautiful, factual opening statement and some responses. And if you read follow-up media accounts, those points are ignored and he's generally not quoted.
What happened yesterday was a travesty. Democrats are TWANLOC. A far less stoic man than Barr would've rage-quit the whole farcical proceeding and simply got up and walked out. And p.s., Nadler needs to get beaten with 2x4s fustuarium style, I volunteer to draw straws to be on the decimation party.
Why would any sane person ever vote for a democrat?
What colossal waste of time.
My favorite part about the hearings yesterday was he couldn't get one, not one Democrat to publicly denounce the violence going on in cities across America.
TWANLOC. If this ever goes hot they are right at the top of a very long list.
the Good Thing IS: Democrats are now Totally up front about how much they care about 'democracy'
the Bad Thing IS: At Least 47% of americans care no more about 'democracy' than democrats do
Democrats made a nice Trump campaign video.
Democrats tried to portray him as a dangerous errand boy for the president...
From the transcript...
Bill Barr: "Just to clarify, I am a dangerous, shirtless 'pool boy' for the president, with killer pecs."
The Dem's looked pathetic, afraid to actually have Barr respond to their rants. Oh, and Jerry Nadler is a one man wrecking crew for the Democrat party.
This should help the congressional Democrats garner as much respect as the Kavanaugh hearings did. The news organs recognize this, even if the congress critters don't.
I have a suspicion that a year from now this hearing will make a lot more sense, and my sensemaking faculties don't give much hope that the folks running this show will be in better shape then than they are today. I sense a feeling of watching a defense attorney who knows his client is deeply guilty and is trying to create some procedural basis for declaring a mistrial by abusing the process.
Nadler's committee is a clown show.
War. Nadler will be with the women and children.
Is this a reason will cite in her "how Trump lost me" or an example of how she needs to vote Democrat to force them to take responsibility for the country they bitterly divided.
See the “reclaiming my time” mash-up just posted on Powerline blog. Hilarious. Disgusting.
See the “reclaiming my time” mash-up just posted on Powerline blog. Hilarious. Disgusting.
"Why the Democrats Can’t Nail Bill Barr"
1. There's nothing to nail; 2. Even if there were, they couldn't, since they're too stupid and he's too smart.
"The Democrats get cover"
Amazing! Say it ain't so!
He's really quite a brilliant person and it would have been interesting to hear his answers to those accusations. There were no questions the Democrats had. Sure they asked some. Then answered them as you would expect to hear someone comment on MSNBC. There was no search for answers. There was no attempt to have a hearing. There was only a bizarre display of lack of knowledge and courtesy (never a good combination), a party so bought into conspiracy and propaganda, they cannot even acknowledge that a riot is a riot, that police are the 'enforcement' part of law enforcement, that the Russia collusion fiction was, is, and will remain a fiction- no matter how many times they assert it.
One almost waits for the Democrat Party to call the sun racist and seek to have it removed.
Really not much to add. Democrats have become a clown show. A socialist, reality-deficient clown show. Aside from this: you see who they are, what they represent, who they protect, and who they scorn and punish. You can see how they not only dislike this country and it's citizens, but actually loathe them both. Come November you can vote for much more of this, or you can eliminate them from consideration.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/07/reclaiming-their-time.php
I think he should have brought a good book to read. And asked them to let him know when one of the speakers was going to have a question they wanted him to answer.
I get the Daily Update email from the NYT every morning and, though I try to read all the news entries, more and more recently I find myself skimming, unable to stomach the bias, the narrative-pushing, the outright propaganda that makes up so much of what the Times thinks best presents what they have to say each day.
Did the NYT report that Nadler refused Barr a 5 minute bathroom break?
Had the Democrats succeeded in their objective of grilling Barr and making a strong argument that he has misbehaved then that would have been the headline on every news feed. It isn't so one is left to conclude the Democrats missed their target, badly. In the one piece you quote the author seems to make the case that their attacks boomeranged on the Democrats.
I, for one, had no ideas that these hearings took place or where even scheduled.
Barr: "What makes me concerned for the country is [that] this is the first time in my memory that the leaders of one of our great two political parties, the Democratic Party, are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attack on federal courts."
Was that in the NYT?
You can YouTube Bill Barr and Hank Johnson. You know the Hank Johnson that thinks Island can tip over. It's a comedy show or a horror show depending on your frame of mind
Man, that was a train wreck. Dems making speeches rather than asking questions, and when they did ask questions they wouldn’t let him answer, or they’d cut him off and say “that’s not true” and move to something else.
They looked like petulant children.
I think I might be in favor of randomly selecting our congressmen and senators from the phone book. Not sure we can do much worse than this sorry lot.
The hearing made for striking TV. The GOP video shown during Jim Jordan's first speaking time period was shocking. The Althouse point: "I'm citing them as evidence of a vacuum" of coverage of this hearing is fascinating, as I found the hearing alternately painful, frustrating, sad and astounding -- but absolutely memorable.
Jerry " The Hutt" Wadler didn't cover himself in lory yesterday. Indeed every Democrat was grandstanding and made themselves out to be boorish morons. Which is what they are.
For all the grab-bag of policy issues raised by the questioning, the exchanges proved to be more heated than illuminating. At one point, [Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the panel’s top Republican] complained that Democrats were talking over Mr. Barr. “For months you have tried to get the attorney general to come,” Mr. Jordan interjected. “He is here. Why don’t you let him speak?”
“The gentleman’s rudeness is not recognized,” Mr. Nadler replied, trying to move on to the next lawmaker in line to question Mr. Barr.
“Rudeness? Rudeness? Rudeness?” Mr. Jordan shot back. “Time after time, you refuse to let the attorney general answer the questions posed to him.”
--------------
It becomes much simpler when you realize that everything the Dems do in a hearing like this is for media posturing and an attempt to position themselves politically. Reality and effective governance doesn't figure into the equation at all.
This is their chance to visibly slam Trump and blame everything happening in Portland and Seattle on him and his 'cohort of incompetents'.
Instead, it shows just how damned incompetent they are themselves.
I watched several parts of the "hearing." Only the Democrat drones (e.g. the Media) would approve of the manner in which Congressional Dems screeched at AG Barr.
They were using the Kamala Harris method of interviewing and looked just as petty and mean as she is.
This is how totalitarian inquisitors interview their suspects. If the Dems take over, this is the "justice" we will get.
"...the exchanges proved to be more heated than illuminating."
Oh, I think they were plenty illuminating.
The Demmies need to be turned out of power in the Congress. They are dangerously deranged and incapable of doing the peoples' work.
Mr. Barr quibbled over small details or ignored questions about his rationale or actions.
Small details? Outside the DC bubble, us deplorables call those facts.
Barr, repeatedly attempted to explain jurisdictional responsibilities. But as one Republican pointed out, if the dems had a complaint, Barr was the single person making the decision.
The phony assertion that the AG is forbidden from involving himself in sentencing recommendations stupid on stilts.
Rep. Madeleine Dean's comment, "I'm surprised at your lack of respect for a member of Congress" is in step with Nadler's blathering about rudeness. Are they that unself-aware?
The problem is that Bill Barr knows that there will be no consequences for lying to Congress. The Democrats have been put in the untenable position that questions will inevitably lead to a deceptive response, if not an outright lie. Further, the Republicans will defend Barr's obfuscations and lies.
I'm citing them as evidence of a vacuum.
Obviously it didn't go so well for team "Get Trump!". Barr acquitted himself extremely well, calmly and reasonably explaning his positions. Conversely the Dem critters looked like a bunch of bullying, grandstanding jackasses with unjustified mischaracterizations and constant screaching about "reclaiming my time!" virtually every time Barr responded calmly and reasonably. It was not a good look. I only hope that their bad behavior is made clear to enough voters.
I read another quote that said Nadler’s car wreck should have been an omen…too bad it wasn’t heeded.
I don’t get it. If I wanted to interview satan himself I would give him a chance to answer the questions. The grandstanding and haranguing for the purpose of capturing material to push to social media has got to end. Maybe it’s time for the representatives to meet in caucus, map out their strategy, and let their counsel ask the questions. We would all get more information.
"The news is that Barr clashed with Democrats and the hearing was contentious — not that the Democrats clashed with Barr or that anyone in particular was contentious."
I was making the same objection in my head as I was reading yours...great minds, etc.
As far as 'quibbling over small details,' Barr is a lawyer, and by all accounts better than most. At one point a representative was badgering him about 'a statute' or 'the statute' (can't remember exactly...not a lawyer), and Barr asked, "Which statute is that?" The representative said, "Well, I don't have it here." Barr just smiled. It looked like he was quite amused. In other words, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
I was never a fan of ‘My esteemed colleague across the aisle’ bullshit that was so prevalent with Olde Tyme politicians, but it beats what we have now. Back in the day, I believe Ted Kennedy would have gladly made a waitress sandwich with any politician from any party.
Joe Biden is trying to restore political civility and bring our country back together.
'I thought that I was the one who was supposed to be heard.'
Barr did offer some good one-liners.
Today and yesterday, and that Barr article was the first thing shown to me at NYT.
A similar article has also been first at Wapo, for me.
I never login to those papers, even though I pay for them. So I don’t see stuff tweaked for me, if they do that sorta thing, which I doubt.
Weird.
It was an embarrassing rout for Nadler and the Dems, which is why the MSM will memory-hole the so-called hearings just as it's doing with the Portland riots themselves.
everything is done to create sound bites for cable and social media.
I watched part of the hearings and saw excerpts. Nadler and all the D's were incredibly hostile and rude, refused to let Barr answer the questions, and even denied him the chance to go to a requested bathroom break. There was ZERO desire to question Barr on any substantive policy matter or get information out of him. They called Barr every name i the book, the NYT's even in the body of the article, sugar-coated it. Its was so bad that even a cuck like Rich Lowery criticized the D's - although in his usual wimpy way.
But that's how the D's - and especially Nadler -operate. Everything is about pushing the D's agenda. They have the power and they will do anything, short of violence, to implement it. And if others don't like it, tough shit.
Jerry Nadler is a living refutation of Dean Wormer: Fat. lazy and stupid IS a way to go through life.
>Many of the committee’s senior Democrats chose to use their limited time not to seek answers from Barr but to make speeches.
That brings back my introduction to President (then Senator) Obama...to set the stage, the Iraq War was going badly (the Dem's were literally voting weekly to cut funding to the troops(!)) President Bush makes a bet-his-Presidency decision and sends General Petraeus out to turn our fortunes around.
6 months later, we drag General Petraeus off the battlefield and fly him across a dozen timezones to testify to Congress. And what does Senator Obama do with his question time? Actually ask a question?? Of course not. He gives a campaign speech, using the General as a prop.
tl;dr our political class is awful.
>Many of the committee’s senior Democrats chose to use their limited time not to seek answers from Barr but to make speeches.
That brings back my introduction to President (then Senator) Obama...to set the stage, the Iraq War was going badly (the Dem's were literally voting weekly to cut funding to the troops(!)) President Bush makes a bet-his-Presidency decision and sends General Petraeus out to turn our fortunes around.
6 months later, we drag General Petraeus off the battlefield and fly him across a dozen timezones to testify to Congress. And what does Senator Obama do with his question time? Actually ask a question?? Of course not. He gives a campaign speech, using the General as a prop.
tl;dr our political class is awful.
More stale mate theatre.
You have to admire the D's in the House. They operate with Nazi-party like Discipline. Everyone in the same page and robotically follows the party line. You get the feeling that if the D's had only a one vote majority, they could still ram through every piece of left-wing legislation, no matter how extreme.
Meanwhile, the R's need a 30-40 vote majority to do anything, since everything they do is hampered by grand-standers, RINOs, and weak leaders who don't want to fight. The House R's wouldn't even fund Trump's border wall or investigate Hillary/Obama's numerous crimes or push back on Mueller's Russia Hoax. If the D's win House AGAIN, I wouldn't be shocked, since they do nothing to make people want to vote for them. All they can do is say: "We're not Jerry Nadler".
The democrats just showed the world how useless they really are. This was embarassing...and they SHOULD be voted out of office...but the left loves them some hateful, violent riots.......and the Congress who praises them.
“But I'm just judging the headline. Let me be fair to the reporters, Nicholas Fandos and Charlie Savage. From the body of the article....”
Shit! Really? Fair to the NYT? The only way to be fair to the Times is to ignore their blatant, lying partisanship.
The NYT is asshole!
I can't believe any of you would vote for these assholes.
The NYT conflates protestors and rioters, hoping to make the DOJ response to arson and criminal conspiracies look like an overreaction.
The broad public will also conflate protestors (No permits required, suddenly. And that is an issue for future lawsuits!) and rioters.
The public will not confuse the two issues in the same direction as the NYT.
Original Mike said...
"Did the NYT report that Nadler refused Barr a 5 minute bathroom break?"
No. But if you dig deep enough into the 537 comments, you'll find this:
Dan M
Omaha
2h ago
The Democrats were so rude and unfair. They clearly had discussed a tactic whereby they would ask Barr a question, in the form of an accusation, and then immediately reclaim their time so that he couldn't answer the question. At one point Nadler initially refused to give Barr a 5 minute bathroom break. Why would anybody voluntarily appear before this cast of clowns.
Congressional hearings of this sort only increase my contempt for Congress critters---and I'm not alone. Of course my gerrymandered Congressional district will keep sending Adam Schiff back to Congress until Hell freezes over. it will also vote for Biden in November. Sometimes a voting fish such as myself swims in a very polluted sea.
But Barr is a stoic and wise man. he knows that these hearings are nothing but bear baiting,and he knows how to keep his cool in the midst of extreme provocation---sort of like a smart kindergarten teacher facing down a mob of unruly five year olds.
Nadler is a clown, and the dems are a toddler Stalinist freak show
A vote for Biden is a vote for collapse of norms.
The best response Barr could've given to any and all of those grandstanding bastards was "are you done?" Literally, just like you would to a 4 year old having a temper tantrum..."are you done?"
That would've made a great mashup to go along with "I'm reclaiming my time."
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
The problem is that Bill Barr knows that there will be no consequences for lying to Congress.
Field Marshal Freder has turned into standup comic Freder. How could Barr "lie" to Congress when he was never allowed to answer? You really need some new material, Freder. There must be an email from the DNC in your inbox with today's talking points.
This is why I can't be a politician or an attorney general- when the bathroom break was denied, I would have stood up pissed on the table.
"I reclaim my time."
Reclaiming Cunt
I was driving with my wife yesterday afternoon. As she tends to do, she had NPR on the radio, and they were covering the Barr hearings.
I should be beyond surprise on this point, but the one-sidedness of the coverage was remarkable. I would hear Democratic representatives ask their questions, then the program would cut to the NPR hosts describing what Barr said in response. Three rounds of this: Congressperson X (D) speaks, journalist tells us in brief what Barr said. Then the journalists discuss how the Democrats were really pressing Barr, and he wasn't giving them much in response.
I tried to imagine an alternative reality in which taxpayer dollars fund a right-wing mirror image of NPR, and the segment was devoted to how Barr wiped the floor with these idiots. But of course that's inconceivable.
I can't even think of a more clear choice being offered than what we have now between one party advocating and supporting the destruction of American cities, with people being robbed and killed in rapidly escalating numbers. Democrats are arresting people who just want to work and pay their damned taxes, yet these same Democrats refuse to arrest or charge the people robbing, burning and destroying the lives of their constituents.
Yesterday in New Jersey they arrested those gym owners who opened up, had 13,000 visits and zero Covid cases reported, while crimes across the state were being ignored, and the Governor himself was responsible for killing thousands with his policies. If the people of New Jersey had any decency they would be marching on the Governor's mansion and arresting him.
If the people of the country have an average IQ over 90, they will turn Democrats out of office across this nation. I was a Democrat for the first 40 years of my adulthood, and now it's a complete embarrassment I wish I could erase from my history. Probably my biggest mistake in life. It means I was part of something terrible for my country and the cause of its downfall if we let it happen. We have already been greatly diminished by idiots now in power cheering on mindless toddlers having a tantrum with deadly weapons.
"The long-awaited testimony of Trump’s most powerful Cabinet member yielded more venting than questions, and few answers. There’s a reason for that." What was the reason? The author seems to think that the reason is that those poor Democrats were just so frustrated that they couldn't wait to hear answers.
The real reason is probably that Barr answered pretty effectively when he was allowed to answer. And that their real complaint against Barr is that he is doing his job as he sees it. "Yeah, but Atticus aims to defend him. That’s what I don’t like about it."
My daughter summed it up as a 'shit show'.
The Barr appointment as AG makes up for a lot of Trump's nonsense on Twitter. Now, if Trump could just focus on the greatness of our country, its institutions, and its people for 100 days, he'd win 45 states. He ought to haul out that Mt. Rushmore speech and read it before he goes to bed at night and when he wakes up. Who better to lead us back to prosperity than he? Who better to recover from the bitter ashes of this pandemic than Americans?
Listen to the Democrats. That is not who we are.
NPR should be defunded......it is a propaganda arm for the democrats, just like cnn, msnbc, abc, cbs, nbc, and lately foxnews.
And we used to joke about Pravda.
Field Marshal Freder has turned into standup comic Freder. How could Barr "lie" to Congress when he was never allowed to answer? You really need some new material, Freder. There must be an email from the DNC in your inbox with today's talking points.
I will give you an example. Last week some high ranking officer of DHS was asked about the man who was detained by federal agents in Portland (put into an unmarked van, taken to the courthouse and questioned by agents, and then released with no paperwork or justification). In his statement, Kris Cline, Deputy Director of Federal Protective Service, said that the man was not a suspect, but was thought to be near the scene and could possibly identify the suspect. He was packed into an unmarked van and hauled to the courthouse, ostensibly for his safety and that of the officers. That is clearly illegal, there has to be a reasonable basis to believe there someone has committed a crime (not just witnessed one) before you can detain someone against his will. See this for a more thorough explanation.
When Barr was asked about the incident yesterday, he launched into a soliloquy about when it is legal to detain someone, which although legally correct, completely ignored the question he was asked. That is why Democrats kept claiming their time back, Barr wasn't answering the questions he was asked.
After watching the House hearings, I think Trump's new Covid doctor, Immanuel ,is right about one thing--reptiles run our government. And the probably have sex with demons.
"Reclaiming my time" is a Democrat way of saying "shut your mouth, I'm the one talking here."
Rep. Madeleine Dean adds, "I'm surprised at your lack of respect for a member of Congress."
So the question becomes, do the Democrats realize they are turning Donald Trump into the return of Abraham Lincoln. Of course it was the Democrats of the day whose crazed opposition in essence created the first Honest Abe as our greatest president.
Every time I see guys like Nadler living the good life I think about all the stuff you Boomers have to answer for. Sadly it’s your grandchildren who will pay all the bills.
@JPS
Trump's first or second act in office should have been to defund NPR or fire everyone there....of course he probably doesn't have that power, but a man can dream.
MikeR said...
I think he should have brought a good book to read. And asked them to let him know when one of the speakers was going to have a question they wanted him to answer.
7/29/20, 8:43 AM
When I first saw parts of that "sh*tshow" I thought much the same EXCEPT if he had done anything like that the media would have all been "look how he disrespected the Congress"!?!?! and nary a word on how they disrespected him. This way, he limited how the media could play this. Sadly, he had to "take one for the team" and sit stoic through that crap.
FF said...
could possibly identify the suspect. He was packed into an unmarked van and hauled to the courthouse, ostensibly for his safety and that of the officers. That is clearly illegal...
When Barr was asked about the incident yesterday, he launched into a soliloquy about when it is legal to detain someone, which although legally correct, completely ignored the question he was asked
FF? have you considered READING what you write?
You might not sound so stupid, if you put a little thought into your posts
Was just a competition for a :05 blip on the disabled channels.
Yancey Ward said...
This is why I can't be a politician or an attorney general- when the bathroom break was denied, I would have stood up pissed on the table.
that was my 1st thought too...
But then i thought about having respect for our elected officials and decided that,
the Proper Action; would have been to urinate into the water pitcher and then sat back down
Freder, You are making the opposite point you think you are. Even if your description of events is true, what are we talking about here? A man was temporarily detained, not arrested, not charged, not fined. He really suffered no damage and might have been saved injury. In fact, I bet he would prefer to do it again to having been ignored. It probably got him laid. Are they really supposed to question witnesses in the middle of a riot? The violence and destruction is not academic to the situation. This was not some legal debate in a classroom. People are being severely hurt and even killed. The detainment MIGHT BE technically illegally, but so is speeding when driving to the hospital with a bullet in you. The idea that this was some terrible injustice in the middle of an ocean of it, shows you have no perspective. I would absolutely love to have a government that limited it's illegality to the kind you find so offensive. That would be a huge improvement over where we are.
Freder Frederson believes material witnesses cannot be detained.
He believes detaining material witnesses is criminal.
Freder Frederson is fucking ignorant.
And Freder, How does Barr's supposed lie compare to Nadler telling you Portland violence was a myth? Or the endless lies of other Democrats in service of a 4 year nonstop effort to overthrow a fair legal and presidential election? Much of it done with violation of the nation's highest crimes.
Jerry Nadler is a corpulent ill tempored gully dwarf whose primary activities seem to be lying and turning food into hate and fat. It's astounding to me that such a ridiculous creature is in such a position of power.
"Every time I see guys like Nadler living the good life I think about all the stuff you Boomers have to answer for. Sadly it’s your grandchildren who will pay all the bills."
True enough, but those grandchildren and their parents are off to a much stronger start at their own destruction and that of their children. I think human energies are like a bulldozer. You can build a house with it, but after you finish, you can't keep driving it around the place. You need to find something new to build somewhere else or you won't have house for long.
I don't want to hear any more complaints about how Trump turns White House press conferences into political rallies. Yesterday, the Democrats held a pro-Antifa political rally under the guise of an oversight hearing. Next time, Barr should just send a cardboard cutout of himself for the Democrats to yell and scream at.
Watching video last night of the treatment Barr received from the Democrats, they didn’t look for one second like they believe their candidate is up by 15 points and a slam dunk to beat Trump in November.
"Frequent viewers of congressional hearings might say, understandably: Well, what did you expect?"
Hmm....
..I expect basic candor, comity, and childish tantrums left outside the chamber.
AZ Bob said Barr did offer some good one-liners.
Yep. When asked about the church people complaining about Trump coming there, Barr quipped, "Was that before or after the fire was put out?" leaving the inquisitioner speechless.
Laughing in the face of one democrat was priceless because she was so clueless why it was funny that she was trying to equate a slideshow describing pepper balls as DOJ "policy" and couldn't even figure out why he was asking "what policy?"
And saying "You're a real class act" was both subtle irony/sarcasm and a cutting indictment of the whole hearing Nadsler was running.
That is why Democrats kept claiming their time back, Barr wasn't answering the questions he was asked.
Why lie when the videos are there ?
I think that the problem here was Wadler. I think that Schifty would not have done nearly as badly. Their problem is that most committee chairs on the Dem side of the House are assigned by seniority. And that means that the chairpersonships go to political hacks from ultra safe seats. Often near senile political hacks. Wadler fits right in there. A mentally defective total incompetent. By all rights, he should have run the impeachment last year. But he couldn’t, as was evidenced by his mishandling of their Mueller hearing. So, Palsi threw it to Schifty, who, along with being a compulsively lying scumbag, is quite bright. Probably too bright for his own good,which is how he gets away with his lies So much of the time, and Wadler often doesn’t. I’ll bet that Palsi wished that she could have come up with a semi plausible reason for Schifty, and not Wadler, run the hearing yesterday. But AG Barr would likely have just thumbed his nose at them if they had tried - since Schifty’s HPSCI doesn’t have any plausible legal jurisdiction over the AG in a purely domestic matter.
As noted elsewhere on "teh interwebs", the ENTIRE PURPOSE of yesterdays hilarious and self-defeating flailing by our LLR-lefties beloved democrats was exposed very near the end of the democrat idiocy on display.
If you want to know what it was ALL about, here you go:
Rep. Mucarsei-Powell: "Under oath, under oath, do you commit not to releasing any report by Mr. Durham before the Novermber election?"
Barr: "No".
Fuck the NYT in their cakeholes...
“I will give you an example. Last week some high ranking officer of DHS was asked about the man who was detained by federal agents in Portland (put into an unmarked van, taken to the courthouse and questioned by agents, and then released with no paperwork or justification). In his statement, Kris Cline, Deputy Director of Federal Protective Service, said that the man was not a suspect, but was thought to be near the scene and could possibly identify the suspect. He was packed into an unmarked van and hauled to the courthouse, ostensibly for his safety and that of the officers. That is clearly illegal, there has to be a reasonable basis to believe there someone has committed a crime (not just witnessed one) before you can detain someone against his will. See this for a more thorough explanation.”
Sorry. It isn’t illegal, but rather is done day in and day out across the country. Not necessarily the snatch and grab part, but the coerced interview part. Typically, material witnesses are given the choice of answering questions by officers on the street, or at their precinct. The violent rioters and arsonists, by immediately mobbing and attacking federal agents whenever they can be identified, made the voluntary approach, of giving witnesses that choice is not, currently, viable. To make the snatch and grab viable, all they need to do is articulate a credible reason why they can’t just walk up to their prospective witnesses on the street (easy here since the federal courthouse, where the judge who would be hearing the case works, is under violent attack every night), and articulate a credible reason to question the witness.
The alternate would give the violent rioters, and their ilk, a heckler’s veto over whom federal agents can question, and whom they can arrest. Already, it has become commonplace for these violent rioters, etc, to try to reclaim people being arrested by law enforcement, by force, by trying to overpower the LEOs trying to make the arrest, and force ably de-arrest the person being arrested. Plenty of video of these violent confrontations available on the Internet.
So, no, it isn't illegal. Not even close.
bagoh20: "Freder, You are making the opposite point you think you are."
Evergreen comment.
Freder: "In his statement, Kris Cline, Deputy Director of Federal Protective Service, said that the man was not a suspect, but was thought to be near the scene and could possibly identify the suspect. He was packed into an unmarked van and hauled to the courthouse, ostensibly for his safety and that of the officers. That is clearly illegal, there has to be a reasonable basis to believe there someone has committed a crime (not just witnessed one) before you can detain someone against his will. See this for a more thorough explanation."
Once again, as always, you only get 100% of the relevant facts wrong.
The good news? You can't possibly get any worse than being 100% wrong.
Congratulations!
Switching gears, go back and re-listen to the non-questioning "questioning" of Barr by Zoe Lofgren where she tips her hand in terms of what she knows about how the feds are identifying and tracking subjects.
The feds are likely using the electronic footprints/surveillance of suspects/witnesses to identify where these little cats are and then waiting for opportune moments to swoop in and pick them up rather than attempting to detain them while in the midst of mobs.
Of course, we have all witnessed 4 straight years of the dems/left/LLR-left first deny, then praise (yes, they turned their talking points on a dime that quickly because of course they did) the abuse of the FISA 702 databases to spy on Trump and all his associates and business partners and friends and family going back decades so really Freder should have no complaint about real time surveillance of real time suspects who have committed actual crimes and material witnesses to those crimes and then picking those suspects and witnesses up for questioning.......
.......(but we all know he will, don't we?)
Barr got his five minute break, but only after Jim Jordan ragged on Nadler for refusing.
"Rep. Madeleine Dean's comment, "I'm surprised at your lack of respect for a member of Congress" is in step with Nadler's blathering about rudeness. Are they that unself-aware?"
-- It's deliberate gaslighting. By trying to pretend the other side is rude, they can make their own actions seem reasonable.
"Barr did offer some good one-liners."
-- "Was that before or after the fire was put out" is my favorite so far from what I've read/seen.
"The problem is that Bill Barr knows that there will be no consequences for lying to Congress. The Democrats have been put in the untenable position that questions will inevitably lead to a deceptive response, if not an outright lie. "
-- Note, that Republicans FREQUENTLY face consequences for lying to investigative bodies. It is DEMOCRATS who are rarely, if ever, taken to task. Barr is one of the few people who MIGHT actually face consequences if he lies to Congress. At least be historically aware of the last ~10 years before shooting off ignorant bon mots.
Leftist Collectivists have established these rules:
1) Arson is mostly peaceful.
2) All Cops Are Bastards and police should be defunded.
3) Defending federal property in Democratics controlled states is illegal.
4) Arresting criminals is illegal.
5) Detaining material witnesses is illegal.
My response:
If you have any nice stuff, I hope it is stolen or burned.
I hope nobody responds to your cries for help.
I hope no federal agents arrive to protect you.
I hope the criminals who steal and burn your stuff are not detained.
I hope no witnesses are questioned.
I want you to get what you want because I am a warm-hearted, good person.
First hit from "can police detain witnesses":
"As the California Supreme Court explained: The federal test for determining whether a detention or seizure is justified balances the public interest served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest and the severity of the interference with individual liberty. ¶ California constitutional principles are based on the same considerations, i.e., balancing the governmental interests served against the intrusiveness of the detention.11
Accordingly, a detention of a witness ought to be upheld if the officers’ need to
obtain information from the witness (or at least identify him) outweighed the
intrusiveness of the detention."
Followed by: "A short time later, an officer arrived at the only entrance to the campground. He waited there, intending to “stop any moving vehicle, under the assumption that, while most people would be sleeping at 3 A.M., anyone who was awake might have seen something.” Just then, a Corvette occupied by two men was leaving, so he stopped it.23 The men were arrested when the officer determined that one of them was the robber. On appeal, the court ruled the car stop was lawful because:
It was reasonable to suspect that the occupants of the Corvette had been awake in the campground when the robber came through, and that they might have seen something. Under these circumstances, and especially given the recency and the seriousness of the crime, prompt investigative efforts were justified. Even though [the officer] had no other information to link the Corvette or its occupants to the robbery, he could validly stop the car and ask its occupants if they knew anything or had seen anything that might aid [the officer’s] investigation of the crime that had just been committed. "
Source.
What I have learned from testing Freder's legal theory? He's not just wrong, but that the federal officials PROBABLY could have been more aggressive if they wanted.
Real American said...
I don't want to hear any more complaints about how Trump turns White House press conferences into political rallies. Yesterday, the Democrats held a pro-Antifa political rally under the guise of an oversight hearing. Next time, Barr should just send a cardboard cutout of himself for the Democrats to yell and scream at.
7/29/20, 11:02 AM
Perfect!!!
Feder:
Feder:
When Barr was asked about the incident yesterday, he launched into a soliloquy about when it is legal to detain someone, which although legally correct, completely ignored the question he was asked. That is why Democrats kept claiming their time back, Barr wasn't answering the questions he was asked.
****************
So you're saying that because Barr didn't answer one question to *your* satisfaction, that explains why all the other *Dems* cut him off and didn't allow him to answer other questions.
Uh huh... Is this more of your Karnak the Magnificent mind-reading routine?
Quaere: why not allow Barr to answer and thus demonstrate that he continually lies?
Isn't that how prosecutors impeach a witness's credibility? By letting him talk?
Bill Barr should have brought a ship's bell with him. Whenever a Democrat yelled "Reclaiming my time!", Barr would ring the bell twice, pause, then repeat until the Democrat relented and let Barr answer.
"Ding, Ding." pause.
"Ding, Ding." pause.
"Ding, Ding." pause.
"Ding, Ding." pause.
"Ding, Ding." pause.
That would drive them crazy.
Barr must be like so many of us who never thought we would see days like these with a political party united in sedition with violent street insurrectionists. He must think he’s gone through the looking glass. I do.
Trump’s great gift is exposing the lawless lunacy of the left, particularly the Democrat Left. I fear it will be short lived, but I bought my shotgun.
Matt Sablan said...
-- It's deliberate gaslighting. By trying to pretend the other side is rude, they can make their own actions seem reasonable.
I don't think it was gaslighting. It was a sop to their base, which at this point is all they've got left. I suspect they've totally lost all support from the center or center-left.
- Note, that Republicans FREQUENTLY face consequences for lying to investigative bodies. It is DEMOCRATS who are rarely, if ever, taken to task
Explaining things to Freder is like explaining things to Crack. Talking to a wall.
A wailing wall but still a wall. Expect no sensible response.
Barr doesn’t even need to say anything out loud at times to let us know he thinks these Dems are fools.
His sips of coffee/water along with his facial expressions tell us exactly what he is thinking!
To summarize Fredor, the Dems couldn't let Barr answer a question because Barr's answer, while true and accurate, might be beyond Fredor's ability to understand.
Matt Sablan: "What I have learned from testing Freder's legal theory? He's not just wrong, but that the federal officials PROBABLY could have been more aggressive if they wanted."
Freder's idiotic "wrongness" "intensified"....
The problem is that Bill Barr knows that there will be no consequences for lying to Congress. - Freder
Since you fuckers never gave him a chance to speak, we'll never know now, will we?
What I have learned from testing Freder's legal theory? He's not just wrong, but that the federal officials PROBABLY could have been more aggressive if they wanted.
Don't you see the difference? The corvette occupants were stopped but they were not (immediately) arrested. If the police had dragged the men out of the car, took them to the police station and questioned them there, that would have been a different set of facts.
The federal agents in Portland were perfectly within their rights to question the guy on the street. It is when they shoved him in a van and took him to the courthouse for questioning that they committed an illegal act.
A man was temporarily detained, not arrested, not charged, not fined. He really suffered no damage and might have been saved injury.
Another person who didn't bother to read the link.
Once again, as always, you only get 100% of the relevant facts wrong.
Please explain what "relevant facts" I got wrong. The most important fact is that the Deputy Director of Federal Protective Service said the guy was not a suspect, but a potential witness. What is wrong with the logic of the linked post?
Not necessarily the snatch and grab part, but the coerced interview part. Typically, material witnesses are given the choice of answering questions by officers on the street, or at their precinct.
And if they refuse to answer any questions, can the police arrest them and forcibly take them to the precinct? Just because people don't know what their rights are doesn't negate them. I also noticed you slipped in "material" to modify witness. Being in a crowd when a crime occurs does not make one a material witness, and the facts set out by the Deputy Director render your use of the term "material witness" a bit of a stretch.
If you think I am so stupid then address the post I linked.
Barr quipped, "Was that before or after the fire was put out?"
So are you saying that Barr didn't know the answer to his question? The fire was the night before. I can't believe he did not know that.
Barr should hold his own hearing where he plays video clips of the Dems' questions, stops the video,and then gives the answers the Dems blocked him from giving at the real "hearing." That would be a real public service.
In the voluminous annals of Democrat over-reach and backward wrongness we now add this:
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/07/portland-issues-maximum-fine-on-feds-for-unpermitted-fence-outside-courthouse-bill-is-192000-and-counting.html
You can burn down a federal courthouse, but don't block the bike lane or else. Of course, the rioters aren't blocking anything, right?
His expressions were priceless. Barr is a master swamp creature, but clearly on our side. He didn't give an inch. And when they challenged his calm demeanor he simply became more intensely calm in their face. The Seattle commie Indian really didn't like it.
Wadler is so pathetic that I almost feel sorry for him. Imagine going through life acting that way. He isn't even a hack; he is a clown. Every time he speaks up he generates waves of contempt from millions. Does he even know anyone who will admit they disagree with him? I think it wouldn't be worth it to engage with him--then you'd be stuck talking to him. No one would rescue you.
"It is when they shoved him in a van and took him to the courthouse for questioning that they committed an illegal act."
Except... "TRANSPORTING THE DETAINEE: Officers may not transport the detainee from the
scene of the detention unless there is good cause to do so, or the detainee voluntarily consents.36"
So. Wrong again.
Lots of demands for "Yes or no" answers.
Fools
One Dem stated that Trump had said people should inject bleach directly in their veins. Barr said something like I don't think so. The Congress critter was adamant.
This, ladies and gentlemen - and any other genders present - is the majority party in congress, on one of the most important committees around.
Contempt of congress?
You bet.
all the dems needed to do was get barr under oath and let him lie....he willingly complied
Re bathroom break. No doubt everybody has a "should have".
Mine is, take his phone out of his pocket, put it to his ear, and say"I have to take this call, be back shortly"
Seen all the time on TV when sidekick needs to exit the scene..
Democrats acted like assholes. Because they are assholes. And stupid, nasty assholes at that. Anyone would have to be a sick, evil fool to vote for the party of those slanderous jerks.
sunsong said...
all the dems needed to do was get barr under oath and let him lie....he willingly complied
7/29/20, 3:27 PM
So we can expect that the congress will be charging him with contempt, right? It should be on the news tonight, right? I mean if he did lie and fell into their trap, they should spring that trap and charge him with contempt for lying to congress, right?
Or are you just wish-casting (again)?
FYI, any fact you find inconvenient is not automatically a lie. Unlike say a prior SoC asking about wiping servers with a cloth or blaming a video for the death of Americans or using a private, unsanctioned, unsecured email server to bypass FOIA and to hide pay-for-play scams and then acting all ignorant about it OR pushing a fake Russian document to impugn a political rival.
Love the peaceful protesters attacking the Federal building. They hate the Confederacy. Go fucking figure.
Mr. Majestyk said...
Barr should hold his own hearing where he plays video clips of the Dems' questions, stops the video,and then gives the answers the Dems blocked him from giving at the real "hearing." That would be a real public service.
7/29/20, 1:49 PM
Perfect! I second that. I'd watch that podcast/video.
THEOLDMAN
“ And if they refuse to answer any questions, can the police arrest them and forcibly take them to the precinct? Just because people don't know what their rights are doesn't negate them. I also noticed you slipped in "material" to modify witness. Being in a crowd when a crime occurs does not make one a material witness, and the facts set out by the Deputy Director render your use of the term "material witness" a bit of a stretch.”
It is done every day across the country. Here is the 4th Amdt:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The key word involving searches and seizures is “reasonable”. That was what the camp ground case revolved around - whether the questioning (temporary seizure) was reasonable. The court ultimately decided that it had been. This is obviously a fact intensive debate. But, for example, witnessing a crime very often does make someone a material witness if they have a decent chance at identifying the person committing the crime (the identity of the perp is material to his conviction, and thus the person making the identification very much can be a material witness).
It is important to understand that Nadler is concerned with really only one audience - his district, which is Manhattan Upper West Side, the heart of Brooklyn, and the New York City union establishment. If you have ever been to a community meeting on the UWS and seen the Red Diaper Lady enforcers sitting in the front row, you'll understand Jerry. Asking him to step up to a national perspective just ain't gonna happen.
Bob Smith said...
Every time I see guys like Nadler living the good life I think about all the stuff you Boomers have to answer for. Sadly it’s your grandchildren who will pay all the bills.
Bob Smith, in 1957, the year I was born, the Democrats were at the beginning of a 40-year run of controlling Congress. The New Deal was passed before I was born. The Great Society legislation was passed before I could vote. I don't feel a lot of responsibility for that.
Blogger sunsong said...
all the dems needed to do was get barr under oath and let him lie....he willingly complied
You idiot, they could not bring themselves to let him answer. You and Freder are two idiots. Just like your Congressmen.
I don't know whether Steve Cohen is completely nuts and believes that crap he was spewing, or whether he's just a shameless grandstanding resistance guy as cynical as the rest of them. With the exception of Karen Bass, who was polite and clear and a true believer, the rest of the Dems distinguished themselves by the inherent cynicism of repeating ridiculous talking points they obviously don't believe, coordinating their hearing strategy of "reclaiming their time," and generally demonstrating to the rest of the country their contempt for anything other than their naked pursuit of power. I told my daughter I'd pay her $10 an hour to sit through that hearing, as it should offer lifelong inoculation against believing in politicians.
After that hearing, the only people in Congress who qualify as potentially worthy of respect are Jim Jordan and Karen Bass, and maybe that GOP rep who early on gave his time to Barr to respond to the calumny the previous Dem dumped on Barr. The rest were ineffective at best, showboating, but mostly much worse than that--transparently cynical propounders of agitat-prop they obviously don't even believe. Such an awful group of garbage people.
AA since your dominant source of news is from the NY Times, WaPo, Atlantic and the rest of the discredited East Coast media cabal, I'm wondering if you still have an independent viewpoint which has not been polluted with propoganda news.
Field Marshal Freder has turned into standup comic Freder.
The Althouse commentariat's “Freder Frederson” is a disgrace to his namesake — i.e., the principal character in Fritz Lang's classic silent 1927 SF film epic Metropolis: to wit, Freder Frederson.
That “Freder” was a uniter — seeking to bring Metropolis' bitterly divided folk together (and succeeding in the end). “Our” Freder is simply a partisan seeking — every minute — a win for his side (which isn't the side of “the people,” by the way). Even Freder's nom de plume here is propaganda — which he then, tellingly, fails to live up to.
Post a Comment