Questions for William Barr?

[Lincoln Republican]

May 1, 2019, Attorney General William Barr is being questioned by the U.S. Senate Justice Committee?

If you were a Senator asking questions, what question or questions would you like to ask Attorney General William Barr?

Please discuss.

[S019]

Could you clarify the ambiguity of the government's position on obstruction of Justice and collusion, so that we can have a clear answer

[GP270watch]

Why are you such a useless hack who constantly betrays the public trust to protect wrongdoing by those in government?

[Progressive Pessimist]

Why are you such a useless hack who constantly betrays the public trust to protect wrongdoing by those in government?

This is what I would have said too.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Mr. Barr given that you either perjured yourself during your confirmation hearing or have grossly failed in your duties as Attorney General, can we expect your resignation immediately or will you force the American people to remove you from office?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Who do you think would win in a primary between Andrew Cuomo and AOC and why?

(Edit: Oh, is this not an Atlas AMA thread?)

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Mr. Barr given that you either perjured yourself during your confirmation hearing or have grossly failed in your duties as Attorney General, can we expect your resignation immediately or will you force the American people to remove you from office?

The American people can't remove him from office unless they vote Trump out of office in 2020.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Mr. Barr given that you either perjured yourself during your confirmation hearing or have grossly failed in your duties as Attorney General, can we expect your resignation immediately or will you force the American people to remove you from office?

The American people can't remove him from office unless they vote Trump out of office in 2020.

Though the second amendment people, maybe there is something you can do

[Koharu]

Mr. Barr given that you either perjured yourself during your confirmation hearing or have grossly failed in your duties as Attorney General, can we expect your resignation immediately or will you force the American people to remove you from office?

Very similar to my thoughts:

Mr. Barr, can you give any legal training why Congress should not immediately begin impeachment hearings in response to your behavior?

[Koharu]

Mr. Barr given that you either perjured yourself during your confirmation hearing or have grossly failed in your duties as Attorney General, can we expect your resignation immediately or will you force the American people to remove you from office?

The American people can't remove him from office unless they vote Trump out of office in 2020.

That is completely inaccurate. All federal officials are subject to impeachment, and the people can contact their representatives and encourage them to act on impeachment.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I would ask AG Barr to elaborate the ways in which Mueller has injected his own politics and biases into a process which, in the end, determined that there was no collusion, and that there was not sufficient evidence (at a minimum) to conclude that Obstruction of Justice occurred by anyone.

[emailking]

that there was not sufficient evidence (at a minimum) to conclude that Obstruction of Justice occurred by anyone.

It didn't conclude that. Of the 10 potential obstruction events he looked at, he concluded all the elements of obstruction were met for 4 of them. No charges were brought because he believes no prosecutor has the authority to bring charges against the President.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

that there was not sufficient evidence (at a minimum) to conclude that Obstruction of Justice occurred by anyone.

It didn't conclude that. Of the 10 potential obstruction events he looked at, he concluded all the elements of obstruction were met for 4 of them. No charges were brought because he believes no prosecutor has the authority to bring charges against the President.

We're seeing the circular logic of Trump excuse-making rise ever farther above the murky depths where it's been lurking for some time:

1) You can't indict the President.
2) If there's no indictment, there's no crime.
3) If there's no crime, Trump has done nothing wrong.
4) Since Trump has done nothing wrong, any attempt at impeachment or even investigation is a purely political witch-hunt.


It's sheer nonsense, of course. And there are multiple different riffs. But that's the heart of it.




 

[emailking]

that there was not sufficient evidence (at a minimum) to conclude that Obstruction of Justice occurred by anyone.

It didn't conclude that. Of the 10 potential obstruction events he looked at, he concluded all the elements of obstruction were met for 4 of them. No charges were brought because he believes no prosecutor has the authority to bring charges against the President.

We're seeing the circular logic of Trump excuse-making rise ever farther above the murky depths where it's been lurking for some time:

1) You can't indict the President.
2) If there's no indictment, there's no crime.
3) If there's no crime, Trump has done nothing wrong.
4) Since Trump has done nothing wrong, any attempt at impeachment or even investigation is a purely political witch-hunt.


It's sheer nonsense, of course. And there are multiple different riffs. But that's the heart of it.

I agree there appears to be some degree of circular logic being employed. And it's somewhat disguised in that you have different people on different parts of the circle sometimes.

Even with a conservative reading of the report, I don't see how you can't come away with the notion that he did something very wrong here. Even if it's not as bad as Dems were hoping.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Bill Barr should do an AMA on Atlas where two people ask questions (including me asking him how big is Barr is) and he doesn't answer either of them.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Who do you think would win in a primary between Andrew Cuomo and AOC and why?

(Edit: Oh, is this not an Atlas AMA thread?)

Mr. Barr, which American Solidarity VP nominee since 2000 do you like the most?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Bill Barr should do an AMA on Atlas where two people ask questions (including me asking him how big is Barr is) and he doesn't answer either of them.

Roger Stone already did that one. Man, the writers are getting lazy if they are doing the Atlas non-AMA --> Prison storyline AGAIN!

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Mr. Barr given that you either perjured yourself during your confirmation hearing or have grossly failed in your duties as Attorney General, can we expect your resignation immediately or will you force the American people to remove you from office?

The American people can't remove him from office unless they vote Trump out of office in 2020.

That is completely inaccurate. All federal officials are subject to impeachment, and the people can contact their representatives and encourage them to act on impeachment.

I know, and he won't be impeached because Republicans control the Senate.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I would ask AG Barr to elaborate the ways in which Mueller has injected his own politics and biases into a process which, in the end, determined that there was no collusion, and that there was not sufficient evidence (at a minimum) to conclude that Obstruction of Justice occurred by anyone.

That's actually a fairly reasonable question. Mueller can't be a biased fraud who "exonerates" the President at the same time (even though that's not actually what happened, but whatever).

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

that there was not sufficient evidence (at a minimum) to conclude that Obstruction of Justice occurred by anyone.

It didn't conclude that. Of the 10 potential obstruction events he looked at, he concluded all the elements of obstruction were met for 4 of them. No charges were brought because he believes no prosecutor has the authority to bring charges against the President.

We're seeing the circular logic of Trump excuse-making rise ever farther above the murky depths where it's been lurking for some time:

1) You can't indict the President.
2) If there's no indictment, there's no crime.
3) If there's no crime, Trump has done nothing wrong.
4) Since Trump has done nothing wrong, any attempt at impeachment or even investigation is a purely political witch-hunt.


It's sheer nonsense, of course. And there are multiple different riffs. But that's the heart of it.

I agree there appears to be some degree of circular logic being employed. And it's somewhat disguised in that you have different people on different parts of the circle sometimes.

Even with a conservative reading of the report, I don't see how you can't come away with the notion that he did something very wrong here. Even if it's not as bad as Dems were hoping.

Whether you can indict a sitting President or not is a legal question that goes on and on.  What is clear to me is that the report could have easily said that an indictment for the President would have been sought had Probable Cause of a crime been found by the investigators.  This did not happen, and it's complete fiction to assert that it did.

Now a President CAN be named an unindicted co-conspirator to a crime.  That's already happened; Richard Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in those acts of Obstruction of Justice that constituted the Watergate cover-up in the indictments of Haldeman and Ehrlichman (IIRC).   But that didn't happen, either, and it easily could have. 

Trump's enemies thought they "had" him.  They didn't, and the most likely reason they don't is that Trump didn't do anything that rose to the level of a crime.  That's a bottom line, and it ought to be.

[Nyvin]

On March 25th you received a letter from Mueller saying he disagrees with your summary of the report.   On April 10th you told Congress you "Didn't know" if Mueller supported your summary of the report.

How is this not you lying to Congress?

[136or142]

"Now a President CAN be named an unindicted co-conspirator to a crime.  That's already happened; Richard Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in those acts of Obstruction of Justice that constituted the Watergate cover-up in the indictments of Haldeman and Ehrlichman (IIRC).   But that didn't happen, either, and it easily could have."

This preceded the DOJ opinion.

[emailking]

Whether you can indict a sitting President or not is a legal question that goes on and on.  What is clear to me is that the report could have easily said that an indictment for the President would have been sought had Probable Cause of a crime been found by the investigators.  This did not happen, and it's complete fiction to assert that it did.

I'm not claiming that it asserts this explicitly, just indirectly. The report lays out (for multiple events) that all the elements of a crime took place and have sufficient backing in evidence. It also points out that the President cannot be cleared of obstruction (no such similar statement for conspiracy); and by the way, Congress is the body with the authority to hold the President accountable.

[QAnonKelly]

[136or142]

that there was not sufficient evidence (at a minimum) to conclude that Obstruction of Justice occurred by anyone.

It didn't conclude that. Of the 10 potential obstruction events he looked at, he concluded all the elements of obstruction were met for 4 of them. No charges were brought because he believes no prosecutor has the authority to bring charges against the President.

We're seeing the circular logic of Trump excuse-making rise ever farther above the murky depths where it's been lurking for some time:

1) You can't indict the President.
2) If there's no indictment, there's no crime.
3) If there's no crime, Trump has done nothing wrong.
4) Since Trump has done nothing wrong, any attempt at impeachment or even investigation is a purely political witch-hunt.


It's sheer nonsense, of course. And there are multiple different riffs. But that's the heart of it.

I agree there appears to be some degree of circular logic being employed. And it's somewhat disguised in that you have different people on different parts of the circle sometimes.

Even with a conservative reading of the report, I don't see how you can't come away with the notion that he did something very wrong here. Even if it's not as bad as Dems were hoping.

Whether you can indict a sitting President or not is a legal question that goes on and on.  What is clear to me is that the report could have easily said that an indictment for the President would have been sought had Probable Cause of a crime been found by the investigators.  This did not happen, and it's complete fiction to assert that it did.

This is simply false.  This is what the Mueller report actually says:

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

The OLC found that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions," the report said.

Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations ... this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction," prosecutors said.

In the obstruction case, prosecutors wrote, "We recognize that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting president would place burdens on the president's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential conduct."

So, no Fuzzy Logic, what you wrote is simply wrong.  You have been fooled by the liar William Barr. Personally I'd appreciate it if you stopped stating lies.