Yesterday's circus was called a congressional hearing. "Congressional Hearing" clearly means congressional listening to glean facts and information. Yesterday was designed and executed as a political bashing pure and simple -- what might be called a political lynching. The Democrats not only didn't listen, they didn't even let targeted Barr talk. All a well planned and rehearsed game plan. The Democrats lambasted Barr non-stop with whatever accusation they could dream up. Personally and completely destroy (if you can) your political opponent is straight out of the Marxist-Alinsky playbook. And they unabashedly did it on national TV so everyone could see and witness their wild-eyed fervor. Instead of mitigating the debacle even just a little, Pelosi doubles down calling the Attorney General despicable and repeating for inane emphasis her characterization of federal agents as storm troopers. I wonder how many main street Democrat voters they lost. Was it as many as the Kavanaugh hearing losses?
These hearings tend to be folly. Our elected reps are more concerned with grandstanding in front of the camera. “Fact finding” is not as important as getting that viral sound bite....
It wasn't a "hearing"... it was a scolding, from the spoiled children who inhabit the democratic party in congress. Nancy led the charge... Perhaps we just need a better diaper service for them.... but no talc, evidently it causes cancer or something....
I was especially impressed with the one that was "losing her temper". After watching everything going on and then seeing that farce I have to wonder do they actually believe any of that garbage and more importantly, what kind of voter are they courting? This country is being raped by a media system that has completely lost it's way and forgotten it's mission.
When something is this obvious,(the hearing dog and pony show) even hardcore Dems must shudder. Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff et al have lost their minds and are pulling this stuff out of their ass, have been all along. I wonder sometimes if they actually believe the things they do and say. They are clutching at straws now.
Most of it is for show - but at the base of the hearing is a very important question: Do we want American Presidents to be sending in Secret Police Squads to arrest protesters? It has a very nasty flavor of third world dictatorships. Remember, once one President starts doing this, then the next (Democrat) President will continue doing this. Is that really what you want? So while I agree that there is a ton of political BS at these hearings (just like the Republicans during Benghazi hearings) there is a very important decision to made at the bottom of it all.
The fact that local level government has permitted rioters and looters free reign, and the federal government should even have to step in, is horrifying. According to everything I've read, these aren't 'peaceful protestors' being arrested. At what point do you feel someone needs to take control of what the rioters are doing? After people get hurt? After businesses burn or are destroyed?
So, a couple things here. Sending federal support folks doesn't make them the "secret police". It makes them federal law enforcement that have to be there because the local leaders have demanded that their own policing not address the violence and create a de facto approval of said violence. As a note, I recall that you were very much in favor of other use of federal law enforcement when it was used to, for example, arrest Roger Stone, or others. It didn't seem to bother you then, and frankly it seems that you have a singular flexibility in your willingness to accept the use of federal services to accomplish some of these tasks. The other thing is when a protestor starts a fire, they aren't protesting anymore are they? don't they become arsonists? Help me understand why you seem to willing to ignore their criminal activity.
Perhaps the most revealing moment came when Barr answered the question about whether it's illegal (it is) for a prez or a presidential candidate to accept or solicit help in an election from a foreign government. The Bagman said, "it depends on what kind of help it is." That was the wrong answer both legally and morally. Recognizing that, Billy changed his response. But his first impulse, as it always is, was to defend Trump..........who actually did accept and solicit help in an election from a foreign government (two). At another point Barr sought to distinguish between types of crime. Claiming Stone lying to Congress in their investigation, and Mueller in his, as well as witness tampering were "esoteric" crimes not "meat and potatoes" crimes. People in this country who care about the impartial application of justice cringed. It was the most egregious display of partisan hackery by an AG during sworn testimony in US history.
There were Federal Warrants issued by judges in the arrests of Roger Stone et al - if you don't see a difference, I can't help you. IF Trump's Secret Police were just arresting violent rioters, that would be one thing - but they have attacked the non-violent protestors as well. I'll go by the report I got from my Niece who lives in downtown Portland. She said the violence was very contained and dying down before Trump's police force got the whole thing fired up again.
If this case makes it to court one hopes it will not be decided by the unqualified ideologues Trump and McConnell have packed the federal bench with. PORTLAND, Ore. — Two groups protesting U.S. agents sent to Portland by President Donald Trump to tamp down demonstrations outside a federal courthouse have sued the Department of Homeland Security, alleging it violated the Constitution by sending federal law enforcement to disperse crowds with tear gas and rubber bullets. The Wall of Moms — a group of self-described mothers — and the Don't Shoot Portland group filed the lawsuit late Monday against Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and other federal officials. The agency did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment about the lawsuit. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/28/portland-protest-groups-sue-tear-gas-rubber-bullets-384758
So how would you deal with the criminal acts of a riotous mob Benghazi was different it was about crimes committed by the president and secretary of state and to this day it confounds me how they got a pass on this. And shame on you for even suggesting that the two hearings were even remotely the same.
Sorry you can't see past your own bias. It happens. Being afraid that being a violent participant in a protest will get you arrested and charged for your crimes should actually make protests more peaceful. Why are you complaining about that?
Let them sue all they want, the fed agents presence and actions are 100% legal and commendable. They are using less than lethal ordinance and gas. The mob is using actual bullets and molotovs so they don't have a leg to stand on.
But being a peaceful protestor is guaranteed by the Constitution - so the fact that some people are using it as cover to be violent doesn't give police the right to arrest or use force against the peaceful ones. We don't let police arrest a person standing on the street outside of a bank that is being robbed, do we?
So, let us be specific. You have the right to peaceably assemble. (except when it becomes a public health risk of course as we now know). You have the right to say whatever you want on the public square as long as you don't advocate for the overthrow of the US government, right? What you don't have a right to do is burn public or private property. That transcends into criminal behavior. You don't have a right to vandalize or otherwise destroy public or private property, That is also criminal behavior that you get punished for after an appropriate legal process. So, if the law of the state suggests, as it does in Oregon for example, that groups, not larger than 6 and consisting of family members are not allowed by executive order, it doesn't mean that protests of more than 6 is in compliance with the Oregon law, does it? Should you want to actually inform yourself, here are the current restrictions. https://www.oregon.gov/gov/admin/Pages/eo_20-25.aspx So, the gatherings more than 6 are prohibited by law in Oregon. For the public health. More, once said protestors erupt into violence, the fact that the leadership in Oregon have decided not to protect the public, the leadership are in violation of their oaths of office. Telling police to not police these illegal protests is a violation of both Local and state of Oregon law. Of course you ignore this. So let me be clear here. You assert a standard that isn't reflective in the behavior or the actions of said protestors. By ignoring the number of criminal behaviors, you accept the behavior of criminals. That doesn't seem like a socially acceptable position for you to take.
You’re still on this Russian Hill? “No American has been or will be charged with a crime related to this indictment”. Got it? At no point were there Ruskies. At no point there ever will be Ruskies. The myth died, no one cares for the fable. Now, we could’ve avoided all of this if Secretary Clinton was an honest person but that’s neither here or there. As it relates to what the AG said, let’s be blunter: Some laws shouldn’t be a law. Lying to Congress when it routinely lies to us, is one example. And as the Stone threats go, they weren’t credible threats but apparently that’s not the only criteria for prosecution. Either way, jail time isn’t always the best course of action. Stone’s a felon, devoid of reputation or the ability to influence public affairs. I think that’s sufficient