https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/william-barr-confirmation-hearing/index.html I am following the updates at the link. He is making a good showing, answering questions well. Barr: "It would be a crime" for a President to pardon someone who promises not to incriminate him Attorney general nominee William Barr said it would be "a crime" for a president to give a pardon to someone in exchange for a promise not to incriminate the president. The question came up after Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy described how Barr supported former President George H.W. Bush's decision to pardon six people who were targets in the Iran-Contra scandal. "Do you believe a President could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient's promise to not incriminate him?" Leahy asked. "No. That would be a crime," Barr responded. Some background: Bush granted pardons to six former government officials in the arms sales scandal days before the trial of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, which threatened to reveal new evidence of lies that members of the Reagan administration had told Congress about the deal. Some Democrats also see parallels between Barr's support of the pardons that capped the Iran-Contra scandal and potential moves by Trump in the waning days of the Mueller probe. MAGA will end up hating Barr as well, I expect.
I have to agree with that.... I've been watching it (on and off) for the past 2 hours.... he seems like a reasonable intelligent man to me, which will immediately make him a target for Trumpublicans... I expect he gets confirmed with no more than 7-8 D No's for appearance.... This will likely not be a partisan confirmation... Bottom line is that he's the best the D's are going to get here... they need to take him ASAP before Trump backs out...
Barr: "I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong" (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) Attorney general nominee William Barr sought to assure the Senate Judiciary Committee of his commitment to remaining independent, saying he would not be bullied into doing anything wrong. Sen. Dick Durbin posed a series of questions to Barr about his breaking point. Here's how that exchange went: Durbin: "A number of my colleagues from both sides have asked and I bet you will hear more, questions along the line of what would be your breaking point? When would you pick up and leave? When is your Jim Mattis moment when the President has asked you to do something that you think is inconsistent with your oath? Doesn't that give you some pause as you embark on this journey?" Barr: "It might give me pause if I was 45 or 50 years old. It doesn't give me pause right now, because I had a very good life. I have a very good life. I love it. But I also want to help in this circumstance. And I am not going to do anything that I think is wrong. And I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong by anybody whether it be editorial boards or Congress or the President. I am going to do what I think is right." ... Earlier: Feinstein asks Barr to commit to not interfere in Mueller's probe Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, asked William Barr today if he would commit to not interfere in the special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. Here's that exchange: Feinstein: Will you commit to no interference with the scope of the special counsel’s investigation? Barr: "I will -- the scope of the special counsel’s investigation is set by his charter and by the regulations, and I will ensure those are maintained." Feinstein: "Will you commit to providing Mr. Mueller with the resources, funds and time to complete his investigation?" Barr: "Yes." Feinstein: "Will you commit to ensuring that special counsel Mueller is not terminated without good cause, consistent with department regulations? Barr: "Absolutely." Barr said he talked about joining Trump's legal team once in 2017, but he didn't think he could take it on. Sen. Feinstein pressed Barr on whether he could resist pressure from the White House. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/william-barr-confirmation-hearing/index.html Yep, sounds like MAGA is in trouble with this guy heading the DOJ. He'll have to try to force him out.
BTW, am I the only one who thinks 'Tubby Older Bob Costas' when you see this guy on TV?? Not saying that's good or bad, just that it is..
Interesting... Saw that I-o-way Senator discussing something called 'Sarah's Law'... Didn't know anything about this... sounds draconian on the surface, but I would tend to agree with this, to keep the illegal from running. SNIP The measure requires federal immigration authorities to take into custody an undocumented immigrant who has been charged with a crime resulting in death or serious injury. In the Root case, the immigrant charged in her death was released on bail and fled before he could be prosecuted. ENDSNIP He still needs a fair trial (in the US) while in custody, but this sounds fair enough to me.
Ooops... first major stumble with Blumenthal.. Blumenthal - "The reports that the FBI opened an investigation of the president for working with a foreign adversary - Russia" Barr - "What's stomach churning about that?" Maybe he was confused by the very simple question, but that was a baffling answer...
He said without a doubt to stop drugs and trafficking a wall and a barrier is a must, you're spinning your wheels without it.
I expect you'll be proven completely wrong. With Sessions out of the way there will be nothing to stop Barr from investigating the misconduct of the previous administration and its lackeys in the DOJ and FBI. Lube up, Dims...
There was nothing to stop Sessions, who was definitely a Trump guy, from doing so either. Well, aside from the fact that this alleged misconduct is pure fantasy and trumpian bulldust.
Sessions' recusal on all things Russia stopped him. Bob Barr won't have any such hinderances - in fact, he'll be free to look into the activities of Mueller & Co., Cleaners and Insurance Agents, Unltd. Yeah, that's why so many high-ranking officials in Obama's corrupt and weaponized DOJ - Comey, McCabe, Strzok, et al - have either been fired, demoted or are jumping ship (Rosenstein). Should be a fun two years - someone is finally going to start getting to the bottom of all that skullduggery...
What was baffling about it? Barr wanted Blumenthal to answer his own question since Blumenthal was the one that claimed it was "stomach churning". Blumenthal was wise to back down because he would be forced to admit it's only stomach churning because such an investigation was launched on a sitting President based on absolutely no corroborating evidence. That is indeed "stomach churning". It makes us a left wing banana republic.
So even if you take that spin on the topic, Barr should have found that aspect stomach churning....correct? His clueless act was a little disingenuous and the only black mark I can give him for what I watched today... BTW, there was evidence that warranted an investigation.... many of us saw some of it via NBC... just because the evidence was so out in the open doesn't make it less valuable... SNIP But the president’s activities before and after Mr. Comey’s firing in May 2017, particularly two instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect of the inquiry ENDSNIP https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html
Think your going to be upset. Barr and Mueller are good pals. Even Batt knows Mueller would not lead a witch hunt
I wonder why the president picked him? He seems to contradict the presidents statement's on Mueller, Sessions and Rosenstein.
