President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

So this is either good politics or bad cross examination - maybe both - depending on whether you think Harris is effective or not.

First, she couldn't conduct a cross like this in a courtroom, constantly talking over the witness, without a judge knocking it off real quick. In Senate hearings, a witness has no such protection, thus grandstanding often ensues.

Her first question - about asking or suggesting - wasn't sincere.

Here's her next one: Did Barr "personally review" all of the underlying evidence (which took years for Mueller's team to compile) in reaching his decision not to charge Trump. According to Harris, all of the evidence included "witnesses notes and emails, witnesses congressional testimony, witnesses interviews," Comey memos and Trump's public statements.

Harris: "Did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?"

Barr: "No, we took and accepted-"

Harris: "Did Mr. Rosenstein?"

Barr: "No. We accepted the statements in the report as the factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate."

Harris: "So you accepted the report as the evidence?"

Barr: "Yes."

Harris: "You did not question or look at the underlying evidence that supports the conclusions in the report."

Barr: "No."

Harris then goes on to ask if RR or anyone in Barr's office personally reviewed all of the evidence compiled by Mueller's report.

Barr: "No."

Harris: "Yet you represented to the American public that the evidence was not 'sufficient' to support an obstruction of justice offense?"

Barr: "The evidenced presented in the report. This is not a mysterious process, and the DOJ have pros memos and declination memos every day coming up. We don't go and look at the underlying evidence. We take the characterization of the evidence as true."

Harris: "As the attorney general of the United States, you run the US DOJ. If in any US attorney's office, the head of that office, when being asked to make a critical decision, in this case about a person who holds the highest office in the land, and whether or not that person committed a crime, would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they had not reviewed the evidence.

Barr: "That's a question for Bob Mueller. He's the US attorney, he's the one who presents the report."

Me: Now let's think about Harris is asking here. She's asking if - she already knows the answer - Barr had basically replicated the compilation of the Mueller Report after Mueller did. Of course he didn't. Mueller produced a massive report on it. I don't know what reviewing that evidence would have achieved, given the length and thoroughness of the report, the time spent on it, and the fact that Barr, having received the report, wasn't going to take the weeks and months needed to review all of the evidence Mueller's team compiled for the express purpose of putting it in a digestible report.

The question, in other words, is a misdirection, signifying quite little. I think Barr's befuddlement is in part because Harris's questions are so beside the point and bizarre that he's wondering whether she's on the level. (Which she wasn't.)

Next question:

"Have you consulted with the career DOJ ethics officials about the appropriateness of being involved or recusing yourself from the 14 other investigations that have been referred out?"

Barr: "On what basis?"

Harris: "Conflict of interest. Clear conflict of interest."

Barr: "What's my conflict of interest?"

Harris: "I think the American public has seen quite well that you've been biased in this situation and you've not been objective. And that arguably would be the conflict of interest."

Me: Huh? It could arguably not, too.

Barr: "I haven't been the only decision-maker here. (He goes on to mention RR, who was approved 94-6 by the Senate to oversee the Russia investigation.)

Harris then asks whether Barr consulted DOJ ethics folks about whether RR should be cleared to consult on the charging decision considering he was a witness in the Comey firing.

Barr: "My understanding was that he had been cleared already to participate."

Harris: "So you had consulted with them and they cleared it?"

Barr: "I think they cleared it when he took over the investigation."

Harris: "You don't know whether he's been cleared of a conflict of interest?"

Barr: "He wouldn't be participating if there was a conflict of interest."

Harris: "So you're saying it did not need to be review by the career ethics officials in your office?"

Barr: "I believe it was reviewed. I'll also point out this seems to be a little bit of a flip-flop, because when the president's supporters were challenging Rosenstein - "

Me: Barr's right about this.

Harris: "The flip-flop in this case is you're not answering the question directly.

Barr: "What?"

Harris: "Did the ethics officials in the DOJ review the appropriateness of RR being a part of making a charging decision of an investigation in which he was a witness in?"

Barr: "My understanding was he had been cleared and he had been cleared before I arrived."

Harris: "On making a decision on the Mueller Report?"

Barr: "Yes."

Harris: "And the findings on whether or not the case would be charged on obstruction of justice?"

Barr: "He was the acting attorney general on the Mueller investigation."

Harris: "Had he been cleared to be by your side a decision - "

Barr: "I am informed that before I arrived that he had been cleared by the ethics officials."

Harris: "As what?"

Barr: "Serving as the acting attorney general on the Mueller case."

Harris: "How about making a charging decision on obstruction of justice?"

Barr (chuckling): "You know - that's what the acting attorney general's job is."

Harris: "To be a witness and to make the decision about being a prosecutor?"

Barr: "Well, no - to make charging decisions."

Me: Harris has lost the plot here. CNN reported that RR had been consulting with DOJ ethics all along, and the concern, up until the point when the Mueller report didn't magically deliver, was whether RR would be too harsh in a charging decision on Trump. When Barr says it's a "flip flop," he's right: The cover for Barr all along has been that RR was above-board on this, and if he concurred with not having a charging call, that was ample proof there was no "there" there. Harris is saying what? That RR was compromised in deference to Trump? C'mon.

Barr's right when he says RR would have been the man making the charging decision before Barr came aboard.

I tried and tried to find something in those questions where I thought Harris made a salient point. I think mostly what she did was ask questions so not germane to the issue at hand that it had the effect of baffling Barr.

 

1. Barr said no one asked him.

2. I'd submit no, she doesn't care about the answer to suggest. She doesn't wait for the answer. She moved right on to hinted and inferred, and inferred...that might as well be hearsay. "His sigh said he wanted me to do something."

3. When Barr tries to say more, she cuts him off and goes on to the next question.

4. She got credit for stumping him anyway the minute he said he was grappling with suggest. That's what the media led with. Mission accomplished.

She's a smart person, that way. But it was a lot of tough tone, signifying very little. The Rosenstein question was bizarre.

 

Of course.

 

Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Any account that shares Infowars content will see the content removed; if an account violates terms on multiple occasions it will be banned. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles, and Facebook will remove any Groups set up to share Infowars content and Events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson.

 

We'll have to disagree. I think she included suggested for a reason, he immediately caught the word and then said, straight up, he was grappling with suggest.

First, it's not speed chess or a scientology auditing session. You're allowed to blink, think, ponder about something.

Second, if Barr's intent was just to lie and move on, why admit you're struggling with suggest, since people thought it made him look bad? Was that a gambit that backfired? And I can see why anyone would struggle. Almost anything could be a suggestion. Then, she added "inferred" and, at that point, she's basically asking for Barr to consult his and anyone else's imagination. If he says an outright "no" to suggestion, and then some "DOJ source" comes along and says it's like Barr and the WH discussed the idea of an investigation, well, suggestion is left to interpretation, isn't it?

Your own language in the post is more direct than "suggest" or even "ask." Cajole? I think Barr would have said "No" swiftly to cajole. Cajole isn't suggest. Cajole is a sustained, repetitive act of persuasion. It sure as hell isn't infer. If Harris had wanted to use pressure or cajole or pushed, she would have. She went in the other direction.

And if you're going to say she wanted a sincere answer, how's come you're saying "we weren't going to get an honest answer from Barr." If you believe that, surely she does, and even suggests as much later when she says he's biased. So what'd she do? Move from sincere interest to assertion of bias within the span of four minutes?

Her eight minutes were a series of traps. The first trap was good, but he didn't step in it because he knew exactly what she was trying to do with "suggest."

 

Barr no-shows at the House this morning
In the newser, Pelosi said he lied to Congress. So why aren't they throwing his ass in jail? It's as bad as McConnell sitting on Garland's nomination. Enough pussyfooting around.

 

Harris and Klobuchar both did their jobs, and did them quite well.

 

Shocked this fucking moron didn’t get through. Good. Complete idiot. He can’t speak for 30 seconds without saying something both wrong and stupid.

 

yeah but what about farrak...

oh