William P. Barr the new attorney general?
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
We've discussed Trump's nomination of William Barr in other threads, but he is likely to be more in the news as we get closer to a vote on his candidacy so I thought I would start a new thread. First, as many others have noted, Barr pretty much nominated himself for the job-- that is he got Trump's attention by writing a letter critical of the Robert Mueller investigation. As per the WSJ: "Mr. Barr’s memo is peppered with strongly worded phrases about the peril he sees in Mr. Mueller’s reading of the law, as he understood it. He described Mr. Mueller’s approach as “grossly irresponsible” with “potentially disastrous implications” for the executive branch. He also wrote: “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.” Many have said Barr should recuse himself from the Mueller investigation because of this memo. It's not likely to happen. Secondly, Rachel Maddow exposed how George H.W. Bush pardoned all potential convicts in the Iran-Contra affair thus essentially squashing that investigation. The attorney general pushing Bush on the pardons at the time was none other than William Barr. From Rachel Maddow's program (Politicus: Rachel Maddow Exposes Trump’s Potential Russia Mass Pardon Plan). William Barr is something very, very specific in the history of presidents and presidential scandals and the bad ways they can end. Because on Christmas eve 1992 when George H.W. Bush shocked the country by pardoning everyone still in trouble in Iran Contra and effectively ending the prosecution of that scandal, while he himself was edging into the crosshairs, he took that action specifically on advice of William Barr in the George H.W. Bush administration at the time, the same trump nominee to the attorney general. Here is the “New York Times” write up from the Christmas Day edition, throughout the deliberations, Mr. Bush consulted with attorney general William Barr. William Barr was asked about the pardons. In a 2001 oral history at the University of Virginia. William Barr said quote I certainly did not oppose any of them. I favored the broadest. There were some people arguing just for a pardon for Weinberger. William Barr could be brought in not only to obstruct the final phases of the Mueller investigation but also oversee the large numbers of pardons that Trump will have to issue to neutralize the likely convictions that will arise.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
One more thing: AG nominee William Barr in 1992 CNN interview: Roe v. Wade ‘will fall’ "Days after the Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade in a close five-to-four decision in mid-1992, then-Attorney General William Barr predicted on CNN that the decision would be overturned. "“I think that Roe v. Wade will ultimately be overturned,” Barr said on CNN’s “Evans & Novak.” “I think it’ll fall of its own weight. It does not have any constitutional underpinnings. “I think this department will continue to do what it’s done for the past 10 years and call for the overturning of Roe v. Wade in future litigation,” Barr said, because “well, the vote was worse than five to four several years ago, and we continued to go back to the Court. And I think the defects of the current decision will become more and more evident over time.” If the AG is against Row v Wade and the Supreme Court goes 5-4 against, then bring out the coat hangers. Elections have consequences.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:One more thing: AG nominee William Barr in 1992 CNN interview: Roe v. Wade ‘will fall’ "Days after the Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade in a close five-to-four decision in mid-1992, then-Attorney General William Barr predicted on CNN that the decision would be overturned. "“I think that Roe v. Wade will ultimately be overturned,” Barr said on CNN’s “Evans & Novak.” “I think it’ll fall of its own weight. It does not have any constitutional underpinnings. “I think this department will continue to do what it’s done for the past 10 years and call for the overturning of Roe v. Wade in future litigation,” Barr said, because “well, the vote was worse than five to four several years ago, and we continued to go back to the Court. And I think the defects of the current decision will become more and more evident over time.” If the AG is against Row v Wade and the Supreme Court goes 5-4 against, then bring out the coat hangers. Elections have consequences. Schmidt, I presume there will be an hearing done as well "votes" ; so I wonder can such nomination be "killed"? It is obvious that this guy is an absolute far right evangelical conservative; don't we have enough of those assholes?
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I think its extremely unlikely that the SC would ever actually over turn Roe Vs Wade. It has been upheld so many times it has been ingrained into stone. For it to be over turned, there would need to be new scientist development proves beyond doubt there is conscious, self-substantiating life, at some exact point after conception. Without out that, there is no legal grounds to say the original SC decision was a F'ed up decision in the light of new factual evidence. With that said, it is far more likely that the SC would take cases that continue to chip away at women's rights to make decisions over their own health, and\or, the decisions favor restrictions of healthcare providers that favor women right to choose. There literally could be a case that is decided stating no health care provider is allowed to include abortions as part their healthcare services. Such a decision would not be changing a women's right to chose, just limiting her healthcare options. AKA, women can have an abortion, its just illegal for any doctor in the US to provide them. Roe Vs Way stands, but women have to legal options. When it comes to getting an abortion, those with money will always be able get one by going to a skilled legal doctor located somewhere in the world, but women who are without the funds will have no choice but to have more children when its a very bad decision for the women, her family, and child that is born into a high risk environment. Gun lovers can think of this way: All Americans can own guns, but the SC could decided that is it illegal sell them, trade them for goods\services, or give them away. So what would a gun owner do if that were the law of the land? This issue is no different than Trump's wall. Its not a real issue in the real life situations. Over 95% of all women who become pregnant decide to have their baby. Of those who have an abortion make that choice based on health reasons for the mother (ie she at risk of dying). That leaves a very small percentage that decide to abortion for non medical reasons, and even of those, it is almost immediately when they find out, not waiting months to decide.
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
wwjd: The hypocrisy of the Republican Party is evident in how its members view abortion. Apart from banning "just say no" birth control training , the ONLY way to reduce abortions even further is to make it EASIER to get birth control - and the Republicans are doing just the opposite. 11 states (including Arizona) do not mandate sex or HIV education. To no one's surprise, the states that do NOT have comprehensive training for sex or HIV education also have higher rates of teen pregnancy: https://www.thoughtco.com/abstinence-only-sex-education-3533767 In October, 2017, the Trump administration widened the pool of employers who are allowed to claim exemption from providing contraceptive coverage. A federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked enforcement of the order in 13 states, but apparently the more restrictive rule would still apply in other states. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-blocks-trump-birth-control-rules-13-states-d-c-n958226 Another reason that birth control is so important is that 50% of the pregnancies in America are unplanned. Of these, 43% will end in abortion. and http://shriverreport.org/why-are-50-percent-of-pregnancies-in-the-us-unplanned-adrienne-d-bonham/
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Not all forms of birth control are equally effective, since at least some of those unplanned pregnancies happen to women who are using birth control. Some forms of birth control are actually dangerous, and Erin Brockovich is pursuing litigation against the company that manufactures Essure. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/erin-brockovich-leads-fight-birth-control-procedure-essure/story?id=20506972 You may remember that she brought a successful suit against Pacific Gas & Electric in 1993. That settlement though, is peanuts compared to the damages the company caused recently in California. Their equipment apparently CAUSED the fires in and around Paradise - and they just declared bankruptcy.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Yes, Barr's current and past positions on abortion and birth control should be of grave concern to women. Barr is a good soldier and will take any action that Trump tells him to. And who knows what's on Trump's mind day to day. On a similar note, the New York Times is reporting that in 1991 as Iraq had invaded Kuwait and half a million American troops were deployed and ready to attack, many lawmakers were demanding a vote before any war was declared on Iraq. However, "rejecting those mainstream constitutional views, William P. Barr, the deputy attorney general, told Mr. Bush that he wielded unfettered power to start a major land war on his own — not only without congressional permission, but even if Congress voted against it." “Mr. President, there’s no doubt that you have the authority to launch an attack,” Mr. Barr said, as he later recalled. This 1991 statement is consistent with other Barr views that the executive branch of government has unfettered powers to act in a range of issues. It is in fact why Trump chose him for Attorney General -- to do what Jeff Sessions would not do -- take orders from the president.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:Yes, Barr's current and past positions on abortion and birth control should be of grave concern to women. Barr is a good soldier and will take any action that Trump tells him to. And who knows what's on Trump's mind day to day. On a similar note, the New York Times is reporting that in 1991 as Iraq had invaded Kuwait and half a million American troops were deployed and ready to attack, many lawmakers were demanding a vote before any war was declared on Iraq. However, "rejecting those mainstream constitutional views, William P. Barr, the deputy attorney general, told Mr. Bush that he wielded unfettered power to start a major land war on his own — not only without congressional permission, but even if Congress voted against it." “Mr. President, there’s no doubt that you have the authority to launch an attack,” Mr. Barr said, as he later recalled. This 1991 statement is consistent with other Barr views that the executive branch of government has unfettered powers to act in a range of issues. It is in fact why Trump chose him for Attorney General -- to do what Jeff Sessions would not do -- take orders from the president. Schmidt, yes this is scary indeed; there must be a way to get this appointment rejected; if not then were are doomed even more with this President. Sorry to say, but this country is standing on the edge of an huge cliff; this is just about the last straw before we all tumble down. If you look at all the "firing" and people who left and the "new" incompetent replacements, then this country is "lost" just as happened in Venezuela. The "Constitution" will not safe us as Jared claims. Wake up America, do something fast, or it will be the end of "democracy" in this country. I've got the impression that the "senators" doing the hearing have not read Schmidt's "research" are they sound asleep?
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
After watching the hearings today, my conclusion is that Barr will become Judge and Jury on everything related to Trump, unless Mueller clears Trump and his family. Barr said things that can lead people to believe he will hang trump at the first chance, yet he also said things that suggest he will make Trump untouchable. There are many traditional (silent) Republicans that want to see Trump face the gallows ASAP, and hope Barr will do it so they don't have to get their hands bloody. Trump's base wants Barr to immediately fire Mueller and destroy all related documents (cover up). Basically Barr gave both sides something, leaving it unclear what he will actually do when he has the big come to Jesus moment when Mueller hands him the final report.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:wwjd -- Yes, I agree with you. Barr will certainly be approved with perhaps even a few Democratic Party votes. The contentious points seem to be that 1) Barr will not recuse himself from the Mueller investigation, although he will allow Mueller to finish his investigation, and 2) that he alone will decide what parts of the Mueller report, if any, will be made public. There will likely be parts of the Mueller report that are confidential for national security concerns, but he will have to make the essence of the report public. I don't know if he can block the various House committees from issuing subpoenas for the report. In any case, the truth will eventually leak out if Trump is implicated in a big way. It would be hard to suppress any part of the report that suggests Trump "worked for Russia." And no, Barr will not fire Mueller. That would be political suicide. Schmidt, again this shows that the whole "system" is screwed up; these hearings are totally useless. Either you do these hearings as it should, such as you posted about the past of this guy. If he thinks an President is above the law just like Kavanaugh he should be disqualified. Like they said yesterday on an program, there should be an mandatory "rule" book for any President or people like Barr; showing exactly the "limits" of any such positions, which should be part of the oath. My impression is that there is no such thing, let alone an "rule book" on how to interview someone for the job. Sorry but this country is so far behind in "discipline and "order" it is pathetic. But yeah, all of it is an self inflicted wound.
|