Barr testimony to Senate Judicial Ctee

[ex-khobar Andy]

I've been watching bits of this - so far I am impressed by Sen Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) who seems to be able to start a line of questioning and following where it goes depending on the answers he gets. I'm sure his first question was scripted, but thereafter he was thinking on his feet. That shouldn't be impressive, but these days, sadly, it is.

Edited to correct an embarrassing misspelling in the title of this thread.

[ex-khobar Andy]

We keep hearing the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard of evidence: I think I've heard it, from Barr, at least three times this morning.

I understand it, and it's long been a standard of justice: better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged. Were I the victim of a crime I might feel differently, which is why the victim is not on the jury.

I also think that the laws should apply equally to the president. He is not above the law, nor is he below it.

Except in this instance. If I am, for the sake of argument, 80% certain he has committed high crimes such as obstruction of justice, then he should be removed. There is a price to society if a probable murderer walks free and we all can take appropriate self protection measures: don't go to his house; don't walk nearby alone at night and so on - and for the most part those precautions are well understood and to a large extent (not totally) effective.

In the case of a president the criterion for conviction should be lower. That's because we cannot take precautions around the president if he is reasonably (but not beyond a reasonable doubt) suspected of misdoings. The potential for lasting damage is just too great.

[Sue U]

We keep hearing the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard of evidence: I think I've heard it, from Barr, at least three times this morning.

I understand it, and it's long been a standard of justice: better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged. Were I the victim of a crime I might feel differently, which is why the victim is not on the jury.

I also think that the laws should apply equally to the president. He is not above the law, nor is he below it.

Except in this instance. If I am, for the sake of argument, 80% certain he has committed high crimes such as obstruction of justice, then he should be removed. There is a price to society if a probable murderer walks free and we all can take appropriate self protection measures: don't go to his house; don't walk nearby alone at night and so on - and for the most part those precautions are well understood and to a large extent (not totally) effective.

In the case of a president the criterion for conviction should be lower. That's because we cannot take precautions around the president if he is reasonably (but not beyond a reasonable doubt) suspected of misdoings. The potential for lasting damage is just too great.

The standard for removing a president and the standard for a criminal conviction are two different things. Removing a president who is unfit for office is an inherently political decision made by Congress through the impeachment and conviction process, regardless of whether a criminal violation of the US Code can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If a criminal conviction can be secured in in a court of law, then the president could be sentenced to whatever punishment the criminal law provides -- presumably in addition to being stripped of his office by Congress. This is why Barr's bullshit about not having sufficient evidence to prosecute a criminal case for obstruction is entirely beside the point.

[Big RR]

And why the Justice Department position that a president is not subject to indictment is pure BS, at least IMHO.

[Burning Petard]

The justice department policy is firmly planted in the legal concept of sovereignty. The sovereign personage can do no wrong because they are the standard of what is right and wrong. It is NOT clear that the POTUS is also the sovereign. The weight of precedent can go both ways. Part of the argument is that the preamble of the constitution says all government powers come from the people. However when power or responsibility is distributed everywhere, it is also no where. So the president is the person selected by the people and delegated by the people to act as sovereign.

The Justice department policy also includes the assumption that the POTUS is subject to criminal action after they leave office.

Another truism of US law is that bad cases make bad law. Trump as POTUS has ignored so much that was commonly accepted for presidential conduct that 'precedent' just does not fit.

snailgate.

[Big RR]

BP--you have presented one side of the argument, the other is that the president is merely the representative of the people and is not a sovereign. There is plenty of precedent to say we are a government of laws, not men, and that the president is subject to the law just as any other person. It really depneds on how you view the president, an executive or a king. I prefer the former, and would hold every president to be subject to the law, even while (s)he is president.

[Econoline]

From Jim Wright, on Facebook, this morning:

• In Issac Asimov's novel Foundation, a representative of the crumbling Galactic Empire arrives on the planet Terminus.
  
  The representative, Lord Dorwin, appears to be a powdered fop, a shallow silly dandy who cultivates an affected lisp and sports a jeweled snuff box. Dorwin gives a long rambling speech reassuring the citizens of distant Terminus that the Empire has never been stronger or more vibrant and assures local officials that the galactic government cares about them and has their interests in mind. The local mayor, Salvor Hardin, records Lord Dorwin's remarks, even though that is a gross breach of politeness and protocol, and runs the man's statements through powerful mathematics using analysis programs designed to ferret out exact meanings, and discovers that the Representative was in reality a shrewd and clever man. Hardin, after "...eliminating meaningless statements, vague gibberish, useless qualifications -- in short, all the goo and dribble," finds there was nothing left.
  
  "Everything cancelled out. Lord Dorwin, in five days of discussion didn't say one damned thing, and said it so you never noticed!"
  
  Why do I mention this?
  
  No reason.
  
  Anybody else watching William Barr testify in front of congress today?

[wesw]

foundation, foundation and empire, second foundation....

all irrelevant.

good books when I was 12 but just fantasy.

people are not naturally good.

they won t stick to any prime directive/

they will program their machines to be devoid of conscience and subservience to humanity.

1984 and aNIMAL fARM ARE MORE TRUE TO HUMAN NATURE, AT ITS WORST

sorry about the caps...., but I ain t botherin' to edit shit.

meade can be offended by my grammer and editing if he wishes.

trivial shit.

I even spelled a word wrong onn purpose, just to be an ass.

grammar is not as important as are ideas.

being an ass just comes naturally to me.

sorry.....


....no!!!, I m not sorry!!!!

[Burning Petard]

You said it WESW. Ideas ARE important. Meaningful implementation of most ideas require actions by more than one individual. Thus, ideas must be communicated. Grammar is an important tool for accurate transmission of ideas between individuals.

You seem to prefer chaotic communication. That is your choice, but it sure wastes alot of energy.

snailgate.

[Lord Jim]

chaotic communication.

I was going to go with "gibberish", but I guess that's more polite...

[liberty]

BP--you have presented one side of the argument, the other is that the president is merely the representative of the people and is not a sovereign. There is plenty of precedent to say we are a government of laws, not men, and that the president is subject to the law just as any other person. It really depneds on how you view the president, an executive or a king. I prefer the former, and would hold every president to be subject to the law, even while (s)he is president.

What about Bill Clinton?

[Econoline]

foundation, foundation and empire, second foundation....

all irrelevant.

Hardin, after "...eliminating meaningless statements, vague gibberish, useless qualifications -- in short, all the goo and dribble," finds there was nothing left.

"Everything cancelled out. Lord Dorwin, in five days of discussion didn't say one damned thing, and said it so you never noticed!"

Why do I mention this?

No reason.

Anybody else watching William Barr testify in front of congress today?

chaotic communication.

I was going to go with "gibberish", but I guess that's more polite...

"meaningless statements", "vague gibberish", "useless qualifications", "goo", and "dribble" all might also work...speaking of "relevant".

[Bicycle Bill]

What about Bill Clinton?

What about Bill Clinton?  About the only thing he was guilty of was getting a hummer in the Oval Office.  Anything else he might have done, or even was alleged to have done, pales in comparison to what Trump has himself admitted to doing, wanting to do, or threatening to do to others.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

BP--you have presented one side of the argument, the other is that the president is merely the representative of the people and is not a sovereign. There is plenty of precedent to say we are a government of laws, not men, and that the president is subject to the law just as any other person. It really depneds on how you view the president, an executive or a king. I prefer the former, and would hold every president to be subject to the law, even while (s)he is president.

What about Bill Clinton?

I would have been happy to see him indicted (or not, as the grand jury saw fit based on the evidence); I didn't think he deserved removal from office, but I do think he committed one or more crimes for which he deserved to be taken to task.

And BB, I agree what Clinton was likely guilty of was far less than what Trump has done, but I won't give him a pass just because Trump is worse (and, as I recall, neither did the bar association). Yes, he deserved a trial, but then he also deserved to stand trial right when the offenses occurred, just like any other person accused of a crime.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Clinton is a prime example of how a President is held to a higher standard than the rest of us. I am not condoning what he did but it's probably fair to say that most people who did what he did (formed an attachment at work of which the spouse would not approve - that's putting it delicately) get away with it and are not publicly humiliated. At the very least they are not hauled before a prosecutor and end up lying (yes, he lied) in order to cover up something which was, after all, no-one's business but his, Monica's and Hillary's.

Immoral? Yes. Ethically dubious? Yes. Conduct unbecoming a President? Yes, yes, yes. A high crime or misdemeanor and any sort of threat to the republic? Not in any sense. Should he have been impeached? I think had they come to a lesser charge and censured him he would have been suitably contrite, the Dems would have voted for it, and we all would have moved on.

We are still reaping what we sowed, all those years ago. But Trump's defenders would never allow that he be held to a higher standard, and in fact ('you can't indict the President') he is held to a lower standard.

[Big RR]

I don't know what world you live in andy, but such relations between a manager and a subordinate in business can, and often will, result in dismissal and/or serious repercussions. These are not private dalliances in the context of employer-employee relationships, and few managers would get away with saying "it's no one's business". Indeed, businesses are seriously concerned with managers using their positions to elicit sexual favors, and even the appearance of impropriety is not tolerated.

Second, lying under oath is a crime and is sanctionable for anyone--just because someone believes the matter is no one's business, does not change that. And any one of us can be called to give testimony about potential crimes, not just the president. Face it, Bill was trying to be disingenuous here, and he was caught red handed, I won't give him a pass.

Third--I do not believe Congress has any power to formally censure the president--they can impeach/remove from office, but any purported censure would be of no effect. I don't believe he should have been removed from office either, but he doesn't deserve to be treated any better than any other person who lied under oath.

As for your last point, FWIW, I still maintain that the president can be indicted while in office, notwithstanding the Justice Department position on it. I would far rather have seen Clinton prosecuted than the debacle impeachment and trial became.

[Econoline]

What would have happened if Clinton had simply REFUSED to testify under oath in regard to ANYTHING about his sex life? (i.e., just as Trump has refused to testify under oath in regard to, well, anything he's EVER done or said, either in or out of public office...)

[Scooter]

1984 and aNIMAL fARM ARE MORE TRUE TO HUMAN NATURE, AT ITS WORST

He's right about that.

At this moment there is a pig living in the White House and sleeping in a bed. With sheets.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I don't know what world you live in andy, but such relations between a manager and a subordinate in business can, and often will, result in dismissal and/or serious repercussions. These are not private dalliances in the context of employer-employee relationships, and few managers would get away with saying "it's no one's business". Indeed, businesses are seriously concerned with managers using their positions to elicit sexual favors, and even the appearance of impropriety is not tolerated.

I don't think my statement "Immoral? Yes. Ethically dubious? Yes. Conduct unbecoming a President? Yes, yes, yes. A high crime or misdemeanor and any sort of threat to the republic? Not in any sense. Should he have been impeached? I think had they come to a lesser charge and censured him he would have been suitably contrite, the Dems would have voted for it, and we all would have moved on." was condoning Clinton's actions in any way. I think many Ds in Congress were disgusted by Clinton's behavior and wanted to express that disgust but didn't want to convict him of a 'high crime' warranting removal from office. It's not like removing a middle manager from a commercial operation because he has been less than continent in his sexual approaches to the staff. He was defended by the congressional Ds and people like me because the only available punishment (removal) did not fit the crime.

The point that I have been making for some time is that that defense of Clinton, which seemed reasonable at the time, has come back to bite us in the age of Trump. The moral high ground is prone to flooding.

[Big RR]

What would have happened if Clinton had simply REFUSED to testify under oath in regard to ANYTHING about his sex life? (i.e., just as Trump has refused to testify under oath in regard to, well, anything he's EVER done or said, either in or out of public office...)

My guess is that he might have been held in contempt, but maybe not, and he might have been impeached at that point (with a much more likely removal from office), much as might well have happened if Nixon made a bonfire on the WH lawn and burned the tapes.

My point is that a president does not, and should not, have any more right to ignore the law than any other citizen. Obviously DOJ disagrees, but then they work for him.