Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
36 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Who the Fuck is this guy? Barr: "I don't know what the emoluments clause IS" (Original Post) jodymarie aimee Jan 2019 OP
You are kidding exboyfil Jan 2019 #1
OP is not kidding. I heard that idiot say it too. MoonRiver Jan 2019 #7
Was certainly not his meaning, elleng Jan 2019 #19
it is fine if virtually nobody ubderstands it MrGrieves Jan 2019 #26
On what page is it in the Constitution dalton99a Jan 2019 #2
Now if I just pretend not to know about it Zambero Jan 2019 #3
For the love of Pete ScratchCat Jan 2019 #4
Oh, for pity's sake! MineralMan Jan 2019 #5
Uh - to be fair Fienstien said she didn't know either... hexola Jan 2019 #6
i before e has exceptions. MineralMan Jan 2019 #8
Jerry Stienfeld appreciates your remarks hexola Jan 2019 #10
You still misspelled Dianne Feinstein's name. MineralMan Jan 2019 #11
Better hurry over to this thread!!! hexola Jan 2019 #16
But it's all over the news janterry Jan 2019 #9
Hey Barr agingdem Jan 2019 #12
But, but, I really wanted to retire and enjoy personal time..as my wife and asiliveandbreathe Jan 2019 #13
I think Barr is defending himself rather well... hexola Jan 2019 #14
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2019 #15
It's also called the "Title of Nobility Clause." Wikipedia has a good article on it. Towlie Jan 2019 #17
there are two which apply Hermit-The-Prog Jan 2019 #23
I don't know about you, but I feel comfortable... Adrahil Jan 2019 #18
After all, it isn't like it's been in the news the last couple of years... highplainsdem Jan 2019 #20
It really hasn't hexola Jan 2019 #21
It doesn't get mentioned in the brief network news shows very much, but it's been given highplainsdem Jan 2019 #22
Does he know what a poodle is? milestogo Jan 2019 #24
Emoluments means "pay bribes here" FakeNoose Jan 2019 #25
He's lying Rocky888 Jan 2019 #27
I like this Barr guy this time around... PeeJ52 Jan 2019 #28
Wow, that is pretty shocking. demmiblue Jan 2019 #29
Im sure he will - how long does it take to "study up"? hexola Jan 2019 #30
No Excuse bpj62 Jan 2019 #31
Did you see the testimony? hexola Jan 2019 #32
Yes I did bpj62 Jan 2019 #33
I'd be more suspicious if he had a well crafted answer - even if I liked it. hexola Jan 2019 #34
Not sure I agree bpj62 Jan 2019 #36
Seemed like a good answer on Roe hexola Jan 2019 #35

exboyfil

(17,857 posts)
1. You are kidding
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 11:34 AM
Jan 2019

Right? A former AG doesn't know what the emoluments clause of the Constitution is?

If the GOP had any integrity, they would suspend the meeting and discuss ending this farce behind closed doors.

By the way Columbia wants the BA and JD degrees back.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
7. OP is not kidding. I heard that idiot say it too.
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 11:41 AM
Jan 2019

Oh, and I'm sure he knows what the emoluments clause is. He's a Chump hack. Can't wait until other Dems get to him.

elleng

(130,156 posts)
19. Was certainly not his meaning,
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 12:08 PM
Jan 2019

and in fact virtually no one fully understands the meaning and scope of the emoluments clause.

 

MrGrieves

(315 posts)
26. it is fine if virtually nobody ubderstands it
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 12:25 PM
Jan 2019

But actually the AG needs to understand what it is.

Zambero

(8,954 posts)
3. Now if I just pretend not to know about it
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 11:35 AM
Jan 2019

It doesn't exist. Never claimed to be a constitutional scholar. Next question!

ScratchCat

(1,957 posts)
4. For the love of Pete
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 11:36 AM
Jan 2019

can one Democrat stand up and say "This wholly disqualifies Mr. Barr from consideration" and everyone of them walk out?

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
5. Oh, for pity's sake!
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 11:37 AM
Jan 2019

An Attorney General who has not read the Constitution? A perfect Trump appointee, I guess.

 

hexola

(4,835 posts)
6. Uh - to be fair Fienstien said she didn't know either...
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 11:38 AM
Jan 2019

And she was the one who asked the question...

If its not a particularly an issue of the moment - why would he have to appear an expert...?

Kind of a strawman...

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
11. You still misspelled Dianne Feinstein's name.
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 11:50 AM
Jan 2019

You also misspelled the other two names. I find that unfortunate, hecksola. It's easy to find correct spellings. Just start typing in Google, and it will show you how they are correctly spelled.

It's a matter of respect, you see, for the person you are talking about.

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
13. But, but, I really wanted to retire and enjoy personal time..as my wife and
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 11:55 AM
Jan 2019

I have discussed..I even gave the POS names of other qualified people for this position...emoluments clause..whatchutalkin' 'bout Willis....???

Perhaps he really does want to retire..."only speculation"...when I wrote that 20 page memo regarding thee Mueller investigation - and made sure the POS got it...

Oh, and that pardon of O North - I was just kidding..but they took me seriously....Iran Contra Arms...oh, was that what they were talking about.....(all snark, of course)


I had to shut it off....

 

hexola

(4,835 posts)
14. I think Barr is defending himself rather well...
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 11:55 AM
Jan 2019

He's pushed back on some of the criticisms pretty well...not much traction.

Response to jodymarie aimee (Original post)

Towlie

(5,308 posts)
17. It's also called the "Title of Nobility Clause." Wikipedia has a good article on it.
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 12:02 PM
Jan 2019
The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Emoluments Clause...

more


If Trump received remuneration from Putin before he took office, would this apply? I'm not sure, but any prospect for Attorney General certainly ought to know what it is.

Hermit-The-Prog

(33,041 posts)
23. there are two which apply
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 12:21 PM
Jan 2019

As you stated:


Article I, Section 9 (in part)

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9


Also:


Article II, Section 1 (in part)

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1


All bases covered -- the President is supposed to be compensated only by the United States, not private business, not foreign powers, not bribes over or under the table.
 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
18. I don't know about you, but I feel comfortable...
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 12:08 PM
Jan 2019

with a USAG who hasn't reviewed the Constitution and the clauses that are of immediate concern to this Administration.... seems legit to me!

 

hexola

(4,835 posts)
21. It really hasn't
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 12:13 PM
Jan 2019

And it was clear Senator Di-Fi didn't even know what it was about...she admitted it and moved on.

highplainsdem

(48,731 posts)
22. It doesn't get mentioned in the brief network news shows very much, but it's been given
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 12:18 PM
Jan 2019

lots of coverage in print, and some on cable news.

I don't for one second believe Barr is unfamiliar with the legal battles over it.

 

PeeJ52

(1,588 posts)
28. I like this Barr guy this time around...
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 12:46 PM
Jan 2019

I don't trust him because of pardoning all the Iran Contract dudes, but I hope he really doesn't care about not being bullied.

 

hexola

(4,835 posts)
30. Im sure he will - how long does it take to "study up"?
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 01:26 PM
Jan 2019

Im sure all the legal experts here will chime in

bpj62

(997 posts)
31. No Excuse
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 02:15 PM
Jan 2019

Barr should know about the Emollients Clause because the Justice Department is currently defending the Administration in a lawsuit brought by The State of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Sorry but I cannot excuse his lack of knowledge about a clause that his soon to be boss has been violating since day 1.

 

hexola

(4,835 posts)
32. Did you see the testimony?
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 02:17 PM
Jan 2019

More is being made of this than necessary...and the questioner did NOT press him on the issue - and then jokingly dismissed it.

bpj62

(997 posts)
33. Yes I did
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 02:29 PM
Jan 2019

I do not find fault with Diane Finestein not understanding the Emollients Clause. However he should know exactly what it means because of what I stated in my prior post. Finestein let him off the hook because she didn't want to embarrass herself. She should not have asked the question if she didnt know the answer herself.

 

hexola

(4,835 posts)
34. I'd be more suspicious if he had a well crafted answer - even if I liked it.
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 02:35 PM
Jan 2019

I thought his response was essentially - "Yeah - I know what it is but I'm not prepared to adjudicate or comment on that issue today..."

The idea that a display of expertise on this issue is an indicator of his fitness for the job is a bit of a strawman/assumption.

bpj62

(997 posts)
36. Not sure I agree
Tue Jan 15, 2019, 03:11 PM
Jan 2019

Barr wrote a lengthy letter in which he clearly laid out his arguments about why the Special Prosecutor had over stepped his jurisdiction. It was basically his resume cover sheet for the Attorney General Job. I do not believe for one second that the issue of the Emoluments cases that are before the court did not come up in his interview with Trump. Trump begged Comey to go easy on Flynn. How do you think he is reacting to a suit that directly affects his companies making money. I wish this was a scene from Mr. Smith goes to Washington but it isnt. We are dealing with a guy who will do anything to protect his personal interests.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Who the Fuck is this guy?...