Barr flunks a Constitution 101 question.

[catbyte]

Link to tweet

‘I can’t tell you what the emoluments clause means’: Trump’s AG nominee admits he doesn’t understand the Constitution https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/cant-tell-emoluments-clause-means-trumps-ag-nominee-admits-doesnt-understand-constitution/ …

11:05 AM - Jan 15, 2019
--------------------------------------------

Just another one of POtuS's subpar, "only the best people" nominees.

[ProudLib72]

1. Bill Barrf

1) Who is turning out these "legal experts" who know nothing about the basics of constitutional law?

2) Who is advancing them to the point where they can be considered for AG?

3) Why is this not an automatically disqualifying answer?

Ok, 2 and 3 have to do somewhat with GOP enablers. That's the be expected.

[haele]

7. Bill Barr was Poppy's AG for Iran-Contra - 1991 to 1993.

He made the case for Presidential Pardons on everyone involved with Iran-Contra. I have no doubts he worked with the CIA back when Poppy was in charge, so he's used to hands being filthy with foreign entanglements, dictators, and kleptocracies...

I'm pretty sure he understands the Constitution very well - he's got no problems subverting it if there's either money or GOP politics involved, and it seems he knows what to do to keep Presidential Over-reach and borderline treason just this side of "legal".
His answer about emollients was pretty much a throw-away to make him seem detached from the current push to get rid of democracy in the US.


Haele

[ProudLib72]

14. I had forgotten about his involvement in Iran-Contra, and I just read it last night!

Thanks for reminding me!

Yeah, I tend to agree. He knows his way around the law, and this is just bullshittery to make it seem he is indifferent to the current situation.

[hexola]

2. This is so stupid - why are people falling for this...???

Why do people assume that every lawyer is going to show up an expert on every topic?

I'm sure if a case that involved the emoluments clause was on the docket - any lawyer would bone up...just like they would for any matter or case.

The lady who asked the question - followed up by dismissing the whole issue - saying she doesn't know anything about it either!!!

This is a dog and pony show so the Dems can make it look like they opposed this nomination.

[sweetloukillbot]

8. So are you saying the Dems REALLY DO support the nomination

But are just pretending to oppose it and are looking for excuses?

And yes, I do expect a lawyer WHO IS GOING TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL to know what's in the Constitution.

[hexola]

9. Yes - that is basically what I am saying...

His answer - was he knew what it was - but couldn't quote it - or now exactly how it's worded - and wasn't prepared to comment.

The fact that, moments later, Di-Fi dismissed the issue - saying she doesn't know what it is either - should give you a clue how "determined" the Dems are.

[catbyte]

10. Seriously?!? There is a case being adjudicated NOW over it.

And you think it's okay for the Attorney General of the United States of America to be ignorant of it? Wow, just wow.

[hexola]

12. But its ok for Di-Fi to not know?

She asked the question...and then admitted HER ignorance - how can you dismiss that?

And - "ignorant" is your characterization...he said he just wasn't boned up on the issue.

I'd be MORE suspicious if he had a carefully crafted and thought out answer...wouldn't you?

[catbyte]

13. Last time I checked, she wasn't nominated to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

[hexola]

15. Well I guess she should have pressed him on the issue then, right?

His nomination is in her hands...

[spanone]

3. you'd think after 2 yrs. of hearing about the emoluments clause he would have been curious....

Oh, I see, he's lying.

[hexola]

4. But its ok for Di-Fi to not know?

C'mon...She dimissed the whole thing...

Weak drive by...

[Thomas Hurt]

5. Fn liar. He knows what it is and what it means, he is just dodging the question.

which is stupid, cause he could have just said that there is little to no case law on it.

[hexola]

6. Folks expecting Kavanaugh-level outrage will be disappointed.

This is more Merrick Garland - Barr will likely be seated.

[hexola]

11. Freeper thread - they are NOT excited about this pick

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3720047/posts?q=1&;page=1

"Barr's close friendship with the amoral Robert Mueller bothers me. I would have preferred that Trump's team would have tried to find a strong law enforcement advocate from outside the beltway. "

=====

In 1991, all eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to confirm Barr as Attorney General.

That was the same group of Democrat Senators who destroyed Robert Bork, and who tried to destroy Clarence Thomas.

But they voted 8-0 for William Barr!

=====

This whole thing is a Dog and Pony show!

Barr is a total insider, just like the president he worked for.

=====

Once a swamprat always a swamp creature!! I don't trust this scummy dude..nope not one iota!! Best friends with mueller..pffft!!🙄 Wives best friends and bible buddies..PFFFT🙄... Trump is so cooked...

=====

I’ve only watched a very few minutes of the hearing, but I did hear Barr refer to Mueller as “Bob” in a very casual way. I hope Barr does prove to be objective and not just another member of the Swamp creatures club.