Great point from Chris Matthews last night about Barr testifying

[pdsimdars]

Chris was really wondering why Nadler told Barr they would have their lawyer question him. That is what started the controversy. Barr was set to testify and then Nadler informed him that they would have their lawyer do some questioning and Barr balked. Now we are having that standoff. Chris Matthews, and me too, want to know why Nadler did that and threw that wrench into the works.
Shiela Jackson Lee was on later and said that was because they were courteous. Please, give me a break. Can anyone tell us a real story about a bully having a change of heart due to your courteous behavior? We all know how that dynamic works. . . you have to confront the bully and stand up to him. Period. Stop treating these people as if they have earned the right to any courtesy or good faith and get on with the standing up.

[watoos]

1. Republicans did it to Blasey Ford, at the Kavanaugh hearing,

why the fuck do Republicans get special treatment?

Democrats want to ask questions and then at the end the lawyers want to close the deal to make sure that all bases have been touched.

This isn't a new procedure, snowflake Republicans need to suck it up. If Barr is a no show and ignores a subpoena, do what Neal Katyal suggests, defund the office of AG, defund him and his staff. The time for nice is long past. Waiting for the courts to rule on contempt charges isn't going to cut it, defund the bastards.

[BigmanPigman]

3. Can they really defund him so much that it hurts him?

[Hortensis]

4. That was no secret ambush. We were informed.

"Courtesy" in this case does not mean cluelessly offering to share our ice cream cone with a bully while being blind to the fist coming for our teeth.

Courtesy is our party's upholding, in order to protect, the rules, norms and processes developed over nearly 250 years so that congress could function. The very ones the Republicans are trying to destroy in their pursuit of ultimate power.

[NewJeffCT]

11. Blasey Ford is a woman, though

Barr is one of Trump's Alpha Males, so is not tough enough to face an attorney.

[pdsimdars]

20. They get special treatment because the Democrats don't force them to do otherwise.

[zentrum]

27. ++++++

[uponit7771]

33. +1

[uponit7771]

32. +1

[FBaggins]

41. Blasey Ford WANTED to testify

(Or at least Democrats wanted her to do so)

There was a negotiation regarding the format (as is quite common). Republicans had the upper hand in the negotiations - not just because they were in the majority, but because if she didn't testify they won.

do what Neal Katyal suggests, defund the office of AG, defund him and his staff.

He's obviously grandstanding. They don't have the power to unilaterally defund the AG and his staff and it would be electorally stupid to try. Democrats finally muted the "soft on crime" attack years ago. "They even want to defund the Attorney General!!!" would easily bring it back.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. Is anyone wondering why Barr is freaked out about facing his own profession?

Can you see it? As long as it's just the congressmen and women, the issue remains political. But facing his own kind, it elevates it to the academic level of professional malpractice if he says the wrong thing.

[BigmanPigman]

5. I want them to question him

knowing that they will be able to ask Mueller similar questions during his testimony and prove Barr lies (perjury?).

[Baitball Blogger]

7. No doubt.

I just think it's obvious that he is thinking he's smarter than everyone else in the room if they're congressmen and women, even though many of them are lawyers. But facing a professional attorney terrifies him.

The human dynamics is very curious.

[11 Bravo]

52. I want them to put his fucking nuts in a vise until the sonofabitch ...

tells the truth.

Too harsh?

[BigmanPigman]

55. I like it...it's inspired!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

56. that's an excellent point BB. Yet, even with an atty, Barr's pretty good at stall and obfuscation.

Hell, he made is memo for the AG job seem unimportant. Just think, if we had never had Barr, things might be different.

[spanone]

6. Barr is now trump's lawyer. We need to treat him as such.

[dchill]

29. Then the US government needs to stop paying him!

[hlthe2b]

8. If he hadn't told him, the R's on the committee would have and made a big public stink about

this being an "attempt to ambush him"... would be my guess... though Nadler probably is just trying to upfront and above board.

[stopbush]

9. Since when is SOP throwing a wrench into the works?

[Caliman73]

47. Since people seem to want Democrats to disregard rules because Republicans are doing it...

It is understandable that people are upset because Republicans seem to be able to do a lot of pretty shady things with seeming little consequence. The problem is that people want Democrats to "sandbag" the Attorney General because Ford was sandbagged by Republicans. There have been threads about "having to play the same game as Republicans". I have questioned people about what that means to "play the same game" but haven't ever really gotten any specific answer other than a general "Democrats need to be tougher".


There are things that Democrats may be able to do like tightening up on their messaging. Making statements that keep Trump and the other Republicans guessing, like, "All options are being considered to hold Trump and the GOP accountable". They could use parliamentary tactics like getting the Sergeant at Arms ready and putting them in the spotlight to signal that they may chase down people who do not comply with subpoenas.

But I agree with you. SOP is not a wrench. It is how the Democrats signal that the rule of law and procedure is still important even when the Republicans continue to be lawless.

[StarfishSaver]

50. Thank you fo saying this

It's such an important point!

[vlyons]

10. Nadler did it because he wasn't thinking

It just never occurred to him (and I contend to most Dems) the evil depravity, hypocracy, and venality of today's GOP and all those who gravitate into Trump's orb. I just hope that whoever our Dem POTUS is will put a few of them in prison. No more Mr Nice Guy with those MFs.

[pdsimdars]

22. And you wonder what the heck it will take to wake them up?

[barbtries]

54. i'm not sure about that

I had an opportunity to speak with Rep David Price (D-NC) last Saturday and when i protested that we cannot KNOW that republicans will not impeach, he just looked sad and shook his head and said, it will never happen.

i think they do know, they're living it up close and personal, and trying like hell to save democracy. it's a terrible, terrible place we're in.

[Hoyt]

12. Hopefully they'll find some "prosecuter" better than the GOPers had in Kavanaugh. Plus,

I'd sure rather see an attorney asking the questions than a bunch of Congresspeople asking disjointed questions while trying to improve their name recognition and advance their political aspirations.

Stay focused Democrats and plan out the line of questioning, whatever you do.

[watoos]

15. I agree, the last Senate hearing

Democrats were pitiful. Too bad Franken wasn't there.

The House is a bit better, at least the young freshmen House members come prepared.

I was embarrassed at how unprepared many Democrats were on the Committees.

[prodigitalson]

36. Well put nt

[sop]

46. If Barr objects to the 30-minute Q&A session

all the Democratic members should tightly coordinate their line of questioning, with each successive representative saying, "OK, AG Barr, let's continue congressman xxx's previous line of inquiry on this topic..."

I've noticed WH reporters have been tag-teaming Sarah Sanders lately, repeating the same question till she gives an adequate response. It visibly frustrates Sarah when she tries to BS her way through a reporter's question, only to have it asked again.

[Grasswire2]

49. or they could each defer to one...who could continue the questioning.

"...the balance of my time to Representative XX"

[DeminPennswoods]

13. Nothing is stopping Senate Dems from using

their staff counsel to question Barr when he appears before the Senate Judiciary Cmte on Wed.

[pdsimdars]

23. Lindsey is running it they will get only a few minutes. House wants their counsel gets half hour

[FBaggins]

37. Sure there is

They don't run the Senate committee and the chairman will only recognize other senators.

[DeminPennswoods]

59. The senators can certainly yield their time to one colleague

to ask all the questions, but they won't because 3 Dem senators running for president are on the committee and will want the national TV face time to preen.

[FBaggins]

60. They can yield to each other

But they can’t give their time to a staff attorney without the chairman allowing it.

[Sneederbunk]

14. I want to hear from Mueller, not Barr.

[watoos]

17. Too bad they couldn't both appear at the same hearing.

[Texin]

16. Barr's balking about being interrogated by "lawyers" at the hearing was bogus.

Essentially, every Democrat on that committee is an attorney (or they were before they ran for Congress or the Senate). What actual difference is there between say, Jerrold Nadler and Joe or Joann Blow from the DOJ, really? The only thing that might be different is the fact the attorneys chosen by the committee to question him (might have) or had direct knowledge of the actual contents of their report(s) and the content of Mueller's written report.

I agree with Matthews. These assholes from now on shouldn't be given a "polite" heads-up about anything the Democrats on any committee intend to question them about. I don't care if they're blindsided by it. If they have nothing to hide or "defend", they don't need any blaring early warning.

And I'm with you, Sneederbunk, I want to hear from Mueller. We've already heard what Barr had to lie... excuse me, say about it.

[watoos]

18. Giving them a heads up isn't the problem,

there is precedence for allowing Committee staff members (lawyers) ask questions. Republicans are just flat out stalling, pushing everything back to the election. Defund the bastards until they comply.

[benfranklin1776]

25. Precisely and here is probably the most famous example

Sam Dash Watergate Committee majority counsel.

It causes Barr to go running for the hills because the questioning is for the purpose of establishing possible criminal charges against him not for political theater which he enjoys playing because he’s a conscienceless liar. No matter it won’t save him or his orange criminal puppeteer in the end.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/People_DashSam.htm

[barbtries]

19. if it hadn't been that it would have been another pretext.

Barr's excuse is flimsy, weak and hypocritical. the republicans had an outside lawyer question Christine Blasie Ford and she appeared on time and ready to testify.

there's nothing wrong with the Democrats maintaining decorum and observing the rule of law.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Informing the witness of the structure and procedures of a hearing is SOP

And if he hadn't been told in advance how the hearing would be conducted, not only, as someone else here said, would the Committee Republicans have thrown a full-blown public fit, but Barr likely would have accused the Committee of ambushing him and refused to answer any questions and walked out. And he would have appeared much more sympathetic than he does now.

Nadler did it right.

[FBaggins]

38. It goes beyond that

Testimony before Congress by an executive branch officer (particularly one that high up) is almost always the subject of negotiation... often for weeks or even months. "Informing" isn't going to get it done if the witness objects to the information.

[zaj]

24. Democracies die when we treat political opposition like they are the enemy

Right now, the only people fighting for Democracy are the Dems. We can't lose them too.

Trump is what happens when you surrender to the street fighter instinct. It's a catch 22 that only impacts those who care about democracy.

This is important to keep in mind when watching elected Dems do their business.

[watoos]

30. Yeah ok,

Dems are going to refuse a blindfold before they get shot by the firing squad.

[gratuitous]

26. Barr's objection to being questioned by a lawyer is a pretext

If it wasn't that, it would be that the chair was too hard or the lighting in the hearing room was too bright or too dim or he had an old friend come in from out of town or he had a flat tire or some other equally flimsy excuse.

[House of Roberts]

28. If the committee members do the questioning,

they get five minutes apiece. Barr can filibuster and avoid giving answers.
Using one staff attorney holds him to answer each question, even if he tries to prevaricate.

[watoos]

31. That's it.

The attorney can also tie up all of the loose ends that unprepared committee members missed.

[ancianita]

34. Dems can "do" courtesy & enforce the law at the same time. It's what's done in civilized countries.

[Corgigal]

35. Because he works for us,

and as the majority party in congress we can. If Barr doesn't like it, he can go back to private practice. He's the head of the Dept Of Justice and this shouldn't worry him. We have to start using our strength, Barr was going to try to back out anyway to please Trump. We are dealing with criminals, no quarter.

[FBaggins]

39. Who is "us"?

He certainly doesn't work for the House (let alone a committee of the House).

as the majority party in congress we can. If Barr doesn't like it, he can go back to private practice

They certainly don't have that power (absent impeachment and getting 2/3 of the senate to agree)

[FBaggins]

62. They all are supposed to work for us

That doesn't mean that we have the power to fire them when we get upset.

Barr works for the DOJ

Barr leads the DOJ (IOW, nobody there can fire him). His direct boss is POTUS (not in his personal capacity of course), who CAN fire him. Congress can only do so through a 2/3 Senate vote after an impeachment.

[homegirl]

40. We may have to

put "Dawg the Bounty Hunter" on the job!

[DallasNE]

42. Congress Has Abandon Regular Order

And this seems like a move to restore regular order so I applaud it. A recent change was to give each congress member 5 minutes to question a witness. It really doesn't result in follow-up questioning when the witness "can't recall" or otherwise avoids answering the question. This move would get back to regular order where 30 minutes is allowed to each party's experts to question the witness. This format makes it more difficult for the witness to duck the questions, as happens under the weak format recently used. Barr just doesn't want to squirm under intense questioning. He wants to be able to keep repeating his talking points and duck the tough questions. Time to avoid the sham testimony.

[Texin]

43. Barr and everyone within the tRump administration* are pushing the bounds of the laws.

They are essentially and effectively establishing their sovereign "right".

This is a republican-led coup against the United States. McConnel started a mini-version of this during President Obama's term of office (most especially and blatantly during his second term). It's become more pronounced and unapologetic now with tRump occupying the WH. That is his basic nature and it fits within the collective aims of the American oligarchs with the republican party acting as their mascot. This is what the billionaire class have been fighting for and effectively establishing during the past seven or eight years on now. If someone is not a part of that group, they are less than meaningless. Their lives and well-being don't matter. They (are allowed) to live to serve. When servitude is no longer physically possible, they should die. This is why these selfish and godless cretins don't care that the average person feels threatened by lack of medical care, decent wages and educational opportunities. They will only double down on their efforts to thin the "herds".

[grantcart]

44. I believe that Barr refused to testify unless several conditions are met

Including scheduling. Nadler agreed on some points but refused on not having counsel questions.

Nadler didn't talk out of turn, etc.

The problem with your premise is "Matthews has a great point".

He is unrestrained and messy and frequently makes bold observations based on premises that are not facts.

[bigbrother05]

45. Barr was supposed to testify voluntarily and has balked at the arrangement

Him not showing or trying to dictate terms means Nadler can issue a subpoena to compel him to appear. Assuming he fights it as der Furor demands, the Dems have talking points re: delay and obstruction at the highest levels of the Exec Branch.

In the WH's view, time is on their side and the less said publicly by witnesses the more spin they can spew.

IMO this will play into the hands of the Dems that want to jump to impeachment hearings w/o preliminary committee testimony.

With the administration refusing to submit to routine Congressional oversight, hearings on impeachment could be the vehicle to force testimony and should release the Grand Jury evidence to a related investigational body. Don't think that the same delay tactics used against committee hearings would work against impeachment proceedings.

[Grasswire2]

48. A MOB BOSS sees "courtesy" as weakness and will exploit it.

Every freaking time.

DiFi was "courteous" in the Kavanaugh hearing runup. She got rolled.

We are dealing with MOBBERY. Ruthless. Deadly.

[Calista241]

51. I feel like we're complaining about this for days, and it's all a distraction exercise.

And Barr is going to show up and testify like it was never a problem.

[coti]

53. That's exactly what it is- Barr is running interference and killing time

He's distracting the Democrats and controlling the media's focus

[calimary]

57. +1000

We’ve gone way beyond courtesy by now. Be tough. Be ruthless - even devious! Do what you think they’d do.

[pnwmom]

58. They couldn't hide it -- the R's also get to call their own counsel to ask questions. n/t