AG William Barr was implicated in the formal complaint submitted by a Whistleblower in the Intelligence Community (there are reports of a second whistleblower complaint , but I don't know if Barr is implicated in that complaint also). It's alleged he was instrumental in Trump's attempt to get a foreign leader to investigate the son of his political rival, in exchange for military aid.
Good legal practise dictates that Barr, as someone implicated in the allegation, recuse himself from decisions relating to that allegation.The reasons that's good practise I hope are obvious.
So when is Barr going to recuse himself, and why hasn't he already?
He won't recuse himself as long as he can help defend Trump in some manner. He already believes Trump is above the law and do no wrong. A dangerous concept for a free countrylike ours.
Then the House should be calling for his recusal.
How can someone who is named in an allegation, also be the person who makes decisions about how the DoJ responds to those allegations? It's like asking a lawyer who has been accused of corruption to decide if the case against him should go to court. It's madness.
Doesn't this also describe Schiff and the whistleblower? How can someone preside over something if they are a fact witness?
Schiff is not implicated in the complaint. Barr is. Just like Sessions was implicated in an allegation when he was AG. Whatever you think of Sessions, he did the right thing by recusing himself from the investigation. Barr should do the same.
The WB statement was very vague. Seems one would need some form true complaint against Barr instead of ----- " appears to be involved as well".
WB complaint " the complaint reads. “This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.”
In regards to Schiff he lied openly on TV... Multiple times
"The second lie is when Schiff said on national television that he and his committee had no prior contact with the whistleblower who filed a complaint about the phone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine that launched the impeachment inquiry.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … tleblower/
Even The Washington Post’s fact-checker called Schiff out on this, giving him four “Pinocchios” – the highest condemnation for a lie. The truth was that the whistleblower came to Schiff’s committee and then filed a complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general.
The truth should speak for itself. And the American people deserve it. We don’t need Adam Schiff’s spin and falsehoods."
The allegation that Barr was a "central figure" in Trump's scheme, is more than enough to warrant his recusal. Until investigations into these allegations are concluded, Barr should not be the person who makes decisions about how the DoJ responds to any criminal or law enforcement matters that arise from those allegations.
Regarding Shiff, he said he should have been clearer. I tend to agree with the Post that, at best, he was being less than frank (though four pinocchios is a bit harsh). Either way, the committee Schiff chairs has contact with people submitting such complaints all the time. The standard advice seems to be to consult a lawyer and refer to the local Inspector General. All publicly available information suggests that is exactly what this whistleblower was advised also. None of that has any relevance to the impeachment inquiry and the question of whether Barr should recuse himself.
He lied, and he meant to lie. He has been caught lying time after time. During the Mueller investigation, he repeatedly lied about having information that he could ensure the viewers Trump committed collusion. His lies will catch up to him.
Schiff could never catch up with the number of Trump's falsehoods. Are you saying you dislike liars, Shar?
The subject was Schiff recusing himself? He should recuse himself due to his bias and affinity to lie.
So what should Trump do about his daily lies, Shar? Resign? Just wanting to know if you like liars or not. Seems as if they're on the Right is doesn't count to you.
The subject is: Why hasn't Barr recused himself?
I suspect Barr is playing a game by not recusing himself, Don. If he did, the Deputy AG could appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate of wrongdoing by Trump. As it is, the House is forced to do it's own investigation without the benefit of using the Justice Department's excellent investigators.
Allegations against Shiff are irrelevant to whether Barr should recuse himself. Barr has been described as a "central figure" in a whistleblower complaint being investigated as part of an impeachment inquiry. He is the head of a department that makes prosecutorial decisions, and which includes a law enforcement agency. Legal good practice dictates he recuse himself from decisions relating to this inquiry, or matters arising from it, due to the clear conflict of interest. So, as per the title of this thread, why hasn't he recused himself?
This is Fox line, DS. They kill me with all of the evidence they haven't seen yet. They describe Schiff in terrible terms without having a clue of what's going on behind doors.
The past weeks of inquires are held behind closed doors just as Grand Juries are because there's no Special Investigator. Andy why not, you may ask? Because Barr won't appoint one. Another reason for him to recuse himself.
Schiff himself admitted to having contact with the whistleblower prior to...
There was a special investigator...Mueller...so do we need another for this phone call, which had both the whistleblower report and transcript declassified and released?
Schiff is doing some shady stuff, just based on what I see from the twitter accounts of various congress folks (including Schiff)...Just yesterday, more than a few congress folks were saying that Schiff was instructing the witness to not answer certain questions... but, since they are in private, content shouldn't be a factor, since leaks shouldn't be happening from a classified inquiry...correct? That is why they are doing this in private...due to classification concerned...correct? Although, I did hear Schiff say, he was doing it in private because he didn't want anyone to know what was happening, "to prevent witness tampering"..
And just so you are aware...I don't watch the news...any channel or network...except the local news for weather and traffic in the am prior to leaving for work.
If Schiff does anything illegal, he should face the consequences with a lawsuit by the Republicans.
Otherwise, none of us on either side of the issue can speculate what is happening behind closed doors.
We'll see the evidence soon with the impeachment inquiry and the impeachment vote.
"We'll see the evidence soon with the impeachment inquiry and the impeachment vote."
How so? There isn't a chance that we the people will ever see all that went on behind the closed doors, and we already know that Democrats are going to vote in virtual lockstep along party lines, as will Republicans, on the impeachment vote. And you call this "evidence"? Evidence of American politics at work, maybe, but certainly not evidence of a crime (unless the failure to have any ethical standards is a crime).
Obvious. Republicans can blab all they want to the public. They do it already.
Show me a law that says Democrats can talk to the public and Republicans can't.
gag order by Schiff under threat of ethics charge...at least that is what they are saying.
I just did a quick search on "schiff gag order" and found nothing. I did find plenty about Trump putting a gag order on his own people.
That said, any committee member who releases classified information to the public should face an ethics charge, don't you agree?
They wanted the witness to give them the Whistleblower's identity by asking him a loaded question, Scott. Schiff told the witness not to answer at that point.
That's legal protection of the whistleblower according to the Whistleblower Protection Act, which was passed by both Republicans and Democrats.
It's not a gag order on Republicans for all apsects of the hearings.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-con … 7D&r=3
Well you could try looking into the interviews of the Republicans that get to sit in on these hearings and what they have to say...But, I doubt you are interested in their comments.
And it is interesting that the only thing you can find in MSM is against Trump, but not on what is happening inside the impeachment hearings...For those interested in due process (the constitution), that should be concerning...
No need to get snippy. That's like saying, of course you don't care what Democrats have to say.
Do you really think the Republicans on Fox News would admit if the hearings are legal?
Anyone who is truly interested in the Constitution should care that the hearings are legal. Trump and his supporters are proving they don't. But Republicans in Congress do because they aren't doing a thing to stop them.
If Schiff has gagged the Republicans or is doing anything illegal, then stop the partisan rhetoric and prove it.
As I have said to others...other than local news for weather and traffic before I go to work, I don't watch the news...
I do however, follow a good portion of the "major" congressmembers...both parties, on twitter and various other Social Media...and I get to see what their official accounts say...
So, I just repeat what they have posted on their official accounts...
But, since it is all in private, it is a case of he said/she said...
But, if it is true, then I would say it is very shady...
And I am all about the constitution...and it says the HOUSE has authority to conduct impeachment proceedings....not just a few members of the house...
have you read the proposal that is being voted on today?
The restrictions, who gets to decide what will or will not happen, who can or can't be subpoenaed, what can or will be released to the public..? Does that sound like due process?
What happens if this vote fails? What then?
No chance the vote will fail, DS. Wishful thinking of many though.
Again, if Schiff has gagged the Republicans or is doing anything illegal, then prove it.
Otherwise, explain why Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration aren't filing lawsuits to stop the impeachment inquiry.
They certainly have the money, the power and the legal right.
I'm curious: do you find it ethical (as opposed to legal) for Democrats to attempt to impeach a president of the opposing party without involving Republicans in the most serious thing they will do during their tenure in office?
Seems to me that this action should absolutely be a bi-partisan affair, with both sides of the room deeply involved, yet it has been as one sided as possible, with the opposing political party virtually barred from any participation at all. Do you find that to be ethical?
"With the opposing political party virtually barred from any participation at all."
Not only is that statement false, which I have proven repeatedly including comments above, but you are claiming unethical behavior with zero evidence.
Likewise, I'd love to see an explanation of Republicans' "bipartisan" behavior during the Clinton impeacment.
wilderness....By now you know he is not concerned about ethics. He stated, "I have proven repeatedly including comments above, but you are claiming unethical behavior with zero evidence."
Yet he has not proven anything repeatedly, nor will he ever.
No, actually. Trolling is your MO, not mine. You failed to make your argument. I pointed that out. No need to be snarky.... as usual.
Not that you care, but the rules of the resolution are not fair. They are as follows:
https://www.scribd.com/document/4325897 … from_embed
The Republicans have to prove, in writing, why they should be allowed to call a witness and provide testimony. Schiff, a known liar and someone who is not even respected by his peers, can then decide whether he will allow it. The entire process is a sham, not to mention, a waste of time and money.
As for my part, I intend this to be my last communication with you. Some might find the pdf useful.
You know....I seriously doubt any proof I provided would be good enough....
The problem with many...they are so pro or anti Trump that no amount of proof is good enough...
The only thing I care about myself...is that everything is done legally and fairly...if Trump is guilty fine...if innocent then fine...but, after seeing the vote today...I would say this is a very partisan effort to impeach a president and while it may skirt the line of being legal...there is nothing fair or moral about what is going on currently.
And I would guess that this whole affair is going to be very bad for the Democrat party..
The Republicans are openly leaking this info, DS?
People never get to see all that goes on in a Grand Jury, Dan. That's why Barr doesn't want to release the unredacted Mueller GJ transcripts.
I will be investing in popcorn. Do you think it would be smarter to replace Adam Schiff before the open inquiry starts? It seems that there is already speculation on his ability to be non-bias. Just speaking with friends, I can see he has been labeled bias as well as not being "friends" with the truth
it well appears he lied about when he was first aware of the whistleblower, and the fact the WB had contact with his office long before the complaint was reported.
Just seems it would be wise for him to recuse himself.
"The Washington Post’s fact-checker called Schiff out on this, giving him four “Pinocchios” – the highest condemnation for a lie. The truth was that the whistleblower came to Schiff’s committee and then filed a complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general.
It's hilarious to see a Trump fan indignant when they accuse one of his antagonists of not telling the truth.
In his own words... He lied openly at press confremce
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … tleblower/
The Washington Post’s fact-checker called Schiff out on this, giving him four “Pinocchios” – the highest condemnation for a lie. The truth was that the whistleblower came to Schiff’s committee and then filed a complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general.
For not watching any news you're parroting Hannity and Limbaugh well. So where do you get your facts if you don't watch any news sources?
You apparently don't understand the process either.
I wonder if there's a reason the House hasn't demanded his recusal? Nancy may have something up her sleeve....
The legal profession is taking notice though. The NY Bar Association is calling for Barr's recusal:
"The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has a unique role in safeguarding the rule of law under the Constitution. By failing to recuse himself from DOJ’s review of the Ukraine Matter, Attorney General William P. Barr has undermined that role. To help remedy that failure, the New York City Bar Association urges that Mr. Barr recuse himself from any ongoing or future review by DOJ of Ukraine-related issues in which Mr. Barr is allegedly involved. If he fails to do so, he should resign or, failing that, be subject to sanctions, including possible removal, by Congress."
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … e-dealings
That seems pretty clear to me.
Hmmmm. Trump's GOP support drops 13% since July according to one poll. This comes out to average 1 in 4 Republicans changing their support for the cretin. Watch this snowball when everything comes out in the Impeachment hearings.
by JAKE Earthshine 3 years ago
*Public Domain*is it true and should cowardly complicit republicans agree to investigate the claims to find out? Of course they should but they probably won't, just like they've refused to live up to their oaths of office: In a normal, functioning American society which we are unfortunately light...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
There have been deals floating around on "witness trades" - the Democrats want Bolton and the Republicans want Hunter Biden. The Democrats want Mulvaney and the Republicans want Eric Ciarmella. The list continues, but it's not necessary to list everyone.The bottom line is that...
by Randy Godwin 2 years ago
It sure looks like there's going to finally be an impeachment as Nancy gave an interview this PM. The Whistleblower incident has the new DNI in a bind, and now the person filing the complaint wants--and is going to--appear before Congress this week. The DNI broke the law by not turning the...
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
Interesting how the Intel Community changed the requirements for a whistleblower complaint to no longer need to have firsthand knowledge to make a complaint in August of 2019. In September 2019, a whistleblower complaint based on second-hand information is filed against President Donald...
by Don W 2 years ago
There has been a whistleblower complaint from within the Intelligence Community, but the Director of the National Intelligence (a political appointee) has refused to comply with the law and pass the complaint on to Congress.What's supposed to happen? When the Intelligence Community Inspector...
by ga anderson 2 years ago
Relative to the argument that the House Intelligence Committee was unfair because the president did not have a chance to defend himself. A quick look at Pres. Clinton's impeachment shows that an Independent Counsel was used to do the investigating and its product was used by the House Judiciary...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|