• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Bill Barr be confirmed as the new Attorney General? (1 Viewer)

Should Bill Barr be confirmed as the new AG


  • Total voters
    20

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Barr was Bush 41's second AG after Dick Thornburg. He apparently has been nominated by Trump to be the Attorney General. Should he be confirmed and if not, why?
 
Depends. He's probably the best qualified candidate who would actually take a job in the dumpster fire that is the Trump administration. And he's probably better than the guy he currently (likely illegally) has as his acting AG.

If I were a Senator voting on his confirmation I'd vote for him if he could make these promises:
-You will not stifle the Mueller investigation in any way, either by firing him, by cutting his budget, by sitting on indictments or reports and preventing them from going public.
-If you can promise under oath that you made no promises or negotiations to Trump or his associates in order to get this job.

Assuming he could promise under oath those things then I'd likely vote for him. But I haven't done a deep dive in to his history. I know I don't agree with him politically but that shouldn't matter when looking at presidential cabinet picks.
 
I think almost any cabinet official nominated by any president should be confirmed. I don't see any red flags so far that would make Barr an exception.
 
Barr was Bush 41's second AG after Dick Thornburg. He apparently has been nominated by Trump to be the Attorney General. Should he be confirmed and if not, why?

No. He's a huge supporter of mass incarceration and the War on Drugs (complete with magical thinking!) and urged blanket pardons for all engaged in Iran/Contra.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...rump-attorney-general-criminal-justice-reform

He's also somewhat delusional on matters involving Trump and his firings, to say nothing of him buying into conspiracist bull**** (Uranium One, etc...)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...rump-russia-collusion/?utm_term=.05367bccd4cd
 
No. Democrats should be the like the GOP and oppose everything Trump wants.
 
No. He's a huge supporter of mass incarceration and the War on Drugs (complete with magical thinking!) and urged blanket pardons for all engaged in Iran/Contra.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...rump-attorney-general-criminal-justice-reform

He's also somewhat delusional on matters involving Trump and his firings, to say nothing of him buying into conspiracist bull**** (Uranium One, etc...)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...rump-russia-collusion/?utm_term=.05367bccd4cd

I agree with you about the drug war. I agree with Barr when his comments were about violent criminals (though he apparently also meant drug dealers who are often NOT violent criminals)
 
Depends. He's probably the best qualified candidate who would actually take a job in the dumpster fire that is the Trump administration. And he's probably better than the guy he currently (likely illegally) has as his acting AG.

If I were a Senator voting on his confirmation I'd vote for him if he could make these promises:
-You will not stifle the Mueller investigation in any way, either by firing him, by cutting his budget, by sitting on indictments or reports and preventing them from going public.
-If you can promise under oath that you made no promises or negotiations to Trump or his associates in order to get this job.

Assuming he could promise under oath those things then I'd likely vote for him. But I haven't done a deep dive in to his history. I know I don't agree with him politically but that shouldn't matter when looking at presidential cabinet picks.

What if he discovers impropriety? Ignore it?
 
It doesn't even matter any more.

If he is awful, then that's par for the course.

If he's decent, then what a nice surprise.
 
bill-burrypaats.jpeg
 
Republicans. That's what I said.

that's based on what? seems to me its been going on for awhile. We had Bork and then we had Keisler and Estrada.
 
Trump is primarily concerned about how Barr would supervise the Mueller investigation.

In some of those conversations, Mr. Trump has also repeatedly asked whether the next pick would recuse himself from overseeing the special counsel investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russia in its interference in the 2016 election, several people said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/us/politics/william-barr-attorney-general-trump.html

During the confirmation hearing, he needs to give three clear answers to three specific questions:

1)Does he believe that Mueller is conducting a legitimate investigation?
2)Does he intend to let Mueller conduct his investigation unimpeded?
3)Did he sign or voice a pledge of loyalty to Trump himself, or communicate anything to him that could be taken as a form of loyalty oath?

I'm not a legal professional so these questions could stand to be cleaned up a bit for precision and clarity, but if he answers them in a way to suggest that he would interfere with the investigation, or if he pulls a Kavanaugh and does his best to avoid answering them altogether, then he shouldn't be confirmed.
 
that's based on what? seems to me its been going on for awhile. We had Bork and then we had Keisler and Estrada.


Bork didn't believe the free speech in 1st Amendment applied to the average citizen.
 
Bork didn't believe the free speech in 1st Amendment applied to the average citizen.

really? I never heard that when I was at Yale and he was a law professor. I never heard that claimed when he was a DC judge either. have some sources?
 
Were there a poll answer option of "yes," without the additional "elements," I'd have ticked "yes."
 
really? I never heard that when I was at Yale and he was a law professor. I never heard that claimed when he was a DC judge either. have some sources?


Yes. He said it during his confirmation hearings. You watched them all, yes?
 
Yes. He said it during his confirmation hearings. You watched them all, yes?

most of them-plus I had the benefit of knowing Judge Bork since his son was one of my friends in college and Judge Bork and my late father were classmates in HS. I don't recall him saying the first amendment did not apply to individuals.
 
Were there a poll answer option of "yes," without the additional "elements," I'd have ticked "yes."

that would be other. But you make a sound point-I should have had a simple yes
 
most of them-plus I had the benefit of knowing Judge Bork since his son was one of my friends in college and Judge Bork and my late father were classmates in HS. I don't recall him saying the first amendment did not apply to individuals.


He did. It was rather a long conversation. He argued that 'free speech' only applied to official sessions of Congress. The purpose of the 1st Amendment was to allow people in Congress to argue passionately without fear of being sued libel or slander.
 
He did. It was rather a long conversation. He argued that 'free speech' only applied to official sessions of Congress. The purpose of the 1st Amendment was to allow people in Congress to argue passionately without fear of being sued libel or slander.

I'd love to see some proof of that/ he would also have to claim Congress was given the power to regulate speech as well
 
I'd love to see some proof of that/ he would also have to claim Congress was given the power to regulate speech as well

You should search it out and see for yourself. Good point.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom