"Dreams may come true"...jhu72 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:24 am There is nothing that says the house cannot vote to impeach, kick it off to the Senate and go on investigating and if warranted, impeach on a different set of issues downstream. Frankly there is no reason I see for the argument that impeachment has to be wrapped up by the time the primary season starts. Of course the Trumpnista will whine, I doubt the majority of the electorate will.
BARR
Re: BARR
Re: BARR
How will Barr, Mulvaney and "Chicken Guts" Pompeo G, spin this one? Trump..."jooleeanny? I don't know him. Maybe I took a picture with him.I've taken pictures with so many people".
https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/ ... 2053317750
https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/ ... 2053317750
Re: BARR
Bill Barr greenlights a criminal conspiracy
"First, after John Demers went to the White House and discovered that his boss was implicated in a phone call that a whistleblower had complained about, when the Intelligence Community Inspector General sent a more formalized complaint to DOJ, DOJ limited the scope of their review of the complaint to one small part of it, just the TELCON, not the full complaint. This had the effect of preventing anyone from doing what the entire surveillance apparatus of FBI has been designed to do since 9/11, which is to search in their databases for all the people mentioned in a lead to find out if that lead connects to other known criminals."
[snip]
"Had anyone followed the standard connect-the-dot rules in reviewing the whistleblower complaint, they would have searched on all the names in the references in the complaint, including those in this OCCRP piece, which was mentioned multiple times in the complaint.
That piece is a profile of Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas.
So if any person reviewing the whistleblower complaint had followed the approach put into place to protect the nation after 9/11, that person would have discovered:
- Fruman and Parnas were making big donations to Republicans tied to certain policy outcomes and paying for those donations through a shell company
-Parnas was also involved in propaganda sent, on White House stationery, to State in support of the same policy outcomes
-The money for the shell company came from a lawyer who specializes in laundering money through real estate for foreigners
-One policy issue Fruman and Parnas were pushing with their donations was one of the policy outcomes described in the Trump-Zelensky call, the withdrawal of Marie Yovanovitch
In short, there is no way a competent investigator would have done a connect-the-dots assessment on the whistleblower complaint and not realized it was closely related to a Full Investigation bearing down on an indictment in SDNY.
Instead of doing that marginally competent assessment, DOJ instead gave the whistleblower complaint the all-clear, in part by severing the transcript (which was damning enough) from the backup (which described OMB withholding funds, which is a separate crime, but also included the reference to the profile on suspects against whom SDNY had a fully predicated investigation into related actions). The decision to consider only the transcript affirmatively prevented DOJ from doing the kind of dot-connecting everything since 9/11 has claimed to support.
Whoever made that decision — whether willfully or unknowingly — prevented DOJ from formally realizing that the President’s call was closely tied to behavior that DOJ would indict less than two months later."
"Whoever"??? Almost certainly, Billy Barr.
..
"First, after John Demers went to the White House and discovered that his boss was implicated in a phone call that a whistleblower had complained about, when the Intelligence Community Inspector General sent a more formalized complaint to DOJ, DOJ limited the scope of their review of the complaint to one small part of it, just the TELCON, not the full complaint. This had the effect of preventing anyone from doing what the entire surveillance apparatus of FBI has been designed to do since 9/11, which is to search in their databases for all the people mentioned in a lead to find out if that lead connects to other known criminals."
[snip]
"Had anyone followed the standard connect-the-dot rules in reviewing the whistleblower complaint, they would have searched on all the names in the references in the complaint, including those in this OCCRP piece, which was mentioned multiple times in the complaint.
That piece is a profile of Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas.
So if any person reviewing the whistleblower complaint had followed the approach put into place to protect the nation after 9/11, that person would have discovered:
- Fruman and Parnas were making big donations to Republicans tied to certain policy outcomes and paying for those donations through a shell company
-Parnas was also involved in propaganda sent, on White House stationery, to State in support of the same policy outcomes
-The money for the shell company came from a lawyer who specializes in laundering money through real estate for foreigners
-One policy issue Fruman and Parnas were pushing with their donations was one of the policy outcomes described in the Trump-Zelensky call, the withdrawal of Marie Yovanovitch
In short, there is no way a competent investigator would have done a connect-the-dots assessment on the whistleblower complaint and not realized it was closely related to a Full Investigation bearing down on an indictment in SDNY.
Instead of doing that marginally competent assessment, DOJ instead gave the whistleblower complaint the all-clear, in part by severing the transcript (which was damning enough) from the backup (which described OMB withholding funds, which is a separate crime, but also included the reference to the profile on suspects against whom SDNY had a fully predicated investigation into related actions). The decision to consider only the transcript affirmatively prevented DOJ from doing the kind of dot-connecting everything since 9/11 has claimed to support.
Whoever made that decision — whether willfully or unknowingly — prevented DOJ from formally realizing that the President’s call was closely tied to behavior that DOJ would indict less than two months later."
"Whoever"??? Almost certainly, Billy Barr.
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
Re: BARR
Barr Rips ‘War Of Resistance Against’ Trump In Partisan Rant
Didn’t think we could see an AG worse than Alberto Gonzales... but I gotta give Don the Con credit. He really knows how to pick ‘em...
..
Didn’t think we could see an AG worse than Alberto Gonzales... but I gotta give Don the Con credit. He really knows how to pick ‘em...
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
-
seacoaster
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: BARR
A column by the Times's resident conservative, Ross Douthat, on Barr:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/opin ... e=Homepage
"If these and other issues complicate the thesis of Barr’s Notre Dame address, a similar accounting of trends in presidential power makes the thesis of his Federalist Society speech look totally implausible. Again, his theme is reassurance: reassuring legal conservatism that its Reagan-era vision of an executive unduly constrained by an overreaching Congress still applies to the presidency of 2019.
But it obviously, obviously doesn’t. The presidency and its powers were, indeed, weakened substantially in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate, which is part of why conservatism at the time reasonably sought their reassertion. But since Reagan and especially since 9/11 there has been a dramatic re-expansion of the imperial presidency, with a successful consolidation of sweeping presidential powers over war making and a more contested attempt to claim new powers over domestic policy — both of which have advanced under Democratic and Republican presidents alike.
Barr does acknowledge, because he must, the increasing abdication of Congress from its policymaking duties. But he claims that the legislature has nonetheless expanded its power over the executive, by replacing policymaking with an “abuse of the advice-and-consent process” that holds up and harasses and sometimes rejects many presidential nominees.
But the change in the advice-and-consent process reflects the weakness of Congress, not its overweening, presidency-constraining strength. An imperial presidency, by its nature, raises the stakes for presidential nominations and appointments: The fact that the president can go to war without congressional authority makes Defense and State Department nominations more fraught; the fact that presidents are constantly pushing the envelope on immigration policy or health care regulations turns Health and Human Services and Department of Homeland Security nominations into a battlefield. But all of this is happening because the presidency is more powerful than ever, leaving the people’s branch reduced to fighting over which viziers our czar gets to empower or have whispering in his ear.
Barr is probably right that the Trump presidency has been weaker than its immediate predecessors, more constrained and hamstrung and impeded; he’s certainly right that Trump has had unusual difficulties in getting nominations through. But this weakness reflects his boss’s extraordinary incompetence at least as much as it reflects the machinations of the Resistance — though, of course, this isn’t something Trump’s attorney general can be exactly expected to admit.
He should be expected, however, to accurately describe the general drift of law and politics and culture, rather than soothingly telling audiences that little has changed since 1980 and that, Trump notwithstanding, the contours of conservative ideology can remain substantially intact.
There are two ways to read Barr’s inaccurate-but-ideologically-reassuring portraits of our politics — these twin attempts, as Damon Linker puts it, to achieve the “full assimilation” of the Trump presidency into “the conservative movement and the story it tells itself” about the world. One, which Linker partially endorses, is more alarmist: If conservatives believe that even today’s presidency is much too constrained and that secular elites can be blamed for all our problems, then we should fear an authoritarian cascade on the right, and expect a post-Trump quest for an American Constantine who can restore the presidency and the one true faith alike.
The other, which I’m drawn to by my own obsession with decadence, would emphasize futility instead. A conservatism that constantly reconverts itself to the worldview of the Reagan era isn’t poised to claim sweeping, authoritarian power, in the service of religious revolution or any other cause. It’s poised for repetition, gridlock and failure — ever-imagining itself seizing the initiative, but really letting itself be carried backward, a boat against the current, into the world of Bill Barr’s youth and past."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/opin ... e=Homepage
"If these and other issues complicate the thesis of Barr’s Notre Dame address, a similar accounting of trends in presidential power makes the thesis of his Federalist Society speech look totally implausible. Again, his theme is reassurance: reassuring legal conservatism that its Reagan-era vision of an executive unduly constrained by an overreaching Congress still applies to the presidency of 2019.
But it obviously, obviously doesn’t. The presidency and its powers were, indeed, weakened substantially in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate, which is part of why conservatism at the time reasonably sought their reassertion. But since Reagan and especially since 9/11 there has been a dramatic re-expansion of the imperial presidency, with a successful consolidation of sweeping presidential powers over war making and a more contested attempt to claim new powers over domestic policy — both of which have advanced under Democratic and Republican presidents alike.
Barr does acknowledge, because he must, the increasing abdication of Congress from its policymaking duties. But he claims that the legislature has nonetheless expanded its power over the executive, by replacing policymaking with an “abuse of the advice-and-consent process” that holds up and harasses and sometimes rejects many presidential nominees.
But the change in the advice-and-consent process reflects the weakness of Congress, not its overweening, presidency-constraining strength. An imperial presidency, by its nature, raises the stakes for presidential nominations and appointments: The fact that the president can go to war without congressional authority makes Defense and State Department nominations more fraught; the fact that presidents are constantly pushing the envelope on immigration policy or health care regulations turns Health and Human Services and Department of Homeland Security nominations into a battlefield. But all of this is happening because the presidency is more powerful than ever, leaving the people’s branch reduced to fighting over which viziers our czar gets to empower or have whispering in his ear.
Barr is probably right that the Trump presidency has been weaker than its immediate predecessors, more constrained and hamstrung and impeded; he’s certainly right that Trump has had unusual difficulties in getting nominations through. But this weakness reflects his boss’s extraordinary incompetence at least as much as it reflects the machinations of the Resistance — though, of course, this isn’t something Trump’s attorney general can be exactly expected to admit.
He should be expected, however, to accurately describe the general drift of law and politics and culture, rather than soothingly telling audiences that little has changed since 1980 and that, Trump notwithstanding, the contours of conservative ideology can remain substantially intact.
There are two ways to read Barr’s inaccurate-but-ideologically-reassuring portraits of our politics — these twin attempts, as Damon Linker puts it, to achieve the “full assimilation” of the Trump presidency into “the conservative movement and the story it tells itself” about the world. One, which Linker partially endorses, is more alarmist: If conservatives believe that even today’s presidency is much too constrained and that secular elites can be blamed for all our problems, then we should fear an authoritarian cascade on the right, and expect a post-Trump quest for an American Constantine who can restore the presidency and the one true faith alike.
The other, which I’m drawn to by my own obsession with decadence, would emphasize futility instead. A conservatism that constantly reconverts itself to the worldview of the Reagan era isn’t poised to claim sweeping, authoritarian power, in the service of religious revolution or any other cause. It’s poised for repetition, gridlock and failure — ever-imagining itself seizing the initiative, but really letting itself be carried backward, a boat against the current, into the world of Bill Barr’s youth and past."
-
seacoaster
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: BARR
Conservative lawyers push back at Barr's recent statements:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper ... pdf#page=1
"And we are now concerned by Attorney General Barr’s November 15, 2019 address to the Federalist Society at its annual convention, in which he issued a call to reform our government in order to “restore” the autocratic vision of executive power that he previously articulated. In that speech, Barr rewrote history with the unsupported claim that his view of presidential power was shared by the Founders, and has been the dominant one throughout most of our history, only to come under attack during the past several decades. His assertion, enunciated in bold face in the text of his speech, is that “both the Legislative and the Judicial branches have been responsible for encroaching on the Presidency’s constitutional authority.”
Barr’s view of history, including his claim that the Founders shared in any respect his vision of an unchecked president, and his assertion that this view was dominant until it came under attack from courts and congress a few decades ago, has no factual basis. Actually, the Founders deliberately created a government of checks and balances, and the effectiveness of different presidents in exercising power within that framework has varied widely. Indeed, the greatest assertions of presidential power have come in the last half century. That our system has met those assertions with balanced responses of the other two co-equal branches is hardly a reason to abandon now the system that has served us well for so long."
The conservatives on this board can see more, here: https://twitter.com/chkbal
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper ... pdf#page=1
"And we are now concerned by Attorney General Barr’s November 15, 2019 address to the Federalist Society at its annual convention, in which he issued a call to reform our government in order to “restore” the autocratic vision of executive power that he previously articulated. In that speech, Barr rewrote history with the unsupported claim that his view of presidential power was shared by the Founders, and has been the dominant one throughout most of our history, only to come under attack during the past several decades. His assertion, enunciated in bold face in the text of his speech, is that “both the Legislative and the Judicial branches have been responsible for encroaching on the Presidency’s constitutional authority.”
Barr’s view of history, including his claim that the Founders shared in any respect his vision of an unchecked president, and his assertion that this view was dominant until it came under attack from courts and congress a few decades ago, has no factual basis. Actually, the Founders deliberately created a government of checks and balances, and the effectiveness of different presidents in exercising power within that framework has varied widely. Indeed, the greatest assertions of presidential power have come in the last half century. That our system has met those assertions with balanced responses of the other two co-equal branches is hardly a reason to abandon now the system that has served us well for so long."
The conservatives on this board can see more, here: https://twitter.com/chkbal
-
MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27003
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: BARR
It's indeed a radically 'Trumpian' play, simply asserting falsehoods as if facts.seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:04 am Conservative lawyers push back at Barr's recent statements:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper ... pdf#page=1
"And we are now concerned by Attorney General Barr’s November 15, 2019 address to the Federalist Society at its annual convention, in which he issued a call to reform our government in order to “restore” the autocratic vision of executive power that he previously articulated. In that speech, Barr rewrote history with the unsupported claim that his view of presidential power was shared by the Founders, and has been the dominant one throughout most of our history, only to come under attack during the past several decades. His assertion, enunciated in bold face in the text of his speech, is that “both the Legislative and the Judicial branches have been responsible for encroaching on the Presidency’s constitutional authority.”
Barr’s view of history, including his claim that the Founders shared in any respect his vision of an unchecked president, and his assertion that this view was dominant until it came under attack from courts and congress a few decades ago, has no factual basis. Actually, the Founders deliberately created a government of checks and balances, and the effectiveness of different presidents in exercising power within that framework has varied widely. Indeed, the greatest assertions of presidential power have come in the last half century. That our system has met those assertions with balanced responses of the other two co-equal branches is hardly a reason to abandon now the system that has served us well for so long."
But, nah, fellas, we don't need to worry about authoritarianism in the good ole USA.
Re: BARR
BILL BARR APPARENTLY THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FBI PROTECTION FROM DONALD TRUMP
..The Attorney General gave another intemperate speech last night. In it, he said that those who disrespect law enforcement deserve to have the protection offered by law enforcement withdrawn.
"But I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves ― and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need."
HuffPo asked who he meant to include in this comment, but DOJ refused to answer.
So I guess we should just assume Barr means to target his comments at the most visible critic of policing powers in the country, Donald Trump, who routinely attacks law enforcement on his high follower Twitter account. That would suggest that the Attorney General just threatened to withdraw the protection of the FBI from Donald Trump, his family, and all his flunkies last night.
Bill Barr and I totally disagree on policing, so it’s no surprise we disagree here. I think the FBI should continue to protect Trump and his associates, even while they investigate some of them for their criminal behavior. I think it’s a rash threat, on Barr’s part, to withdraw that support simply because Trump doesn’t like being investigated like any other suspected criminals.
Ah well. At least Barr has moved on from excusing Trump’s criminal behavior by rewriting the sworn record about what, precisely, frustrated Trump about being criminally investigated.
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
Re: BARR
ARE KULYK, LUTSENKO, AND SHOKIN THE THREE UKRAINIANS THAT SHOW BILL BARR IS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY?
"If these three men already have shared information with Durham, it would be proof that the investigation is about collecting disinformation, not evidence.
Which is probably part of the reason Barr is claiming to doubt the outcome of the IG investigation. Because without any predicate for an investigation into the origin of the investigation into Trump, it becomes clear that it’s nothing but the use of DOJ resources to further a conspiracy to help Donald Trump get reelected."
..
"If these three men already have shared information with Durham, it would be proof that the investigation is about collecting disinformation, not evidence.
Which is probably part of the reason Barr is claiming to doubt the outcome of the IG investigation. Because without any predicate for an investigation into the origin of the investigation into Trump, it becomes clear that it’s nothing but the use of DOJ resources to further a conspiracy to help Donald Trump get reelected."
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
Re: BARR
dislaxxic wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:09 am BILL BARR APPARENTLY THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FBI PROTECTION FROM DONALD TRUMP
..The Attorney General gave another intemperate speech last night. In it, he said that those who disrespect law enforcement deserve to have the protection offered by law enforcement withdrawn.
"But I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves ― and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need."
HuffPo asked who he meant to include in this comment, but DOJ refused to answer.
So I guess we should just assume Barr means to target his comments at the most visible critic of policing powers in the country, Donald Trump, who routinely attacks law enforcement on his high follower Twitter account. That would suggest that the Attorney General just threatened to withdraw the protection of the FBI from Donald Trump, his family, and all his flunkies last night.
Bill Barr and I totally disagree on policing, so it’s no surprise we disagree here. I think the FBI should continue to protect Trump and his associates, even while they investigate some of them for their criminal behavior. I think it’s a rash threat, on Barr’s part, to withdraw that support simply because Trump doesn’t like being investigated like any other suspected criminals.
Ah well. At least Barr has moved on from excusing Trump’s criminal behavior by rewriting the sworn record about what, precisely, frustrated Trump about being criminally investigated.
Barr would like to use the police to intimidate the populous. He is your basic fascist.
Re: BARR
Apparently you regurgitate info based on what you want to believe, without regard for context or audience. The speech in question was given at an awards ceremony to honor rank and file police officers. A more unbiased article gives different views on whom the AG might be directing his comments.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:09 am BILL BARR APPARENTLY THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FBI PROTECTION FROM DONALD TRUMP
..The Attorney General gave another intemperate speech last night. In it, he said that those who disrespect law enforcement deserve to have the protection offered by law enforcement withdrawn.
"But I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves ― and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need."
HuffPo asked who he meant to include in this comment, but DOJ refused to answer.
So I guess we should just assume Barr means to target his comments at the most visible critic of policing powers in the country, Donald Trump, who routinely attacks law enforcement on his high follower Twitter account. That would suggest that the Attorney General just threatened to withdraw the protection of the FBI from Donald Trump, his family, and all his flunkies last night.
Bill Barr and I totally disagree on policing, so it’s no surprise we disagree here. I think the FBI should continue to protect Trump and his associates, even while they investigate some of them for their criminal behavior. I think it’s a rash threat, on Barr’s part, to withdraw that support simply because Trump doesn’t like being investigated like any other suspected criminals.
Ah well. At least Barr has moved on from excusing Trump’s criminal behavior by rewriting the sworn record about what, precisely, frustrated Trump about being criminally investigated.
https://www.justice.gov/ag/policing-award
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... ction.html
-
MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27003
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: BARR
Interesting. Most of the SLATE article suggested that it was possible to indeed see Barr's comments as akin to Trump's Ukraine message:6x6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:09 pmApparently you regurgitate info based on what you want to believe, without regard for context or audience. The speech in question was given at an awards ceremony to honor rank and file police officers. A more unbiased article gives different views on whom the AG might be directing his comments.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:09 am BILL BARR APPARENTLY THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FBI PROTECTION FROM DONALD TRUMP
..The Attorney General gave another intemperate speech last night. In it, he said that those who disrespect law enforcement deserve to have the protection offered by law enforcement withdrawn.
"But I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves ― and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need."
HuffPo asked who he meant to include in this comment, but DOJ refused to answer.
So I guess we should just assume Barr means to target his comments at the most visible critic of policing powers in the country, Donald Trump, who routinely attacks law enforcement on his high follower Twitter account. That would suggest that the Attorney General just threatened to withdraw the protection of the FBI from Donald Trump, his family, and all his flunkies last night.
Bill Barr and I totally disagree on policing, so it’s no surprise we disagree here. I think the FBI should continue to protect Trump and his associates, even while they investigate some of them for their criminal behavior. I think it’s a rash threat, on Barr’s part, to withdraw that support simply because Trump doesn’t like being investigated like any other suspected criminals.
Ah well. At least Barr has moved on from excusing Trump’s criminal behavior by rewriting the sworn record about what, precisely, frustrated Trump about being criminally investigated.
https://www.justice.gov/ag/policing-award
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... ction.html
In the context of those comments, and the entirety of the Trump administration, what “communities” he’s referring to is pretty clear. What’s less clear is what Barr means by his statement that those communities “might find themselves without the police protection they need.” Does he mean it in a Trump-to-Ukraine kind of way: I’d hate to see something happen to all that U.S. military aid you’re relying on to keep yourselves safe. As in, does he mean it as something that could be explicitly taken away for communities that aren’t sufficiently enthused? That would be an extraordinary―and deeply problematic―thing for the attorney general to say, and it’s how some have interpreted his comments.
But then the article offers a possible, alternative explanation:
A more benign interpretation of Barr’s comments is: If police are vilified, it is harder to get people to do police work, which, in turn, could make it difficult―or even impossible―to perform the vital functions of law enforcement anywhere. Hence, communities could end up with inadequate policing services. Barr’s reference during his speech―and in previous remarks―to how soldiers were treated returning home from the Vietnam War suggests this reading. “In the Vietnam era, our country learned a lesson. I remember that our brave troops who served in that conflict weren’t treated very well in many cases when they came home, and sometimes they bore the brunt of people who were opposed to the war,” he said. “The respect and gratitude owed to them was not given. And it took decades for the American people finally to realize that.”
ok, that's possible...but is it compelling? What does he mean about the reference to how Vietnam vets were treated (deplorably IMO). Is he suggesting that our soldiers weren't willing to fight hard for America in Vietnam because they knew their fellow soldiers were being spat upon and called baby-killers by some of the most rabid protesters back home?
I don't recall that being a reality. What I do recall is that the soldiers themselves, at least many of them, were highly disenchanted with the purposes of the war themselves, and by what they knew was the dishonesty of their commanders ala body counts etc. There was also quite a lot of dissatisfaction with the unevenness of who was forced to serve in that war and who was not.
Is this really analogous to an argument that police who do not have the support of the communities in which they serve undoubtedly have a more difficult time of being effective in those communities? That's a fair, indeed powerful, argument, but not at all akin to Vietnam.
Instead, Barr is quite obviously putting the onus of that 'community support' for the police on the community, blaming those who call out police brutality and racial injustice in policing, rather than putting the onus on the police to actually earn that support from the community. And, in that context, and said to that audience, his words are indeed chilling.
-
kramerica.inc
- Posts: 6379
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:01 pm
Re: BARR
How is Barr incorrect?But I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves ― and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.
Right or wrong, regardless of color, race and/or socioeconomic factors. It's a human nature thing. Vietnam, or any other area of conflict that needs support.
Look at the Baltimore Police as a prime example of how this (Human Nature) works.
If the general citizenry and politicians that the police work for/with on a regular basis stop supporting you, (and in the case of Baltimore start attacking you physically and legally) it is not a surprise that law enforcement are less willing to put themselves at risk for those that don't appreciate their service.
Re: BARR
There is nothing hard about this. Barr is speaking to those in America who would be more than happy to see an authoritarian fascist state come to power. 40% of so called republicans feel this way if you believe Steve Schmidt.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:33 pmInteresting. Most of the SLATE article suggested that it was possible to indeed see Barr's comments as akin to Trump's Ukraine message:6x6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:09 pmApparently you regurgitate info based on what you want to believe, without regard for context or audience. The speech in question was given at an awards ceremony to honor rank and file police officers. A more unbiased article gives different views on whom the AG might be directing his comments.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:09 am BILL BARR APPARENTLY THREATENS TO WITHDRAW FBI PROTECTION FROM DONALD TRUMP
..The Attorney General gave another intemperate speech last night. In it, he said that those who disrespect law enforcement deserve to have the protection offered by law enforcement withdrawn.
"But I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves ― and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need."
HuffPo asked who he meant to include in this comment, but DOJ refused to answer.
So I guess we should just assume Barr means to target his comments at the most visible critic of policing powers in the country, Donald Trump, who routinely attacks law enforcement on his high follower Twitter account. That would suggest that the Attorney General just threatened to withdraw the protection of the FBI from Donald Trump, his family, and all his flunkies last night.
Bill Barr and I totally disagree on policing, so it’s no surprise we disagree here. I think the FBI should continue to protect Trump and his associates, even while they investigate some of them for their criminal behavior. I think it’s a rash threat, on Barr’s part, to withdraw that support simply because Trump doesn’t like being investigated like any other suspected criminals.
Ah well. At least Barr has moved on from excusing Trump’s criminal behavior by rewriting the sworn record about what, precisely, frustrated Trump about being criminally investigated.
https://www.justice.gov/ag/policing-award
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... ction.html
In the context of those comments, and the entirety of the Trump administration, what “communities” he’s referring to is pretty clear. What’s less clear is what Barr means by his statement that those communities “might find themselves without the police protection they need.” Does he mean it in a Trump-to-Ukraine kind of way: I’d hate to see something happen to all that U.S. military aid you’re relying on to keep yourselves safe. As in, does he mean it as something that could be explicitly taken away for communities that aren’t sufficiently enthused? That would be an extraordinary―and deeply problematic―thing for the attorney general to say, and it’s how some have interpreted his comments.
But then the article offers a possible, alternative explanation:
A more benign interpretation of Barr’s comments is: If police are vilified, it is harder to get people to do police work, which, in turn, could make it difficult―or even impossible―to perform the vital functions of law enforcement anywhere. Hence, communities could end up with inadequate policing services. Barr’s reference during his speech―and in previous remarks―to how soldiers were treated returning home from the Vietnam War suggests this reading. “In the Vietnam era, our country learned a lesson. I remember that our brave troops who served in that conflict weren’t treated very well in many cases when they came home, and sometimes they bore the brunt of people who were opposed to the war,” he said. “The respect and gratitude owed to them was not given. And it took decades for the American people finally to realize that.”
ok, that's possible...but is it compelling? What does he mean about the reference to how Vietnam vets were treated (deplorably IMO). Is he suggesting that our soldiers weren't willing to fight hard for America in Vietnam because they knew their fellow soldiers were being spat upon and called baby-killers by some of the most rabid protesters back home?
I don't recall that being a reality. What I do recall is that the soldiers themselves, at least many of them, were highly disenchanted with the purposes of the war themselves, and by what they knew was the dishonesty of their commanders ala body counts etc. There was also quite a lot of dissatisfaction with the unevenness of who was forced to serve in that war and who was not.
Is this really analogous to an argument that police who do not have the support of the communities in which they serve undoubtedly have a more difficult time of being effective in those communities? That's a fair, indeed powerful, argument, but not at all akin to Vietnam.
Instead, Barr is quite obviously putting the onus of that 'community support' for the police on the community, blaming those who call out police brutality and racial injustice in policing, rather than putting the onus on the police to actually earn that support from the community. And, in that context, and said to that audience, his words are indeed chilling.
-
MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27003
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: BARR
Are you saying that our soldiers didn't fight as hard in Vietnam because they knew they didn't have the support of some/many American people?kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:21 pmHow is Barr incorrect?But I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves ― and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.
Right or wrong, regardless of color, race and/or socioeconomic factors. It's a human nature thing. Vietnam, or any other area of conflict that needs support.
Look at the Baltimore Police as a prime example of how this (Human Nature) works.
If the general citizenry and politicians that the police work for/with on a regular basis stop supporting you, (and in the case of Baltimore start attacking you physically and legally) it is not a surprise that law enforcement are less willing to put themselves at risk for those that don't appreciate their service.
I don't think that was the case. They fought...hard. They didn't withdraw from the fight. That was ultimately a decision beyond the soldiers themselves.
I do think there was rampant dissatisfaction in the ranks about the merits of the war itself, how it was being prosecuted, the dishonesty of 'body counts', etc, which indeed mirrored some of the protesters' points of view. I do think there was a serious morale effect because of that. Add to it the accurate sense that there were very different standards for who was compelled to serve on the ground and who was not.
It's just a fallacious analogy to compare with policing challenges.
I do quite agree that in order for police and community to work together, it requires trust and appreciation from all involved.
But if you actually want to look at the Baltimore Police in specific, I don't know how anyone can say anything other than rampant corruption (and I mean incredibly rampant corruption) coupled with rampant police abuse...was and is the fault for why that 'trust and appreciation' or as Barr called it "support and respect" is largely, though not totally, absent from the community.
We have a massive, well deserved, deficit of trust in the Baltimore Police. I think that can be eventually turned around, and that there are certainly lots of good, honest cops who wish to do so, but this is really on the police and the politicians/voters to decide whether this is really going to happen or not. Personally I think the challenge is beyond the City's capacity on its own; it's going to require State and Federal resources and influence to actually get there...instead we have the AG blaming the community for not adequately "showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves...".
Baloney.
Re: BARR
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:34 pmAre you saying that our soldiers didn't fight as hard in Vietnam because they knew they didn't have the support of some/many American people?kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:21 pmHow is Barr incorrect?But I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves ― and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.
Right or wrong, regardless of color, race and/or socioeconomic factors. It's a human nature thing. Vietnam, or any other area of conflict that needs support.
Look at the Baltimore Police as a prime example of how this (Human Nature) works.
If the general citizenry and politicians that the police work for/with on a regular basis stop supporting you, (and in the case of Baltimore start attacking you physically and legally) it is not a surprise that law enforcement are less willing to put themselves at risk for those that don't appreciate their service.
I don't think that was the case. They fought...hard. They didn't withdraw from the fight. That was ultimately a decision beyond the soldiers themselves.
I didn't get the impression that kram was saying they didn't fight hard while in battle, and they did.
I do think there was rampant dissatisfaction in the ranks about the merits of the war itself, how it was being prosecuted, the dishonesty of 'body counts', etc, which indeed mirrored some of the protesters' points of view. I do think there was a serious morale effect because of that. Add to it the accurate sense that there were very different standards for who was compelled to serve on the ground and who was not.
This is what he meant. The morale of the GI was indeed low there and their commitment to the war was virtually non existant. "Attitude is everything" and the attitude of most of those GIs was that this war is not worth fighting and/or dying for. I know this from first hand experience, and that doesn't make for units operating at peak performance, which is not the same as "fighting hard" when duty called.
It's just a fallacious analogy to compare with policing challenges.
I do quite agree that in order for police and community to work together, it requires trust and appreciation from all involved.
Agree, and while I don't completely disagree with what Barr is saying, it can't be said without saying this is a two way street. This, for example, just can not happen. I don't have much doubt that I'd have been thrown in jail by the end of my encounter with this condescending aszhole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmPyMPdCg4A
This kind of thing undoes the work of any who are trying to improve police citizen trust. Unfortunately we have a long way to go with this.
But if you actually want to look at the Baltimore Police in specific, I don't know how anyone can say anything other than rampant corruption (and I mean incredibly rampant corruption) coupled with rampant police abuse...was and is the fault for why that 'trust and appreciation' or as Barr called it "support and respect" is largely, though not totally, absent from the community.
We have a massive, well deserved, deficit of trust in the Baltimore Police. I think that can be eventually turned around, and that there are certainly lots of good, honest cops who wish to do so, but this is really on the police and the politicians/voters to decide whether this is really going to happen or not. Personally I think the challenge is beyond the City's capacity on its own; it's going to require State and Federal resources and influence to actually get there...instead we have the AG blaming the community for not adequately "showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves...".
Baloney.