• 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!

Robert Charles: Attorney General Barr is right not to testify before House Dems

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,051
Reaction score
33,368
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Robert Charles: Attorney General Barr is right not to testify before House Dems | Fox News

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y, did something Wednesday that Americans have not seen since Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., threw democracy aside, running roughshod over rules, fellow members of Congress and due process in the 1950s.




Nadler ignored House rules, dismissed Republican motions and refused 40 attempts to permit committee debate, regular order and amendments so he could get the Democratic majority on the committee to impose the unreasonable requirement that Attorney General Barr be questioned by a Democratic and a Republican attorney when he was scheduled to testify Thursday morning.

Faced with this demand, Barr quite properly canceled plans to testify before the House Judiciary Committee about his handling of the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller dealing with Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election.
Nadler is off the rails, and I agree with the opinion expressed in this article. He's watch too many Perry Mason TV shows. He thought he was going to create a situation to make Barr leap from his chair and confess.

Nadler should resign.
 
Contempt of congress.
 
Contempt of congress.

Apparently Republican attorneys like Robert Charles don't care about things like that anymore.

Besides, it's Fox reporting it. Fox is in a tailspin and needs to keep its vulnerable viewers by posting political porn, like Charles wrote.
 
This opinion piece from FoxNews is doing what they usually does. Ignore how Congress has been running for at least the last 20+ Congresses, including how Republicans in the majority position handle their Democratic counterparts, but really place a decision by Barr as weighted by how Republicans were handled during this most recent round.

And what FoxNews also inadvertently did was put on the table as part of the opinion piece argument that Barr is nothing more than a Republican representing Trump. In an ultimate irony FoxNews with throw down a "fairness" attitude knowing full well Barr has had no real interest in being fair about what the Mueller Report concluded in the first place.

Congrats FoxNews, they revealed both what Barr's real job is as well as their own hypocrisy when it comes to any sense of fairness.
 
Apparently Republican attorneys like Robert Charles don't care about things like that anymore.

Besides, it's Fox reporting it. Fox is in a tailspin and needs to keep its vulnerable viewers by posting political porn, like Charles wrote.
Republicans have some nerve complaining about the Democratic majority defining its own rules, when Republicans have for ten years run roughshod over them when they were in the majority, with secret subpoenas, party line threats of impeachment of Rosenstein, etc.

**** them.
 
...Is a misdemeanor. That'll teach him.
If financial penalties and the threat of becoming the first cabinet member in 150 years to be impeached are attached to it, yeah, he might not like those consequences too much - even if he keeps his job.
 
Contempt of congress.

You mean Barr is in contempt of congress because he won't agree to the house's special request (which isn't customary) of allowing someone other that house members question him?

The bolded is for your benefit. Or, just, a wake up call.
 
If financial penalties and the threat of becoming the first cabinet member in 150 years to be impeached are attached to it, yeah, he might not like those consequences too much - even if he keeps his job.

$1,000 dollar fine. Devastating. You guys need to learn a new word. Impeachment might be getting a widdle over-used.
 
Nadler is the poster boy for the TDS left. All he’s doing now is trying to discredit Barr ahead of the NEXT Barr investigation. The old bait and switch routine. Lol
 
Last edited:
You mean Barr is in contempt of congress because he won't agree to the house's special request (which isn't customary) of allowing someone other that house members question him?

The bolded is for your benefit. Or, just, a wake up call.

I mean charge him with contempt of congress. Glad that we could clear that up.
 
Nadler is running a charade. The entire purpose of this isn't to question Barr, but run him out of office before he can irreparably damage the Democratic Party. He recently stated he would find out who started the counterintelligence investigation on Trump's campaign. That is dangerous territory.
 
If financial penalties and the threat of becoming the first cabinet member in 150 years to be impeached are attached to it, yeah, he might not like those consequences too much - even if he keeps his job.

Was Holder impeached?
 
Back
Top Bottom