I Have One Word For Bill Barr This Morning

May 02, 2019 By: Juanita Jean Herownself Category: Uncategorized

Wimp.

Oh, and coward, scardy-cat, chicken, candyass, wuss, weakling, baby, jellyfish, gutless, lily-livered, yellow belly, recreant  …

Let’s remind him that Christine Blasey Ford had the courage to go up against a lawyer and she’s not even a lawyer herself.

 

 

Be social and share!

0 Comments to “I Have One Word For Bill Barr This Morning”


  1. 1smartcanerican says:

    Totally agree with you JJ. Outside of being all the above, he is also a traitor to the country as he is supposed to uphold the law of the land, not the lies of the Dotard. He needs to be fired!

    Christine Blasey Ford is far more articulate and definitely tougher than Barr.

    1
  2. Jane & PKM says:

    Allegedly the IQ4.5 crime family bears animus against the Bush crime family. Odd, at best, as they share a common fluffer and swine make-up specialist, Bill Barr.

    2
  3. megasoid says:

    Bye Bill…

    Democratic lawmaker says the House will have to jail Trump officials if they defy subpoenas
    “To have a president defy, across the board, all outstanding subpoenas, is unprecedented.  That’s never been done before,” he said. “Richard Nixon didn’t do that at the height of Watergate.”
    Connolly noted that the House could go through the judicial branch to enforce subpoenas, if necessary, but that may take a long time. And the House has another power: **** inherent contempt. ****

    “We haven’t used that since the 1930s, but between 1800 and 1930, for the first 130 years of the republic, Congress did use it,” he said. “And that is where we enforce our own subpoenas or directives, and in this case, the subpoena can be issued and if it is defied we can direct the sergeant-at-arms to arrest somebody, bring them to Washington and detain them.”

    He added: “We cannot roll over and play dead when the president says. ‘We’re not going to cooperate with the legislative branch.”

    https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/democratic-lawmaker-says-the-house-will-have-to-jail-trump-officials-if-they-defy-subpoenas/

    3
  4. Fred Farklestone says:

    The definition of inherent contempt!

    Inherent contempt
    Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation). [10]

    Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its “inherent contempt” authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by Vice President John Nance Garner, in his capacity as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who was charged with allowing clients to remove or rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.[11]

    MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken.[12][13]

    Presidential pardons appear not to apply to a civil contempt procedure such as the above, since it is not an “offense against the United States” or against “the dignity of public authority.

    As found in Wiki.

    4
  5. Old Fart says:

    The problem with all of these (current) hypotheticals is the word “Senate”. Miss Lindsey has already shown they WILL NOT LOOK at further attempts to hold Barr/Pussy Grabber-In-Chief accountable.

    So now what? Putin is very, VERY happy…

    5
  6. Here’s a good word for attorney Barr – intent. Did he intend to mislead the public? Did he intend to lie to Congress? Did he knowingly and intentionally defy the subpoena for the full unredacted Mueller Report?

    6
  7. Someone brought a placeholder for Barr this morning, since he couldn’t make it:
    https://images.app.goo.gl/2rbehQQSdfR2Wjdq6

    7
  8. megasoid says:

    Standing at the podium on Thursday, Pelosi said Barr’s testimony was so troubling to her that she was unable to sleep the night before.

    “He lied to Congress,” Pelosi reiterated in her press conference. “If anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. Nobody is above the law — not the president of the United States and not the attorney general.”

    But when NBC reporter Kasie Hunt asked Pelosi if Barr could be jailed for the offense, the speaker left it up to the committees.
    “There’s a process involved here. … The committee will act upon how we will proceed,” Pelosi said.

    https://www.vox.com/2019/5/2/18526848/pelosi-william-barr-lied-to-congress-crime

    8
  9. Sarah O says:

    Has Barr’s law school asked for his diploma back yet? Looking like it should.

    9
  10. JJ,

    Add criminal to your list.

    10
  11. Grandma Ada says:

    When I heard Barr yesterday struggling with the definition of the word suggest – I knew the Congress should quit playing around with him and just send a Marshall!

    11
  12. Lunargent says:

    Rick –

    Oooo, that chicken

    12
  13. maggie says:

    Well, Barr did a damn poor impersonation of an Attorney General, and no, he really really really does not need that job. His words. Remember? So impeaching him ain’t gonna lose hi anything.

    13
  14. Buttermilk Sky says:

    This is precisely why We the People put the Democrats in charge of the House less than six months ago. If they fumble around and argue about “process,” what was the point? I appreciate that the Speaker has to keep her eyes on the prize (2020), but I also want to see Low Barr perp-waddled out of the DoJ in handcuffs while trump tweets in impotent RAGE with ALL THE CAPS and exclamation marks.

    14
  15. I that this is a disgrace and shameful episode for barr.
    I disagree that this is a disgrace and shameful episode for barr. As far as he is concerned, and his advocates, it was a masteful performance of doing what he was hired to do which is to protect yet another thuglican president from going to jail.
    Barr probably went home and had a celebatory drink.
    He protected demented donnie, just as he had protected perjurer poppa.
    The issue is similiar to wondering how people can admit they are racist, ignorant and thuglicans ( redundencies abound).
    Rather then seeing those things as shameful they perceive it to be a mark of power.
    So it is with barr. First he flim flammed enough law professors, pundents and opinion shapers to beleive he gave a good dump for the constitition or its laws so they would white wash his previous criminal cover ups ( prjurer poppa’s pardons) and support his appointment with very little controversy.
    Then upon entering office he started in on dismantleing the rule of law and replacing it with partisan ignorance.
    So to all those who beleive he shamed himself I think rather that he beleives that he covered himself in glory yesterday.
    Why not he is still in office, still covering up and engaging in shameful destruction of constititional balances.
    I am confident that wingnut welfare will ensure that he will never face any consequences for his actions and that he will still get his “respect” as an ag and people will still defer to him.
    So what is to restrain him?
    Social pressure – you jest.
    Political repercussions – he revels in them
    Economic concerns – shills are well paid ask the tobacco scientist’s
    Decency – Oh that died long ago.
    So he gets a free ride. after he leaves office I am confident that he will still get all the social cachete of his position and still be welcome into the homes of the rich and powerful no matter whether the hosts claim to be d’s or not.
    There is something to be said for sending someone to Coventry and having “polite” society in, literally, turning their back to him, and his family, whereevr he might go.
    It wouldn’t be much but with all of dmented donnies judicial cockroaches now sitting no one can ever expect him to have to pay fo his corruption.

    15
  16. PS
    Some of us need a edit function it compensate for clumsy fingers,

    From #15
    “I that THINK this is a disgrace and shameful episode for barr.
    I disagree that this is SEEN a disgrace and shameful episode for barr. ”

    Mea Culpa.

    16
  17. Mark Hendershott says:

    If AG Barr objects to staff lawyer asking questions maybe it could be arranged for Kamala Harris to come over and do the job

    17
  18. S Harris says:

    As posted from another site in their comments section. It seems to fit here to describe the behavior being demonstrated.

    ‘I think David Frum nailed this one when he argued that when determined conservative parties realized that they could not achieve their goals through the democratic process they wouldn’t give up on conservatism, but rather on democracy. GOP pols no longer care if a foreign power influences American elections, or if the Executive branch becomes increasingly powerful or even authoritarian, as long as they control the government.’

    18
  19. Lunargent says:

    So, regarding my post #12.

    It makes no sense, because it was held for approval, then severely redacted/censored.

    I’m not sure why; it had a word in it that might be considered profane, but was certainly tamer than other words frequently posted here. Or maybe the chicken emoji stuck in the gears of the auto function, since everything after it disappeared. At any rate, I shall post again, with some alteration.

    Oooo, that chicken sure P.O’d the Repugs! They’re so snowflakey.

    Personally, I thought it was pretty funny though the liberal pundits also condemned it as childish. IMO, it wasn’t nearly as stupid as tossing a snowball in the Senate as an attempted refutation of climate change.

    19