HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » And all the television pu...

Mon Apr 15, 2019, 11:02 AM

And all the television pundits sang his praises


8 replies, 2169 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply And all the television pundits sang his praises (Original post)
SHRED Monday OP
Eyeball_Kid Monday #1
bigbrother05 Monday #3
The Velveteen Ocelot Monday #2
Shrike47 Monday #4
The Velveteen Ocelot Monday #5
Caliman73 Monday #7
ProfessorPlum Tuesday #8
47of74 Monday #6

Response to SHRED (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2019, 11:11 AM

1. The Fourth Estate is on their guard, eh?

I have to say that Barr's PR handlers must have gotten paid handsomely by providing cover for a Unitary Executive shill. Whoever started the "institutionalist" meme that caught on so well and gave Barr the cover he needed should be promoted. Oh, the GOPers in the Senate would have confirmed him anyway because Dems objected. And that's all the reasoning they needed. But it would have looked a lot messier if Barr's intent to protect Trumpy were discussed more vigorously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyeball_Kid (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 15, 2019, 01:51 PM

3. Institutionalist in the sense that he back anything his GOP wants

Mitch is an "Institutionalist" too if you mean trying to cement in old white guy power.

That's like the descriptions of SCOTUS nominees as strict Constitutionalist when they support no civil rights outside of what existed for voting citizens at the time it was written. Again, old white guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2019, 12:00 PM

2. Some pretty respectable legal analysts said the same thing.

I think they were hoping that his "institutionalist" background would prevail and that he wouldn't let ideology overcome his duty to uphold the law. I think many of us, myself included, were hoping for the same result, considering that Barr's resume was such an improvement over Matthew Whittaker's. Ultimately, though, the result was about the same as it probably would have been if the obvious stooge Whittaker had kept the job.

What I still don't understand, even given Barr's involvement in encouraging pardons for crimes related to it, is why he'd go to such lengths to protect a president who was clearly up to no good, and in an even worse way than Reagan was in Iran-Contra (which was bad enough, but at least it didn't involve the attempted takeover of an American election by a hostile foreign government with the approval of the beneficiary of the election). Barr is on record as favoring the theory of the so-called unitary executive and opposing the appointment of special counsels, but his direct involvement in Iran-Contra seems to have been mostly his advocating for the pardon of Weinberger. In his previous government positions he was clearly very conservative but not obviously on the lunatic fringe. And even after all the Iran-Contra stuff became public, there was never any suggestion that the pardons of Weinberger and others were improper, since it's accepted that the power to pardon is virtually absolute.

But Barr is taking a lot of well-deserved flak right now, which he never got before. Like just about everybody who works for the Trump administration, he will come away from that job covered in Trump's shit and with the indelible stank of Trump all over him. What I still don't get is why Barr would risk befouling his reputation by covering for Trump. Maybe that's why the pundits thought, or at least hoped, that he would do the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 15, 2019, 01:52 PM

4. I think he truly believes anything the president does is OK and can/must be justified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 15, 2019, 01:53 PM

5. It would seem that way.

But you'd think a guy with that much legal experience might have read the Constitution at some point in his life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 15, 2019, 02:01 PM

7. I think that it unfortunately has to do with conservative ideology.

Conservatism lends itself more readily to authoritarianism. Not saying that leftists ideologies can't get there, but conservatism necessarily believes that power must be in the hands of the most powerful because the most powerful are the best. I think that while there may be an obvious desire to "stick up for the constitution" by conservatives, it is really only lip service. Barr thinks that Republicans should be in power and would likely eschew the Constitution and the rule of law to see that happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 16, 2019, 05:16 AM

8. Barr was covering GHW Bush's ass in Iran-Contra.

As you say, doddering Reagan was out to lunch on IC, but former CIA director Bush was up to his ass in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2019, 01:57 PM

6. Barr should be disbarred

Hes a fucking disgrace to the profession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread