Legal analyst Daniel Goldman noticed that Attorney General Bill Barr seemed “triggered” by questions about Roger Stone and the questions that surrounded the Justice Department’s behavior around the Stone case.
Reporter Matt Miller explained that Barr failed to cite any other examples in which he has seen an attorney general intervene in a case involving a president’s friend the way that Barr did.
Speaking on a panel of legal experts Tuesday between breaks in the Congressional Judiciary Hearing, former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg explained that whether one likes Barr or not, he’s a smart man and cornering him is difficult. As an example, Barr was shown a video of a Navy veteran being beaten and tear-gassed and the attorney general explained he couldn’t tell if the veteran was the one getting gassed.
“What Barr misses over and over again is the perception of his conduct, the way that it is perceived by many of us as favoring allies of the president over others or intervening only when the president wants him to intervene,” said Rosenberg. “He can’t even seem to acknowledge that the perception is so far off. And I think that’s what makes this whole hearing unfortunate — the questioning has been scattered, Barr has largely held his own formalistically and legally but he’s completely missing the perception. And perception is so important to the rule of law on how the department of justice does its business, and I wish Barr could see that. That is his blind spot.”
Goldman, who served as part of the House’s legal counsel during the impeachment trial, explained that Democrats excel when they were able to pin-point Barr on specific cases.
“It’s clear that Bill Barr is a little bit triggered by the whole Roger Stone sentencing,” said Goldman. “I do agree that Rep. Eric Swalwell did a nice job questioning him. But the thing I would want to hear a little bit more of, and you raised the issue of voter fraud, is a follow-up question. Mr. Barr, what is your evidence that there is potential voter fraud from widespread mail-in voting? What is your evidence that there are Antifa representatives? Are the ones who are leading the riots in various cities? Ask him what his evidence is and what the data is that he is relying on because what ends up happening here is Barr makes a statement without explaining the backup and all too often the congressmen are responding with statements of their own. But what we’re really here to hear is Bill Barr. And I think that’s something that’s important to remember.”
See the discussion below:
‘They’ll get away with it’: Strategist explains how GOP federal judges will help Trump steal election
President Donald Trump will remain in power if he narrowly loses the 2020 presidential election, with conservative judges poised to help him "steal" the election, a longtime Democratic Party strategist warned on Tuesday.
MSNBC anchor Brian Williams interviewed James Carville about the Supreme Court vacancy and how it could impact any legal wrangling about counting the votes.
"James, that's a pretty neat trick, the president is gaslighting out in advance voter fraud that he is promoting, ergo the need for nine justices on the court, which doesn't exist in law. The court has functioned just fine with eight during times of a death or a recusal," Williams noted. "Be that as it may, if Trump fills this seat before the election, in your view, how does that change the dynamic of the election?"
Chaotic White House made worse by ‘incompetent’ Trump who rarely shows up for work: report
According to Playboy magazine senior White House correspondent Brian Karem -- who has seen it first hand -- Donald Trump is an absentee president who puts in little time at his job and, when he does, has no idea what he is supposed to be doing.
Writing for the conservative Bulwark, Karem said Trump is more than just "Putin's puppet," he is "incompetent" and therefore dangerous.
As Karem see it, the public is inundated with reports about the president's "bombast, wild claims, misogyny, racism, lies, greed and avarice" but what should be more concerning is his inability to fulfill the basic responsibilities of his office.
Here’s how the fight over the Supreme Court could make the presidential election even nastier
As the two sides in US politics begin jockeying for position following the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the similarities to the 2016 presidential election are striking.
That year, the fierce battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was made all the more contentious because the Republican-controlled Senate refused to allow a vote on President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who had died in February.