Barr testifies before the House judiciary

[southernhybrid]

I've been watching Barr testify all day. It's sickening to see what an absolute Trump sycophant he is, but most of us already knew that. Because of that, I've put this thread in the US presidential politics area.

Barr has twisted and distorted so many things when questioned. He couldn't even say if the president had the right to change the date of the fall election.

I don't know where to begin, so I'll try and highlight some information from WaPo for now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/28/four-early-takeaways-attorney-general-barrs-contentious-congressional-hearing/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_fix-barr-takeaways-250p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

Here are five takeaways from Barr’s testimony.

. I"m only posting a few lines from each takeaway.

1 Barr is obviously partisan.

But on Tuesday, he did little to dissuade the criticism that Trump’s personal desires influence him. In his efforts to defend himself, Barr painted Trump as the consummate professional president, giving Barr “complete freedom” to do what he needs. “From my experience, the president has played a role properly and traditionally played by presidents,” Barr testified.

He downplayed the central theme of Black Lives Matter — police brutality. “The threat to black lives posed by crime on the streets is massively greater than any threat posed by police misconduct,” his statement read.

2.

Barr is not backing down from sending federal agents into cities
There is a chasm between how Barr, Trump and their Republican defenders in Congress view federal police presence in U.S. cities and how Democrats and many protesters see it.

3.

Barr doesn’t think police have a racism problem
On the major topic of the day — police brutality and what the Justice Department can do about it — Barr was willing to acknowledge some racial inequities in how police treat black Americans. But he referred to it as a past issue in his opening statement: “Given our history, it’s understandable that among black Americans, there’s some ambivalence and often distrust toward the police. Until just the last 50 years ago or so, our laws and our institutions were explicitly racist, explicitly discriminatory.”

4.

Barr doubled down on raising fears about voting by mail
Barr has said multiple times that he’s worried about foreign actors manipulating voting by mail at a large scale in November. He repeated that Tuesday.

5.

Barr hesitates to say a president shouldn’t accept foreign help to get elected
In probably one of the most stunning exchanges of the day, Barr at first did not denounce clearly illegal behavior. The question was prompted by Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.).
Cicilline: Is it ever appropriate, sir, for the president to solicit or accept foreign assistance in an election?
Barr: It depends what kind of assistance.
Cicilline: Is it ever appropriate for the president or presidential candidate to accept or solicit foreign assistance of any kind in his or her election?
Barr: No, it’s not appropriate.

The hearing is still going on. I've been watching it all day. Has anyone else watched? What is most disturbing to me is how the usual suspects are defending whatever the president does. Some of the Republicans have referred to Biden and Obama as the problem. The protests were described as violent with very little emphasis put on the peaceful protests. Of course, it was partisan on both sides, but imo, the Republicans win the prize for making the craziest insinuations.

I guess one could say that this hearing is a waste of time. It's been going on for over 4 hours so far. Barr is disgusting. He couldn't give any evidence as to why he thinks that mail in ballots will allow wide spread fraud, but he did admit that he's voted by mail at least once. He frequently referred to the protesters as violent anarchists etc. This is hopeless. He tried to defend Trump's handling of COVID etc. etc.

 

[barbos]

All true, but I was watching Don Lemon on CNN and he interviewed one of the congressmen who questioned Barr about discrepancy about death rates from the police for blacks and whites. Barr clearly stated that statistics should be adjusted for the race of the perpetrator (which is true). Did not matter to congressman, he went to Lemon and bitched about it anyway.

 

[KeepTalking]

All true, but I was watching Don Lemon on CNN and he interviewed one of the congressmen who questioned Barr about discrepancy about death rates from the police for blacks and whites. Barr clearly stated that statistics should be adjusted for the race of the perpetrator (which is true). Did not matter to congressman, he went to Lemon and bitched about it anyway.

The only statistic Barr presented was that so far this year 11 unarmed white men have been killed by police as opposed to 8 unarmed black men (I guess Breonna Taylor doesn't count). This is in a country where only 14% of the population is black. Adjusting for race flips the statistic Barr presented on it's head, showing that it is far more likely for an unarmed black man to be killed by police than an unarmed white man.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Barr went the Kavanaugh route and it did what it was designed to do... provide more cover.

 

[Gospel]

Barr went the Kavanaugh route and it did what it was designed to do... provide more cover.

 

[ideologyhunter]

My takeaway: Barr is absolutely poised to stand before the nation on November 4 and claim that there is strong evidence of massive voter fraud, that the full power of the DOJ will be brought to bear, that he is prepared to.........
This jowly sycophant has no shame, no moral standards, and if anything is the equal of his boss. Amazing times to live in a "free and open society."

 

[barbos]

All true, but I was watching Don Lemon on CNN and he interviewed one of the congressmen who questioned Barr about discrepancy about death rates from the police for blacks and whites. Barr clearly stated that statistics should be adjusted for the race of the perpetrator (which is true). Did not matter to congressman, he went to Lemon and bitched about it anyway.

The only statistic Barr presented was that so far this year 11 unarmed white men have been killed by police as opposed to 8 unarmed black men (I guess Breonna Taylor doesn't count). This is in a country where only 14% of the population is black. Adjusting for race flips the statistic Barr presented on it's head, showing that it is far more likely for an unarmed black man to be killed by police than an unarmed white man.

It does not matter what statistics he provided. His point still stands - one has to look at per perpetrator death rate.

 

[laughing dog]

All true, but I was watching Don Lemon on CNN and he interviewed one of the congressmen who questioned Barr about discrepancy about death rates from the police for blacks and whites. Barr clearly stated that statistics should be adjusted for the race of the perpetrator (which is true). Did not matter to congressman, he went to Lemon and bitched about it anyway.

The only statistic Barr presented was that so far this year 11 unarmed white men have been killed by police as opposed to 8 unarmed black men (I guess Breonna Taylor doesn't count). This is in a country where only 14% of the population is black. Adjusting for race flips the statistic Barr presented on it's head, showing that it is far more likely for an unarmed black man to be killed by police than an unarmed white man.

It does not matter what statistics he provided. His point still stands - one has to look at per perpetrator death rate.

No one does not have to do that. Since suspects are innocent until proven guilty, why would any rational person think the unarmed civilian deaths by race by police/perpetrator by race is a valid metric ?

 

[KeepTalking]

All true, but I was watching Don Lemon on CNN and he interviewed one of the congressmen who questioned Barr about discrepancy about death rates from the police for blacks and whites. Barr clearly stated that statistics should be adjusted for the race of the perpetrator (which is true). Did not matter to congressman, he went to Lemon and bitched about it anyway.

The only statistic Barr presented was that so far this year 11 unarmed white men have been killed by police as opposed to 8 unarmed black men (I guess Breonna Taylor doesn't count). This is in a country where only 14% of the population is black. Adjusting for race flips the statistic Barr presented on it's head, showing that it is far more likely for an unarmed black man to be killed by police than an unarmed white man.

It does not matter what statistics he provided. His point still stands - one has to look at per perpetrator death rate.

If that is the important statistic, then why didn't he present it? I would think he would have those numbers ready if he were not just hand-waving.

So, let's see those statistics, and see if they show anything different. Then we can have the discussion regarding whether or not over policing (i.e. pulling over motorists for "driving while black") has anything to do with that statistic (it does), and why that is or isn't a result of the same damn problem (systemic racism).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All true, but I was watching Don Lemon on CNN and he interviewed one of the congressmen who questioned Barr about discrepancy about death rates from the police for blacks and whites. Barr clearly stated that statistics should be adjusted for the race of the perpetrator (which is true). Did not matter to congressman, he went to Lemon and bitched about it anyway.

The only statistic Barr presented was that so far this year 11 unarmed white men have been killed by police as opposed to 8 unarmed black men (I guess Breonna Taylor doesn't count). This is in a country where only 14% of the population is black. Adjusting for race flips the statistic Barr presented on it's head, showing that it is far more likely for an unarmed black man to be killed by police than an unarmed white man.

But it shouldn't be adjusted based on the race of the population, but of the race of the people the police actually deal with--mostly criminals. We don't have perfect data on this but using crime rates as a proxy the unarmed death rate tips slightly towards being higher for whites. (Which is actually what I would expect--nutters will follow demographics better.)

 

[barbos]

It does not matter what statistics he provided. His point still stands - one has to look at per perpetrator death rate.

If that is the important statistic, then why didn't he present it? I would think he would have those numbers ready if he were not just hand-waving.

So, let's see those statistics, and see if they show anything different. Then we can have the discussion regarding whether or not over policing (i.e. pulling over motorists for "driving while black") has anything to do with that statistic (it does), and why that is or isn't a result of the same damn problem (systemic racism).

It have been looked at - no racism was found there, otherwise the usual suspects were using that statistics instead of ridiculous one.

 

[KeepTalking]

All true, but I was watching Don Lemon on CNN and he interviewed one of the congressmen who questioned Barr about discrepancy about death rates from the police for blacks and whites. Barr clearly stated that statistics should be adjusted for the race of the perpetrator (which is true). Did not matter to congressman, he went to Lemon and bitched about it anyway.

The only statistic Barr presented was that so far this year 11 unarmed white men have been killed by police as opposed to 8 unarmed black men (I guess Breonna Taylor doesn't count). This is in a country where only 14% of the population is black. Adjusting for race flips the statistic Barr presented on it's head, showing that it is far more likely for an unarmed black man to be killed by police than an unarmed white man.

But it shouldn't be adjusted based on the race of the population, but of the race of the people the police actually deal with--mostly criminals.

I have already addressed this, in post #9, please note that your post is #10. In other words, please keep up with the discussion.

We don't have perfect data on this but using crime rates as a proxy the unarmed death rate tips slightly towards being higher for whites. (Which is actually what I would expect--nutters will follow demographics better.)

You shouldn't be using that statistic! You should be using this other statistic that we don't have!

 

[KeepTalking]

It does not matter what statistics he provided. His point still stands - one has to look at per perpetrator death rate.

If that is the important statistic, then why didn't he present it? I would think he would have those numbers ready if he were not just hand-waving.

So, let's see those statistics, and see if they show anything different. Then we can have the discussion regarding whether or not over policing (i.e. pulling over motorists for "driving while black") has anything to do with that statistic (it does), and why that is or isn't a result of the same damn problem (systemic racism).

It have been looked at - no racism was found there, otherwise the usual suspects were using that statistics instead of ridiculous one.

I don't believe you. Please show me your evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it shouldn't be adjusted based on the race of the population, but of the race of the people the police actually deal with--mostly criminals.

I have already addressed this, in post #9, please note that your post is #10. In other words, please keep up with the discussion.

We don't have perfect data on this but using crime rates as a proxy the unarmed death rate tips slightly towards being higher for whites. (Which is actually what I would expect--nutters will follow demographics better.)

You shouldn't be using that statistic! You should be using this other statistic that we don't have!

Just because we don't have perfect data doesn't mean we should use obviously wrong data because it's more accurate.

You're like the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight because that's where he can see.

 

[barbos]

It have been looked at - no racism was found there, otherwise the usual suspects were using that statistics instead of ridiculous one.

I don't believe you. Please show me your evidence.

LP already addressed that.

 

[KeepTalking]

I have already addressed this, in post #9, please note that your post is #10. In other words, please keep up with the discussion.



You shouldn't be using that statistic! You should be using this other statistic that we don't have!

Just because we don't have perfect data doesn't mean we should use obviously wrong data because it's more accurate.

You're like the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight because that's where he can see.

It's not that the data is imperfect, you have not provided any data. The best I can tell, your data is imaginary.

 

[KeepTalking]

It have been looked at - no racism was found there, otherwise the usual suspects were using that statistics instead of ridiculous one.

I don't believe you. Please show me your evidence.

LP already addressed that.

LP has not even presented his own evidence, much less yours. Not that anyone expects anything different from either of you.

 

[barbos]

LP already addressed that.

LP has not even presented his own evidence, much less yours. Not that anyone expects anything different from either of you.

He did long time ago and many times in many previous threads. And I did too, You are just being dense or obtuse.
And it's not so much about our evidence, it's about your evidence being bullshit. That's what Barr's reply implied.
You can't count death rate per general population, that's bullshit statistics.

 

[KeepTalking]

LP already addressed that.

LP has not even presented his own evidence, much less yours. Not that anyone expects anything different from either of you.

He did long time ago and many times in many previous threads. And I did too,

Just not any that you can point out, got it.

You are just being dense or obtuse.

Even if I were, it would behoove you to present your evidence, thereby proving me wrong.

And it's not so much about our evidence, it's about your evidence being bullshit. That's what Barr's reply implied.

That is some serious bullshit right there. You have made a specific claim, as did Barr, and as did Loren, about having better statistics. In order to show that, you have to actually show those statistics. If I am being dense or obtuse, it is in making requests of yourself or Loren to produce evidence of anything you claim, as I know perfectly well that you will never do any such thing, because you never have.

You can't count death rate per general population, that's bullshit statistics.

Then provide the non-bullshit statistic, and be prepared to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of that statistic.

 

[fromderinside]

Let me be more explicit KeepTalking. They have no idea what is evidence based on their continued dropping of BS rather than evidence. Obviously they believe saying/writing BS is evidence.

Show

being rational here

I'd be afraid to propose to them that they try using the operational method for fear that they'd try rationalism in it's place.

But, hey, as you say, they have no evidence with which to sway. So I say, good day.