General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho the Fuck is this guy? Barr: "I don't know what the emoluments clause IS"
Dianne just asked about emoluments ...he said "I don't know what the emoluments clause IS"....he is stammering all over the place....and plain dumb.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)Right? A former AG doesn't know what the emoluments clause of the Constitution is?
If the GOP had any integrity, they would suspend the meeting and discuss ending this farce behind closed doors.
By the way Columbia wants the BA and JD degrees back.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Oh, and I'm sure he knows what the emoluments clause is. He's a Chump hack. Can't wait until other Dems get to him.
elleng
(131,416 posts)and in fact virtually no one fully understands the meaning and scope of the emoluments clause.
MrGrieves
(315 posts)But actually the AG needs to understand what it is.
dalton99a
(81,708 posts)Zambero
(8,981 posts)It doesn't exist. Never claimed to be a constitutional scholar. Next question!
ScratchCat
(2,022 posts)can one Democrat stand up and say "This wholly disqualifies Mr. Barr from consideration" and everyone of them walk out?
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)An Attorney General who has not read the Constitution? A perfect Trump appointee, I guess.
hexola
(4,835 posts)And she was the one who asked the question...
If its not a particularly an issue of the moment - why would he have to appear an expert...?
Kind of a strawman...
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)It's Feinstein.
Normally, I don't call out spelling errors, but names are important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein
hexola
(4,835 posts)As does Bruce Springstien
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)You also misspelled the other two names. I find that unfortunate, hecksola. It's easy to find correct spellings. Just start typing in Google, and it will show you how they are correctly spelled.
It's a matter of respect, you see, for the person you are talking about.
hexola
(4,835 posts)janterry
(4,429 posts)n/t
agingdem
(7,875 posts)have you never heard of google?!
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)I have discussed..I even gave the POS names of other qualified people for this position...emoluments clause..whatchutalkin' 'bout Willis....???
Perhaps he really does want to retire..."only speculation"...when I wrote that 20 page memo regarding thee Mueller investigation - and made sure the POS got it...
Oh, and that pardon of O North - I was just kidding..but they took me seriously....Iran Contra Arms...oh, was that what they were talking about.....(all snark, of course)
I had to shut it off....
hexola
(4,835 posts)He's pushed back on some of the criticisms pretty well...not much traction.
Response to jodymarie aimee (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Towlie
(5,332 posts)more
If Trump received remuneration from Putin before he took office, would this apply? I'm not sure, but any prospect for Attorney General certainly ought to know what it is.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,564 posts)As you stated:
Article I, Section 9 (in part)
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9
Also:
Article II, Section 1 (in part)
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1
All bases covered -- the President is supposed to be compensated only by the United States, not private business, not foreign powers, not bribes over or under the table.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)with a USAG who hasn't reviewed the Constitution and the clauses that are of immediate concern to this Administration.... seems legit to me!
highplainsdem
(49,124 posts)hexola
(4,835 posts)And it was clear Senator Di-Fi didn't even know what it was about...she admitted it and moved on.
highplainsdem
(49,124 posts)lots of coverage in print, and some on cable news.
I don't for one second believe Barr is unfamiliar with the legal battles over it.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)FakeNoose
(32,917 posts)Believe me, they all understand the meaning.
Rocky888
(297 posts)PeeJ52
(1,588 posts)I don't trust him because of pardoning all the Iran Contract dudes, but I hope he really doesn't care about not being bullied.
demmiblue
(36,920 posts)hexola
(4,835 posts)Im sure all the legal experts here will chime in
bpj62
(999 posts)Barr should know about the Emollients Clause because the Justice Department is currently defending the Administration in a lawsuit brought by The State of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Sorry but I cannot excuse his lack of knowledge about a clause that his soon to be boss has been violating since day 1.
hexola
(4,835 posts)More is being made of this than necessary...and the questioner did NOT press him on the issue - and then jokingly dismissed it.
I do not find fault with Diane Finestein not understanding the Emollients Clause. However he should know exactly what it means because of what I stated in my prior post. Finestein let him off the hook because she didn't want to embarrass herself. She should not have asked the question if she didnt know the answer herself.
hexola
(4,835 posts)I thought his response was essentially - "Yeah - I know what it is but I'm not prepared to adjudicate or comment on that issue today..."
The idea that a display of expertise on this issue is an indicator of his fitness for the job is a bit of a strawman/assumption.
bpj62
(999 posts)Barr wrote a lengthy letter in which he clearly laid out his arguments about why the Special Prosecutor had over stepped his jurisdiction. It was basically his resume cover sheet for the Attorney General Job. I do not believe for one second that the issue of the Emoluments cases that are before the court did not come up in his interview with Trump. Trump begged Comey to go easy on Flynn. How do you think he is reacting to a suit that directly affects his companies making money. I wish this was a scene from Mr. Smith goes to Washington but it isnt. We are dealing with a guy who will do anything to protect his personal interests.
hexola
(4,835 posts)Conservos can't like that...!