Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gowdy: Professor Tiefer, would you seat a juror who referred to your client as an obscene body part?
Professor Tiefer: (Long Pause) I'm sorry I--
Gowdy: (Repeats himself) Would you seat a juror in a trial, who referred to your client as an obscene body part?
Professor Tiefer: I really have trouble to giving you an answer except that--
Gowdy: Well, then you would starve to death as a lawyer if you can’t answer that question, Professor. You would seriously consider seating a juror in a trial, a criminal trial, where your client was accused of a crime, if that juror had referred to your client as an obscene body part, you would struggle with whether or not to strike that juror?
Professor Tiefer: Uh, it doesn't sound too good.
Gowdy: No it's not, and I'll give you some free litigation advice, you'll want to use one of your strikes on that juror. How about if you were a prosecutor, and one of the potential jurors referred to the police as 'terrorists' who were going to bring the country down? Would you seat that juror in a criminal prosecution if you were the prosecutor?
Professor Tiefer: (Long Pause) I wish I saw the connection here, but--
Gowdy: I'll give you the connection! Lois Lerner just referred to conservatives as an obscene body part, and she said we were 'crazies' and likened us to terrorists!
Representative from Georgia: Well Mr. Chairman, uh if--
Gowdy: You are not recognized! The gentleman from Georgia is not recognized!
Representative from Georgia: Well, would the gentleman yield?
Gowdy: No sir, I will not. (Continues) Let's go to the regulation Professor. Conflict of interest for the Department. People like standards, they like bright lines, so I thought it would be interesting to go find out what the Attorney General's standard is for recusal--and you know when he recuses himself? I'll quote him: "When there's the potential appearance of a conflict." He recused himself from a criminal prosecution (emphasis added) when there's the potential appearance of a conflict. Those are his words, not mine. So that's the standard for when there should be a conflict; I want us to analyze whether or not there could possibly be the potential appearance of a conflict.
Professor Tiefer: (speaks inaudibly, Gowdy continues)
Gowdy: You have the President of the United States-- (digresses) when I ask a question it will be very clear, Professor. The President of The United States in the most widely viewed television show in our country said there's "not a smidgen of corruption." You don't think that is 'the potential appearance of a conflict?'
Professor Tiefer: For the issue of a Special Counsel...which is...what I'm here for--
Gowdy: How about giving me a 'yes' or a 'no,' then you can explain your answer.
Professor Tiefer: I think it is irrelevant what the President says to whether there's a conflict of interest--
Gowdy: What if a judge says "Let's go give that guilty bastard a trial?" Is that irrelevant? Would you want that judge? If he prejudged the outcome of a prosecution, said "let's go give this guilty guy a fair trial?"
Professor Tiefer: Given the independence of the public integrity sector for the last 30 years, I don't think it matters--
Gowdy: So you don't think it matters that the chief law enforcement officer for this country, before there is an investigation, while there are e-mails missing, before he's analyzed one scintilla of evidence, prejudges and says "there's not a scintilla of corruption?" You don't think that matters. You don't even think it creates the potential appearance of a conflict.
Professor Tiefer: I absolutely reject that the standard here is the standard you're naming for recusal. If he recuses himself, it's still the same--
Gowdy: How about when the Department of Justice trades e-mails--
(Tiefer is still talking, meanwhile)
Gowdy: --with Lois Lerner seeking to implement an idea from a Democrat Senator? Do you know Senator Whitehouse? (Points)
Professor Tiefer: My understanding was the idea was rejected after the meeting in question, that the idea--
Gowdy: I'm simply saying, do you really want the Department of Justice and the IRS taking their prosecutorial advice from a Democrat Senator?
Professor Tiefer: (inaudible)
Gowdy: I thought the Department of Justice was blindfolded?
Professor Tiefer: I'm glad they rejected the idea.
Gowdy: I'm sad that they even discussed it. I'm sad that they even discussed pursuing--because when the AG sits where Professor Rotunda is, all we hear about is how he doesn't have the resources to actually do his job. And now they're gonna contemplate manufacturing false statement cases?
Professor Tiefer: The standards--
Gowdy: So you do not think there's even the potential appearance of a conflict?
Professor Tiefer: That's not the standard. You're talking about recusal, which is whether the AG or the Deputy AG deals with the matter. That's recusal.
Gowdy: Just so the record's clear, you don't think there's even a potential appearance of a conflict. We're not even gonna get into (inaudible). How about extraordinary circumstances? Do you think it is extraordinary when a government agency targets people based on their political ideology? Do you think that is extraordinary?
Professor Tiefer: I think it is an issue of what the Department of Justice not the IRS--the IRS is much criticized--and (stammers) I assume rightly so, but the Department of Justice under the special counsel regulations is the one we're talking about.
Gowdy: Well, tell you what, let's go to the third element: how whether it would be in the public interest to do so; would you agree to let our fellow citizens decide whether or not they think a special prosecutor is warranted in this case? That's the third element. And by the way, the Attorney General drafted this regulation, the CFR, so I assume he put in there it would be in the public interest to do so. Would you agree to let our fellow citizens decide whether or not there should be a special prosecutor?
Professor Tiefer: You mean by polls?
Gowdy: However!
Professor Tiefer: I don't think the polls should tell the Department of Justice what laws to enforce.
Gowdy: So you see no potential conflict of interest, you don't think that this is an extraordinary fact pattern, and you don't trust your fellow citizens to make the call?
Professor Tiefer: It's not a matter of trusting. You can't run a Department of Justice and decide extraordinary questions of the law by poll numbers. No, I would--
Gowdy: Neither can you prejudge the outcome of an investigation that hasn't even started. You can't do that when you are the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for this country. And it wasn't a hot-mic situation where he's whispering to Eric Holder, it's on the most watched television show in our culture, and he prejudges an investigation; and you want us to expect that the outcome of this is going to have any validity or credibility? It's not gonna happen. And with that I would recognize the gentleman from Idaho.
END
Grown up Draco Malfoy is being an obscene body part during that whole video.
Grown up Draco Malfoy is being an obscene body part during that whole video.
Sure, or you're being the obscene body part here. I expect anyone to be treated the way the Professor was when he refused to give a direct answer. What if someone refused to give a direct answer to a question you asked? Would you give them a free pass?
USMB nutters love them some grandstanding politicians wasting taxpayer dollars and trying to bully someone who has to kiss their ass in a hearing room.
USMB nutters love them some grandstanding politicians wasting taxpayer dollars and trying to bully someone who has to kiss their ass in a hearing room.
USMB nutters love them some grandstanding politicians wasting taxpayer dollars and trying to bully someone who has to kiss their ass in a hearing room.
Oh, you don't mind when Obama says stuff like
"I don't do photo-ops" yet goes all around America campaigning and doing photo-ops in an acute case of grandstanding.
In more of the same, Trey Gowdy is seen once again seen here educating Democratic Law Professor Charles Tiefer on the finer points of litigate processes, and giving some dietary advice to boot. Charles Tiefer was quoted on July 16 describing John Boehner's lawsuit against Obama as "meritless" and "a big loser." The transcript and video are below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wHO47mBGh9w
Gowdy: Professor Tiefer, would you seat a juror who referred to your client as an obscene body part?
Professor Tiefer: (Long Pause) I'm sorry I--
Gowdy: (Repeats himself) Would you seat a juror in a trial, who referred to your client as an obscene body part?
Professor Tiefer: I really have trouble to giving you an answer except that--
Gowdy: Well, then you would starve to death as a lawyer if you cant answer that question, professor. You would seriously consider seating a juror in a trial, a criminal trial, where your client was accused of a crime, if that juror had referred to your client as an obscene body part, you would struggle with whether or not to strike that juror?
Professor Tiefer: Ah, it doesn't sound too good.
Gowdy: No its not, and I'll give you some free litigation advice: You'll want to use one of your strikes on that juror. How about if you were a prosecutor, and one of the potential jurors referred to the police as 'terrorists' who were going to bring the country down? Would you seat that juror in a criminal prosecution if you were the prosecutor?
Professor Tiefer: (Long Pause) I wish I saw the connection here, but--
Gowdy: I'll give you the connection! Lois Lerner just referred to conservatives as an obscene body part, and she said we were 'crazies' and likened us to terrorists!
Representative from Georgia: Well Mr. Chairman, uh if---
Gowdy: You are not recognized! The gentleman from Georgia is not recognized.
Representative from Georgia: Well, would the gentleman yield?
Gowdy: No sir, I will not. (Continues) Let's go to the regulation professor. Conflict of interest for the Department, people like standards; they like bright lines, so I thought it would be interesting to go find out what the Attorney General's standard is for recusal and you know when he recuses himself? I'll quote him: "When there's the potential appearance of a conflict." He recused himself from a criminal prosecution (emphasis added) when there's the potential appearance of a conflict. Those are his words, not mine. So that's the standard for when there should be a conflict; I want us to analyze whether or not there could possibly be the potential appearance of a conflict.
Professor Tiefer: (speaks inaudibly, Gowdy continues)
Gowdy: You have the President of the United States-- (digresses) when I ask a question it will be very clear, Professor. The President of The United States in the most widely viewed television show in our country said there's "not a smidgen of corruption." You don't think that is 'the potential appearance of a conflict'?
Professor Tiefer: For the issue of a Special Counsel.. which is.. what I'm here for--
Gowdy: How about giving me a 'yes' or a 'no,' then you can explain your answer.
Professor Tiefer: I think it is irrelevant what the President says to whether there's a conflict of interest--
Gowdy: What if a judge says "Let's go give that guilty bastard a trial?" Is that irrelevant? Would you want that judge? If he prejudged the outcome of a prosecution, said "let's go give this guilty guy a fair trial?"
Professor Tiefer: Given the independence of the public integrity sector for the last 30 years, I don't think it matters--
Gowdy: So you don't think it matters that the chief law enforcement officer for this country, before there is an investigation, while there are e-mails missing, before he's analyzed one scintilla of evidence, prejudges and says "there's not a scintilla of corruption?" You don't think that matters. You don't even think it creates the potential appearance of a conflict.
Professor Tiefer: I absolutely reject that the standard here is the standard you're naming for recusal. If he recuses himself, it's still the same--
Gowdy: How about when the Department of Justice trades e-mails--
(Tiefer is still talking, meanwhile)
Gowdy: --with Lois Lerner seeking to implement an idea from a Democrat Senator? Do you know Senator Whitehouse? (Points)
Professor Tiefer: My understanding was the idea was rejected after the meeting in question, that the idea--
Gowdy: I'm simply saying, do you really want the Department of Justice and the IRS taking their prosecutorial advice from a Democrat Senator?
Professor Tiefer: (inaudible)
Gowdy: I thought the Department of Justice was blindfolded?
Professor Tiefer: I'm glad they rejected the idea.
Gowdy: I'm sad that they even discussed it. I'm sad that they even discussed pursuing--because when the AG sits where Professor Rotunda is, all we hear about is how he doesn't have the resources to actually do his job. And now they're gonna contemplate manufacturing false statement cases?
Professor Tiefer: The standards--
Gowdy: So you do not think there's even the potential appearance of a conflict?
Professor Tiefer: That's not the standard. You're talking about recusal, which is whether the AG or the Deputy AG deals with the matter. That's recusal.
Gowdy: Just so the record's clear, you don't think there's even a potential appearance of a conflict. We're not even gonna get into (inaudible). How about extraordinary circumstances? Do you think it is extraordinary when a government agency targets people based on their political ideology? Do you think that is extraordinary?
Professor Tiefer: I think it is an issue of what the Department of Justice not the IRS--the IRS is much criticized... and (stammers) I assume rightly so, but the Department of Justice under the special counsel regulations is the one we're talking about.
Gowdy: Well, tell you what, let's go to the third element: how whether it would be in the public interest to do so; would you agree to let our fellow citizens decide whether or not they think a special prosecutor is warranted in this case? That's the third element. And by the way, the Attorney General drafted this regulation, the CFR, so I assume he put in there it would be in the public interest to do so. Would you agree to let our fellow citizens decide whether or not there should be a special prosecutor?
Professor Tiefer: You mean by polls?
Gowdy: However!
Professor Tiefer: I don't think the polls should tell the Department of Justice what laws to enforce.
Gowdy: So you see no potential conflict of interest, you don't think that this is an extraordinary fact pattern, and you don't trust your fellow citizens to make the call?
Professor Tiefer: It's not a matter of trusting. You can't run a Department of Justice and decide extraordinary questions of the law by poll numbers. No, I would--
Gowdy: Neither can you prejudge the outcome of an investigation that hasn't even started. You can't do that when you are the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for this country. And it wasn't a hot-mic situation where he's whispering to Eric Holder, it's on the most watched television show in our culture, and he prejudges an investigation; and you want us to expect that the outcome of this is going to have any validity or credibility? It's not gonna happen. And with that I would recognize the gentleman from Idaho.
END
No sane person gives a shit about what the House witch hunters are doing. Trey Gowdy is just another NaziCon attention whore looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
Trey Goudy is going to high places. I'd love to see him debate Hillary.
USMB nutters love them some grandstanding politicians wasting taxpayer dollars and trying to bully someone who has to kiss their ass in a hearing room.
Oh, you don't mind when Obama says stuff like
"I don't do photo-ops" yet goes all around America campaigning and doing photo-ops in an acute case of grandstanding.
In more of the same, Trey Gowdy is seen once again seen here educating Democratic Law Professor Charles Tiefer on the finer points of litigate processes, and giving some dietary advice to boot. Charles Tiefer was quoted on July 16 describing John Boehner's lawsuit against Obama as "meritless" and "a big loser." The transcript and video are below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wHO47mBGh9w
Gowdy: Professor Tiefer, would you seat a juror who referred to your client as an obscene body part?
Professor Tiefer: (Long Pause) I'm sorry I--
Gowdy: (Repeats himself) Would you seat a juror in a trial, who referred to your client as an obscene body part?
Professor Tiefer: I really have trouble to giving you an answer except that--
Gowdy: Well, then you would starve to death as a lawyer if you cant answer that question, Professor. You would seriously consider seating a juror in a trial, a criminal trial, where your client was accused of a crime, if that juror had referred to your client as an obscene body part, you would struggle with whether or not to strike that juror?
Professor Tiefer: Uh, it doesn't sound too good.
Gowdy: No it's not, and I'll give you some free litigation advice, you'll want to use one of your strikes on that juror. How about if you were a prosecutor, and one of the potential jurors referred to the police as 'terrorists' who were going to bring the country down? Would you seat that juror in a criminal prosecution if you were the prosecutor?
Professor Tiefer: (Long Pause) I wish I saw the connection here, but--
Gowdy: I'll give you the connection! Lois Lerner just referred to conservatives as an obscene body part, and she said we were 'crazies' and likened us to terrorists!
Representative from Georgia: Well Mr. Chairman, uh if--
Gowdy: You are not recognized! The gentleman from Georgia is not recognized!
Representative from Georgia: Well, would the gentleman yield?
Gowdy: No sir, I will not. (Continues) Let's go to the regulation Professor. Conflict of interest for the Department. People like standards, they like bright lines, so I thought it would be interesting to go find out what the Attorney General's standard is for recusal--and you know when he recuses himself? I'll quote him: "When there's the potential appearance of a conflict." He recused himself from a criminal prosecution (emphasis added) when there's the potential appearance of a conflict. Those are his words, not mine. So that's the standard for when there should be a conflict; I want us to analyze whether or not there could possibly be the potential appearance of a conflict.
Professor Tiefer: (speaks inaudibly, Gowdy continues)
Gowdy: You have the President of the United States-- (digresses) when I ask a question it will be very clear, Professor. The President of The United States in the most widely viewed television show in our country said there's "not a smidgen of corruption." You don't think that is 'the potential appearance of a conflict?'
Professor Tiefer: For the issue of a Special Counsel...which is...what I'm here for--
Gowdy: How about giving me a 'yes' or a 'no,' then you can explain your answer.
Professor Tiefer: I think it is irrelevant what the President says to whether there's a conflict of interest--
Gowdy: What if a judge says "Let's go give that guilty bastard a trial?" Is that irrelevant? Would you want that judge? If he prejudged the outcome of a prosecution, said "let's go give this guilty guy a fair trial?"
Professor Tiefer: Given the independence of the public integrity sector for the last 30 years, I don't think it matters--
Gowdy: So you don't think it matters that the chief law enforcement officer for this country, before there is an investigation, while there are e-mails missing, before he's analyzed one scintilla of evidence, prejudges and says "there's not a scintilla of corruption?" You don't think that matters. You don't even think it creates the potential appearance of a conflict.
Professor Tiefer: I absolutely reject that the standard here is the standard you're naming for recusal. If he recuses himself, it's still the same--
Gowdy: How about when the Department of Justice trades e-mails--
(Tiefer is still talking, meanwhile)
Gowdy: --with Lois Lerner seeking to implement an idea from a Democrat Senator? Do you know Senator Whitehouse? (Points)
Professor Tiefer: My understanding was the idea was rejected after the meeting in question, that the idea--
Gowdy: I'm simply saying, do you really want the Department of Justice and the IRS taking their prosecutorial advice from a Democrat Senator?
Professor Tiefer: (inaudible)
Gowdy: I thought the Department of Justice was blindfolded?
Professor Tiefer: I'm glad they rejected the idea.
Gowdy: I'm sad that they even discussed it. I'm sad that they even discussed pursuing--because when the AG sits where Professor Rotunda is, all we hear about is how he doesn't have the resources to actually do his job. And now they're gonna contemplate manufacturing false statement cases?
Professor Tiefer: The standards--
Gowdy: So you do not think there's even the potential appearance of a conflict?
Professor Tiefer: That's not the standard. You're talking about recusal, which is whether the AG or the Deputy AG deals with the matter. That's recusal.
Gowdy: Just so the record's clear, you don't think there's even a potential appearance of a conflict. We're not even gonna get into (inaudible). How about extraordinary circumstances? Do you think it is extraordinary when a government agency targets people based on their political ideology? Do you think that is extraordinary?
Professor Tiefer: I think it is an issue of what the Department of Justice not the IRS--the IRS is much criticized--and (stammers) I assume rightly so, but the Department of Justice under the special counsel regulations is the one we're talking about.
Gowdy: Well, tell you what, let's go to the third element: how whether it would be in the public interest to do so; would you agree to let our fellow citizens decide whether or not they think a special prosecutor is warranted in this case? That's the third element. And by the way, the Attorney General drafted this regulation, the CFR, so I assume he put in there it would be in the public interest to do so. Would you agree to let our fellow citizens decide whether or not there should be a special prosecutor?
Professor Tiefer: You mean by polls?
Gowdy: However!
Professor Tiefer: I don't think the polls should tell the Department of Justice what laws to enforce.
Gowdy: So you see no potential conflict of interest, you don't think that this is an extraordinary fact pattern, and you don't trust your fellow citizens to make the call?
Professor Tiefer: It's not a matter of trusting. You can't run a Department of Justice and decide extraordinary questions of the law by poll numbers. No, I would--
Gowdy: Neither can you prejudge the outcome of an investigation that hasn't even started. You can't do that when you are the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for this country. And it wasn't a hot-mic situation where he's whispering to Eric Holder, it's on the most watched television show in our culture, and he prejudges an investigation; and you want us to expect that the outcome of this is going to have any validity or credibility? It's not gonna happen. And with that I would recognize the gentleman from Idaho.
END
