Democrats hold Barr in contempt of Congress

[rda]

The scariest part is someone intervening and what that will mean. What will it take to stop? The democrats can't stop it because of their base. They have to keep the political circus going to have any shot at 2020.

Honestly...trying to throw the AG in jail for doing absolutely nothing wrong is insane.

I believe they won't stop themselves...they can't. They have to continue this because if they don't they fear they'll lose 2020.

Well, sooner or later that's what everyone will have to try to figure out - what the hell to do with the irrational, deranged dems.

[Benggaul]

Honestly...trying to throw the AG in jail for doing absolutely nothing wrong is insane.

He failed to show for the House hearing and failed to produce the full unredacted Mueller Report for the House Judiciary Committee which they have every legal right to. Therefore, yes, he did do something wrong and is being held in contempt for it. Also, Trump's "executive priviledge" over the Report was already waived weeks ago so them trying to claim it now as Barr's reason for withholding it is worthless. No takebacksies.

[Levelfive]

Very scary times for our country.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ay/3644414002/

"The dispute between Barr and lawmakers centers on how they planned to question him at a hearing that had been scheduled for Thursday. Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., wanted the committee to include questioning by committee staffers, in addition to lawmakers.

But Republicans had argued that it would be unprecedented for staffers to question the attorney general as if he were being interrogated. And Barr had warned lawmakers that he would not attend the hearing if he would be questioned by staff members."

Why in the fuck should Barr have to go before STAFFERS and answer questions? Democrats defend this nonsense? What in the fuck is this?

What's the problem with STAFFERS, exactly? And what's with this "unprecedented" nonsense? Republicans insisted on having Christine Blasey Ford questioned by outside counsel--a sex crimes prosecutor, in fact. I'm sure Barr could handle STAFFERS who have more than 5 minutes to ask questions. That's not even sarcastic--he's so unctuous and mealy-mouthed, he'd doubtless slip right past the follow up questions, which is the intended purpose of having STAFFERS do the questioning anyway. I'm surprised you guys have any pearls left to clutch at this point.

[Grapemask]

Why in the fuck should Barr have to go before STAFFERS and answer questions? Democrats defend this nonsense? What in the fuck is this?

You'll be a lot less upset if you wipe away those tears, take some time off from the Fox News outrage generator to detox from the propaganda, and peruse some history. Nearly every significant hearing in the last few generations has had staff lawyers questioning people testifying before Congress. It didn't often make the news because hearings are really boring. It turns out the thing that's unprecedented is an AG crying about it.

[Shadowferal]

Why in the fuck should Barr have to go before STAFFERS and answer questions? Democrats defend this nonsense? What in the fuck is this?

Staff attorneys....He doesn't want them to question him because they know the law better than him.

[rda]

He failed to show for the House hearing and failed to produce the full unredacted Mueller Report for the House Judiciary Committee which they have every legal right to. Therefore, yes, he did do something wrong and is being held in contempt for it. Also, Trump's "executive priviledge" over the Report was already waived weeks ago so them trying to claim it now as Barr's reason for withholding it is worthless. No takebacksies.

The last two sentences are correct, the bolded part is wrong.

[Ripster42]

Precedent here is that the AG goes to a judge to release grand jury information to Congress, all within the law. Easy. And since the report is, according to them, all exoneration palooza, you'd think they'd get right on that, those fierce defenders of law and forthrightness...no?

That is the precedent for things that don't involve acts by hostile foreign powers.

The precedent for things that do involve hostile foreign powers (and indeed, rule 6e states this, as I've already quoted) is that the AG doesn't even need to go to a judge to release that information, and instead, just needs to inform the district in which the grand jury took place that they have released the information.

Here's the relevant bits again:

D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. §401a3003), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties. An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand-jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent, to any appropriate federal, state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.

(i) Any official who receives information under Rule 6(e)(3)(D) may use the information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information. Any state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official who receives information under Rule 6(e)(3)(D) may use the information only in a manner consistent with any guidelines issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.

(ii) Within a reasonable time after disclosure is made underRule 6(e)(3)(D), an attorney for the government must file, under seal, a notice with the court in the district where the grand jury convened stating that such information was disclosed and the departments, agencies, or entities to which the disclosure was made.

As the judicial and select intel committees would be using it within their constitutional mandate (the select intel committee would be using it for legislative purposes to decide counter measures, the judicial, to see if the president is compromised by a foreign power; thus both are national security issues), they have the right to the unredacted reports, even without a judge's approval.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Shackler won't get his daily turnip from papa Putin if he doesn't keep pushing bullshit.

We've also become abundantly aware from other threads that rda is a pretty fanatic Russian as well. Either that or he's just an extremely pro Russian American who's listened to RT his entire life and thoroughly brainwashed with all the Russian propaganda farm pamphlets. Either way, it's pretty safe to ignore both of them, as they've repeatedly posted lies as if they were truth.

[Felya]

We've also become abundantly aware from other threads that rda is a pretty fanatic Russian as well. Either that or he's just an extremely pro Russian American who's listened to RT his entire life and thoroughly brainwashed with all the Russian propaganda farm pamphlets. Either way, it's pretty safe to ignore both of them, as they've repeatedly posted lies as if they were truth.

Russian speaking news in US (think telemundo in Russian) is worse than RT. I think I gave this example a few months ago, but I get its full effect when I visit my folks. I heard them bitching about Veronica Mars and Christen Bell were trying to turn boys into girls, not even a breath after bitching democrat take over of house was going to destroy everything. Russian news running out of US, makes Fox News seem honest.

[Has lost its way]

And when you refuse to open that closet and prove it, when it would be so easy to do so, people start to wonder.

The way should play out from here is that Congress should have Barr arrested for contempt, and put in prison until he complies with the subpoena. They have the authority and power to do so, even if it hasn't actually been used in a century or so.

If Barr feels he's in the legal right, he can appeal, and given the scale, this should go straight to SCOTUS. Where Barr gets to make a positive case to the Supreme Court, in a closed session, about exactly why those particular elements of the report must fall under a national security exception that prevents Congress from having the authority to see them.

He doesn't get to just claim this, nor does the President; he will need to establish this based on the evidence, in front of the court, because the presumption will otherwise be that it does not qualify.

If he makes that case, then SCOTUS can order him released from contempt of congress, but it's a case that has to be made on the merits of the evidence.

If that's unacceptable to Barr or Trump, then he can sit in fucking prison until he caves, and I really don't care if that means he dies in a cell.

I don't disagree with this. I just think people are really investing a lot into something that is extremely likely to be a nothing and won't accept its a nothing even after it has been proven.

[Endus]

I don't disagree with this. I just think people are really investing a lot into something that is extremely likely to be a nothing and won't accept its a nothing even after it has been proven.

There's a big difference between "actually nothing" and "impeachment and Congressional detainment are inherently political in nature, not judicial, and thus far more open to partisan bickering preventing justice from being done".

[xanzul]

Rule of law not good enough for you?

ETA: Oh, and on a side note, I hope you morally bankrupt, snake oil-hoarding shills understand that lashing your fortunes to this amoral criminal shitstain means you never ever ever again get to pretend to be the party of the rule of law or fiscal responsibility or Christian values. You're the party of trolling the libs and setting fire to the founding principles of the country, beyond shame, representing the absolute worst in us. Guess that's why you wear it so proudly--it's all you have left.

I love how this was infracted. This literally isn't trolling. It is the fucking truth.

[Themius]

The scariest part is someone intervening and what that will mean. What will it take to stop? The democrats can't stop it because of their base. They have to keep the political circus going to have any shot at 2020.

Honestly...trying to throw the AG in jail for doing absolutely nothing wrong is insane.

I believe they won't stop themselves...they can't. They have to continue this because if they don't they fear they'll lose 2020.

He refused a subpoena and he must show before congress... he is in contempt.... that's what he did wrong.

[Heladys]

I love how this was infracted. This literally isn't trolling. It is the fucking truth.

Just look at who it was. All you need to see, right there.

[Dontrike]

There's a lot of theater going on right now.

And all of it coming from the GOP and Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think they'll do that. They want to keep the ball rolling, but what they don't want to do is blow up their position. Arresting Barr would dramatically alter the landscape in a way that wouldn't be advantageous for them at all. Keep in mind, this isn't about uncovering that bombshell evidence hidden under a single line of redaction; it's about keeping the whole sullied affair in the news of a president who was under investigation, an investigation which found all manner of distasteful and embarrassing information.

What you're seeing a lot of is their constituents falling for the message that the Democrats are going to get to the bottom of this and Trump won't get away with it. You see even now people claiming he's going down. Not over this he's not. I warned about this during the investigation, over and over, and I'm doing it again now. It's over, at least for collusion or obstruction. Now I don't know about these other matters we know exist, 12 other potential crimes I think it was, and maybe that could spell trouble for Trump, but this entire theater production from both sides, with the buckets of chicken and the refusal to testify when he just testified freely, it's all for show. Democrats are going to get at the truth! Trump is going to fight the witch hunt! Constituents, choose your fighter!

How is it over for obstruction again? The report listed ten different times Trump tried, and hundreds of legal scholars, prosecutors, and more have said Trump fucking did it.

[xanzul]

Just look at who it was. All you need to see, right there.

I'm fully aware of that.

[Dacien]

How is it over for obstruction again? The report listed ten different times Trump tried, and hundreds of legal scholars, prosecutors, and more have said Trump fucking did it.

It's over, Dontrike, lots of scholars notwithstanding. I've learned never to say never, but hear me: Trump will never see any criminal consequences as a result of any kind of obstruction claim. It's over. Even in the best of cases, where you have Trump telling a witness to lie to the Special Counsel, we have had presidents in the past who did that very thing and never faced any kind of criminal charge after leaving office. They faced impeachment, which only served to bolster their support, but that was the end of it. There's just not enough there to pursue.

It's over. The best chance now is whatever else is brewing that we don't fully know about. And I'm not saying this out of any loyalty or desire, I'm simply reading the tea leaves with a great helping of stellar analysis by individuals far more learned than I.

[Endus]

It's over, Dontrike, lots of scholars notwithstanding. I've learned never to say never, but hear me: Trump will never see any criminal consequences as a result of any kind of obstruction claim. It's over. Even in the best of cases, where you have Trump telling a witness to lie to the Special Counsel, we have had presidents in the past who did that very thing and never faced any kind of criminal charge after leaving office. They faced impeachment, which only served to bolster their support, but that was the end of it. There's just not enough there to pursue.

It's over. The best chance now is whatever else is brewing that we don't fully know about. And I'm not saying this out of any loyalty or desire, I'm simply reading the tea leaves with a great helping of stellar analysis by individuals far more learned than I.

Are you under the impression that the statute of limitations on these charges has already expired?

Once Trump is no longer President, he has no further protections. Until the statute of limitations makes the charges unindictable due to age, you can't seriously say "it's over".

Not unless you're engaging in partisan chicanery to distract from the facts, at least.

[announced]

He failed to show for the House hearing and failed to produce the full unredacted Mueller Report for the House Judiciary Committee which they have every legal right to. Therefore, yes, he did do something wrong and is being held in contempt for it. Also, Trump's "executive priviledge" over the Report was already waived weeks ago so them trying to claim it now as Barr's reason for withholding it is worthless. No takebacksies.

Some dems with high level security clearance have already seen the un-redacted report, and although they are forbidden with discussing it with their colleagues, perhaps they could simply say "yes" or "No" to whether or not the redacted version contains any relevant information regarding Trump. It could be redacted and covering other grand jury cases like that medallion taxi scam that Michael Cohen was involved in.

This is political hackery at it's best by the dems, and Barr is simply protecting the integrity of the grand jury investigations. Barr has already testified for 6 hours at the senate and has covered almost every line of questioning on the Mueller report. Link here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tPhX86sAYE
He also testified for another 2.5 hours at a different time, totaling nearly 9 hours of testimony which you can find on YouTube.
One of the only points that Mueller disagreed with on Barr is the fact that Barr did not provide any details regarding the 10 or so incidents that the special counsel included in his report for possible obstruction.
Do you know why Barr didn't include that? It's not his job. Mueller's job is to recommend or not recommend charges, and there is no need to include extra details about the incidents. Since Mueller did not do either of those, and passed the responsibility off to Barr. At that point, it's up to Barr to recommend charges or not based on whether he thought there was a case. Barr clearly states that he didn't have one.

As for the bunch of armchair lawyers that claim they would find obstruction.. yeah sure you would.



As for the OLC opinion, Barr says that he didn't take the OLC opinion into considering when he was reviewing the report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNEQK-Jd3IU

You only get caught in a perjury trap if you lie.

Incorrect. Congress would be happy to press charges even if Barr is telling the truth if it scores them some political points. Barr isn't stupid enough to take that risk.

[Dacien]

Are you under the impression that the statute of limitations on these charges has already expired?

Once Trump is no longer President, he has no further protections. Until the statute of limitations makes the charges unindictable due to age, you can't seriously say "it's over".

Not unless you're engaging in partisan chicanery to distract from the facts, at least.

Like I said, I should never say never, but I'll go out on a limb here. It's just not there, Endus. I feel like we both have to know this. They wouldn't go after him for obstruction charges after he leaves office in the best of circumstances, and this is far from the best of circumstances. You have to factor in the political turmoil. A new Democratic president is going to want to move forward; there will be no appetite for Trump once he's gone. There are so many moving parts that are all turning the machine away from any kind of action against Trump once he leaves office.

If it's not happening now, it's not going to happen.