House Judiciary Committee Holds Barr in Contempt

[Catfisher]

House committee votes to hold William Barr in contempt after Trump invokes executive privilege - CNNPolitics

Congress has demanded that Barr release grand jury information that he is prohibited from releasing under US law. Barr has refused, as any rational human being would presented with so publicly violating the law.

Now the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Barr in contempt and the issue will move to a vote on the House floor.

That Democrats will simply not drop the Muh Rushan Clooshun hoax simply proves that they are terrified of Barr and just want to smear him.

They may as well hold someone in contempt for not robbing a bank.

 

[HTacianas]

House committee votes to hold William Barr in contempt after Trump invokes executive privilege - CNNPolitics

Congress has demanded that Barr release grand jury information that he is prohibited from releasing under US law. Barr has refused, as any rational human being would presented with so publicly violating the law.

Now the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Barr in contempt and the issue will move to a vote on the House floor.

That Democrats will simply not drop the Muh Rushan Clooshun hoax simply proves that they are terrified of Barr and just want to smear him.

They may as well hold someone in contempt for not robbing a bank.

This is probably the first time in history that an opposition party has agreed with a president's policy decisions -and quietly allowed them to be implemented- while also trying to gin up enough scandal to have him removed from office.

 

[Catfisher]

This is probably the first time in history that an opposition party has agreed with a president's policy decisions -and quietly allowed them to be implemented- while also trying to gin up enough scandal to have him removed from office.

Yes, just proving that much of DC would cut off their own nose to spite their partisan face.

They really don't like Trump. Which means he must be over the target, lol.

The sheer logical idiocy in this move boggles the mind. It's 100% hostility, 0% legal.

 

[com7fy8]

I admit I do not know fact from fiction about a lot of this, since I'm not a personal witness to what different ones are claiming.

But it seems reported that the people managing the report information need to not release anything which is classified.

And yet it is reported that certain Democrats are demanding that the whole report be made public. I would think they could arrange for the highest level security clearance Democrats to see it first. But ones demanding a complete release have not said anything about if there is classified information which should be seen only by individuals with a high enough security clearance. But these do not necessarily represent all the Democrats, I would think.

If they haven't seen the report, how can they know that all of it is suitable for every Congressperson to see it? I think there are different levels of secured information clearances.

 

[Catfisher]

I admit I do not know fact from fiction about a lot of this, since I'm not a personal witness to what different ones are claiming.

But it seems reported that the people managing the report information need to not release anything which is classified.

And yet it is reported that certain Democrats are demanding that the whole report be made public. I would think they could arrange for the highest level security clearance Democrats to see it first. But ones demanding a complete release have not said anything about if there is classified information which should be seen only by individuals with a high enough security clearance. But these do not necessarily represent all the Democrats, I would think.

If they haven't seen the report, how can they know that all of it is suitable for every Congressperson to see it? I think there are different levels of secured information clearances.

The issue here isn't whether something is classified. It's against the law to release anything that can be considered "grand jury" evidence.

So, if you're accused of a crime, but no indictment has been made, then it's against the law to release the material that the prosecutors obtained in order to seek the indictment.

That law is basically to protect the innocent.

 

[dqhall]

House committee votes to hold William Barr in contempt after Trump invokes executive privilege - CNNPolitics

Congress has demanded that Barr release grand jury information that he is prohibited from releasing under US law. Barr has refused, as any rational human being would presented with so publicly violating the law.

Now the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Barr in contempt and the issue will move to a vote on the House floor.

That Democrats will simply not drop the Muh Rushan Clooshun hoax simply proves that they are terrified of Barr and just want to smear him.

They may as well hold someone in contempt for not robbing a bank.

The Washington Post published the Mueller Report with commentary from reporters included. Trump stated there was no Russian election interference. There was well documented Russian election interference. Trump fired those who worked to expose it. Some believe these firings were obstruction of justice.

Part of the redacted material was deleted due to ongoing investigations. I hope someday this report will be further declassified. While the Trump campaign sought Russian connections, they were probably unaware of the extent the Russian government was interfering with the election. Trump seems to be part of a cover-up.

 

[Catfisher]

The Washington Post published the Mueller Report with commentary from reporters included. Trump stated there was no Russian election interference. There was well documented Russian election interference. Trump fired those who worked to expose it. Some believe these firings were obstruction of justice.

Already there has been one serious omission caught in the Mueller report related to Joseph Mifsud.
It's still not clear on Mueller's proof for Russian hacking.

Who, exactly, did Trump fire without proper cause? Comey, McCabe, Stzrok and Page deserved to be fired for cause. Who else? You do understand that firing someone didn't impede the investigation, right? Rosenstein, who was responsible for the Mueller team, was not fired, and nobody on Mueller's team was fired by Trump or his administration.

Part of the redacted material was deleted due to ongoing investigations. I hope someday this report will be further declassified. While the Trump campaign sought Russian connections, they were probably unaware of the extent the Russian government was interfering with the election. Trump seems to be part of a cover-up.

I hope the documents hiding who it was that conducted illegal NSA queries gets unclassified. I believe we will find out it was Hillary's friends at Fusion GPS, since the very day after NSA chief Admiral Rogers cut off the about queries, Glenn Simpson's wife visited the Obama White House, lol.

I hope it's all declassified, though it is already crystal clear the Obama administration used FBI and CIA assets to spy on a political campaign without probable cause.

Stzrok and Page's communications reveal that even prior to obtaining a warrant, the CIA was leaking to the media, lol. Illegal leaks.

 

[Arcangl86]

The issue here isn't whether something is classified. It's against the law to release anything that can be considered "grand jury" evidence.

So, if you're accused of a crime, but no indictment has been made, then it's against the law to release the material that the prosecutors obtained in order to seek the indictment.

That law is basically to protect the innocent.

Actually not true. AG Barr could have requested the District Court to release it.

 

[Catfisher]

Actually not true. AG Barr could have requested the District Court to release it.

Why? A court can’t order someone to break the law, lol.

 

[Arcangl86]

Why? A court can’t order someone to break the law, lol.

Which they wouldn't be doing. There are procedures to release grand jury testimony.

 

[Catfisher]

Which they wouldn't be doing. There are procedures to release grand jury testimony.

Not before an indictment.

 

[Arcangl86]

Not before an indictment.

Actually yes there are. There are specific exceptions in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and there is precedent that a court also has inherent authority to release grand jury testimony.

 

[Catfisher]

Actually yes there are. There are specific exceptions in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and there is precedent that a court also has inherent authority to release grand jury testimony.

“We agree with the Government’s understanding of the Rule,” Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote, joined by Judge Greg Katsas. “The contrary reading ... which would allow the district court to create such new exceptions as it thinks make good public policy — would render the detailed list of exceptions merely precatory and impermissibly enable the court to ‘circumvent’ or ‘disregard’ a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure.”

So feel free to list the exceptions which you think qualify here.

 

[Catfisher]

On top of which is the obvious...

None of this “released” material would constitute proof or a conviction by a court.

It would just be furthering the 400 page smear that was the Mueller report.

I love that people think it’s okay to deny someone a defense just because you hate them and their political views.

 

[Catfisher]

The Mueller report, so far, has been taken as honest. I think even that, though it failed to find evidence of Russian Collusion, is being generous.

What Congress wants is any and all additional information it can spin to denigrate Trump. That much is now perfectly clear. With a Democrat donor special counsel team finding nothing, Democrats seem especially desperate to find something to hang an impeachment hearing upon, while ignoring the overtly illegal beginnings of this witch hunt in the first place.

Furthermore, it's not clear why Congress should demand Barr break the law when they are perfectly capable of filing suit in federal court for the release of the grand jury material.

Tell Nader to knock himself out and file a suit himself.

 

[JosephZ]

If they haven't seen the report, how can they know that all of it is suitable for every Congressperson to see it? I think there are different levels of secured information clearances.

Members of Congress don't need security clearances. They are allowed access to intelligence and other confidential information by the merit of their elected positions and swear an oath to secrecy when they take office.

Protection of Classified Information by Congress: Practices and Proposals

 

[Tom 1]

House committee votes to hold William Barr in contempt after Trump invokes executive privilege - CNNPolitics

Congress has demanded that Barr release grand jury information that he is prohibited from releasing under US law. Barr has refused, as any rational human being would presented with so publicly violating the law.

Now the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Barr in contempt and the issue will move to a vote on the House floor.

That Democrats will simply not drop the Muh Rushan Clooshun hoax simply proves that they are terrified of Barr and just want to smear him.

They may as well hold someone in contempt for not robbing a bank.

It’s not illegal, your congress has subpoenaed your justice department for info they need to investigate possible criminal actions by your president. The JD has decided to side with the president. There’s nothing illegal about it, it’s just an expression of partisan politics on both sides.

 

[JosephZ]

None of this “released” material would constitute proof or a conviction by a court.

It would just be furthering the 400 page smear that was the Mueller report.

I love that people think it’s okay to deny someone a defense just because you hate them and their political views.

This isn't about hating anyone, it's about the President and his campaign staff's unpatriotic and unethical behavior. It doesn't matter if there is evidence to prosecute in a court of law or not.

The report shows that the President of the United States and his campaign were contacted by an adversary of the United States and they failed to report this to the FBI after they were warned that this adversary may attempt to interfere in the 2016 election process. Not only did they fail to report this, they used this contact to their advantage to help win the election. After it was learned that this adversary had made contact with the Trump campaign, the President of the United States instructed people not to cooperate with the investigation and he and his administration continue to obstruct the investigation to this day.

Don't you have a problem with this?

 

[Catfisher]

Congress has likely already seen any classified information contained in the Mueller report. Barr delivered a less redacted version for Congress to view. Apparently, Democrats didn't even go look at it.

What they want is the Rule 6e grand jury information to see if they can impeach Trump for some other alleged crime. However, it's pretty clear that Barr, being a US attorney, is prohibited by law from releasing this information. A court, however, could release it. And there's nothing stopping Congress from going before a court to request it. Instead, they've gone about it in a bizarre way by asking Barr to break the law instead of just filing a motion in court to release the information.

The only reason for this appears to be to smear Barr.

 

[Catfisher]

This isn't about hating anyone, it's about the President and his campaign staff's unpatriotic and unethical behavior. It doesn't matter if there is evidence to prosecute in a court of law or not.

The report shows that the President of the United States and his campaign were contacted by an adversary of the United States and they failed to report this to the FBI after they were warned that this adversary may attempt to interfere in the 2016 election process. Not only did they fail to report this, they used this contact to their advantage to help win the election. After it was learned that this adversary had made contact with the Trump campaign, the President of the United States instructed people not to cooperate with the investigation and he and his administration continue to obstruct the investigation to this day.

Don't you have a problem with this?

See above. Congress may have an avenue to get the material. They just can't ask Barr to do it. They need to request it from a court. A court could then grant permission for Barr to release that to Congress... if there is a compelling reason to do so. I'm not sure political purposes counts. When Nixon's grand jury evidence was handed over to Congress, it was at least clear that a crime had been committed.

And the fact that "the President of the United States and his campaign were contacted by an adversary of the United States" is under doubt now.

1) The President wasn't contacted by Russia. It was only one member of his campaign, George Papadopoulos. Except now, it's now suspected that Papadopoulos wasn't contacted by a Russian, but by FBI assets. It looks more like he was set up.
2) Papadopoulos has already been investigated and sentenced to all of 14 days for lying to the FBI.

The fact that the release of Hillary's and the DNC's emails may have helped Trump doesn't mean that Trump or his campaign is guilty of anything. It's not like the FBI didn't know about the alleged hacks already.

I do have an issue with a foreign government hacking emails in our country. But what that has to do with Trump's campaign, except for it's effect on the election generally, isn't clear.

I also have an issue with spying on a campaign for political purposes, which occurred well prior to the July 2016 investigation Crossfire Hurricane.

As far as unpatriotic goes, one political party paying for an unverified opposition research piece and then having that unverified material used to spy on another campaign is pretty unpatriotic.