William Barr: House votes to hold US Attorney General in contempt

originally posted by: carewemust
When is Bob Mueller testifying? Nadler must have found out something..and changed his mind.

I am pretty sure this privilege ends that.
Even when he is a civilian.

Fat jerry is a fat head.

a reply to: butcherguy

Imagine if they tried this hard to help their constituents.

a reply to: butcherguy

Dems have sunk to new lows of stupid. Man that bar keeps dropping lol. I guess they want to see which ones of their buddies is under investigation? Maybe it will give them an idea of TCLCE or Trump Crminal Litigation Cascade Effect :-) I guess trump doesn't have all the data yet, still more to come.

Cheers - Dave

Starting to look like finally we have an AG with b***s....the democraps are using scare tactics on him

What are the penalties if you ignore a subpoena, or don’t comply?
Failure to respond to a subpoena is punishable as contempt by either the court or agency issuing the subpoena. Punishment may include monetary sanctions (even imprisonment although extremely unlikely). Generally, a hearing will be held where the party charged with noncompliance has an opportunity to explain its side of the story, and the court or agency has broad discretion to determine an appropriate punishment given the circumstances presented. In most cases in a contempt proceeding, the court determines the appropriateness of withholding any documents under a claim of privilege. In such cases, the outcome is more likely to be an order to produce, coupled with an award of attorneys’ fees to the party that had to initiate the contempt proceedings.
chancellor.berkeley.edu...

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, the IG, Grand Jury and other jurisdictions.

a reply to: gortex

I mean no one really wants to see the democrats preach about random stuff for 6 hours again. It's torture

a reply to: gortex

What if it is a subpoena that in fulfilling breaks the law?

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Actually, it appears in this circumstance it is the House committee who seems to have been attempting a power grab. Asking the Attorney General to break the law and threatening him when he refused. That is certainly not checks and balances. That is subversion of oath and law.

Trump using executive priviledge in this case is the checks and balance.

Very well said.
Nadler is out of control and is abusing his position. It's past time that he was slapped down.

Nadler himself said the full report release needs a court order (Grand Jury stuff).

He slurred over the statement and "asked" both sides to seek the same court order !!!

What a "disclaiming deflection" tactic that was roflmao 😆

Many Democrats on the Committee are making wild incendiary statements as usual 😎

In the meantime, Trump says it's now Executive Privilege anyway 😆

originally posted by: gortex

What are the penalties if you ignore a subpoena, or don’t comply?
Failure to respond to a subpoena is punishable as contempt by either the court or agency issuing the subpoena. Punishment may include monetary sanctions (even imprisonment although extremely unlikely). Generally, a hearing will be held where the party charged with noncompliance has an opportunity to explain its side of the story, and the court or agency has broad discretion to determine an appropriate punishment given the circumstances presented. In most cases in a contempt proceeding, the court determines the appropriateness of withholding any documents under a claim of privilege. In such cases, the outcome is more likely to be an order to produce, coupled with an award of attorneys’ fees to the party that had to initiate the contempt proceedings.
chancellor.berkeley.edu...

In this regard Nadler is toothless. No court is going to rule that the DoJ has to break the law so Congress can see documents. Nadler is not above the law, though like most on the left, he thinks he is.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: gortex

What if it is a subpoena that in fulfilling breaks the law?

If you turn up and keep your mouth shut what can they do , not turning up is an act of disrespect for the Judiciary committee by the governments Attorney General ... not a good look.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

My point was that last I knew only 3 Republicans, Graham, Collins, McConnell had actually took advantage of the DOJ offer and went and viewed the more unredacted report completely. Graham's take that none of it had any bearing on Barr's conclusions.

And, they are all forbidden to comment on or share any of what they read with anyone, regardless of how damning it was or wasn't.

makes leaking a real problem.

a reply to: xuenchen

Nadler himself said the full report release needs a court order (Grand Jury stuff). He slurred over the statement and "asked" both sides to seek the same court order !!!

wow
they need a court order but are holding a vote to hold the AG in contempt?
and they expect the american people to side with them?
this is nothing more than continued partisan political harassment

In the meantime, Trump says it's now Executive Privilege anyway

trump wins again
bet the dems are tired of that....

a reply to: dashen

Individual one....
The un named co conspirator.

a reply to: gortex

Thanks for not answering my question.
The not turning up had nothing to do with the subpoena, it had to do with breaking judicial committee procedures.

The disrespect lies solely with nadler
The AG had provided the report with redactions and an even more clean copy for congress to view in a scif
Fat jerry chose not to

No judge in our nation would make someone comply with a subpoena that made them break the law.
Fat jerry asking the gop reps to seek a court order highlights this fact.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: dashen

Individual one....
The un named co conspirator.

hahahaha
hahahaha

it is santa
wait the easter bunny
wait wait it is the tooth fairy

lololololol
no one could possibly make you look as foolish as you do yourself

a reply to: shooterbrody

Its the grand jury stuff. The IG aint getting it without a court order either.

a reply to: butcherguy

No it wouldn't be a good guess.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: dashen

Nadler could have seen that whole page unredacted, but chose not to. He could have seen everything in the mueller report except the grand jury stuff. The offer was for him and 5 other Democrats to do so. Why did they refuse to look?

I certainly would have given them more credit if they actually did view it and then, began the process of getting the full report released. It would make sense. This just doesn't. Why do they keep putting the cart before the horse all the time? It is illogical and makes no sense.

They're anticipating damaging information to Trump...They want it to be public so the press can build their fake stories on it...