It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
42
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

Thats not why Barr refused to appear.
It had to do with being questioned by congressional staff and lawyers.
See Rachel Mitchell Maryland prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford just a few short months ago.




posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Looks like somebody has actually petitioned the Court ...........

Any other Petition would be hinged on the first Petition 😎

Dated April 1, 2019 (but not a joke)

Court Petition



Thanks for sharing! So if the Reporters Commission had enough legal sense to make their request directly to the court, why hasn't the house committee and Nadler not done so? Even in this court request you linked, they do not mention where this was officially done, only noted the House and Nadler calls and formal requests to the AG/DOJ to take care of it and make it so.
edit on 5 8 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CynConcepts

Thats not why Barr refused to appear.
It had to do with being questioned by congressional staff and lawyers.
See Rachel Mitchell Maryland prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford just a few short months ago.



The "attempt" by House Committee Democrats to have direct questioning by staff was a red herring to delay and "set-up" a false narrative. Committee Members could have simply asked the identical questions themselves. 😎

Unlike the "Dr" Ford scenario, this red herring was having Committee Staff asking direct questions.

The "Dr" Ford questioning was from an attorney outside the Senate Committee.

Big difference 😎

p.s. ... Rachel Mitchell is an Arizona local prosecutor 😄


edit on May-08-2019 by xuenchen because: 🤓



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CynConcepts

Thats not why Barr refused to appear.
It had to do with being questioned by congressional staff and lawyers.
See Rachel Mitchell Maryland prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford just a few short months ago.



Your facts are off. Christine and her attorneys negotiated and agreed to appear.

Barr wanted to negotiate and Nadler refused to negotiate, so Barr refused to appear.

As I said earlier, apples to oranges comparison.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



mobile.twitter.com...

Sums up the last 6 days perfectly!




posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

who is they?

you know what.....from you .....nevermind
it will probably be some fantasy and in no way true



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

hrmmmm.....

www.theatlantic.com...



Contrast that with the time an IRS official refused to answer questions from Oversight Republicans—they held that official in contempt of Congress. During the contempt proceeding, Representative Jim Jordan, now the ranking Republican on the Oversight Committee, justified his vote in favor of contempt by saying, “The only remedy we have to get to the truth is to use every tool at our disposal” to get that official to “testify and answer the questions. That is the only remedy we have. The only route to the truth is through the House of Representatives.”



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

He also said he could not exonerate him.
From the report

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




so...what compels the DOJ to seek a court order?

Truth justice and the American way.
Which will also keep them from releasing it for as long as they can
edit on 582019 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

lol
the ole standby
guilty until proven innocent
lol
as if we do that here
[SNIP]

edit on 8-5-2019 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

You do realize that Barr testified the day before with the Senate Committee, right? Barr would have done the same for the House the very next day, if they did not go crazy like they did. They would have been able to ask their questions, but sabotaged it by making illogical and unprecedented demands.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

In other words, Trump played the game according to the rules and took the car to the "edge of the ledge" perfectly 😎



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

You guys are still arguing over this? Barr is not going to bring charges, so get over it and buckle up for what is about to come.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




so...what compels the DOJ to seek a court order?

Truth justice and the American way.
Which will also keep them from releasing it for as long as they can


Justice is best served by not obstructing it by releasing grand jury material, simply because a representative wants to grandstand.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Bringing in the woman who specialized dealing with alleged victims of sexual abuse was a concession to ford and her lawyers

Remember, they refused to allow old white men to question her

So no, that situation is no where close to the Dems shirking their duty and demanding lawyers question Barr instead of themselves



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Well I assume that means he did exonerate trump over crimes with Russian collusion

You know, the lie you believed for two years and pushed

And it’s not the job for prosecutors to exonerate

He didn’t have enough to charge, that’s the end of the discussion

Did comey exonerate Hillary? Did you or the other Dems throw a fit because she was never exonerated?

Nope. Just more double standards



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Well of course that is different! We have been told again and again, that Hillary was completely innocent! Oops I mean careless. Only guilty people need to be exonerated to not be guilty.

edit on 5 8 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: grey580

You do realize that Barr testified the day before with the Senate Committee, right? Barr would have done the same for the House the very next day, if they did not go crazy like they did. They would have been able to ask their questions, but sabotaged it by making illogical and unprecedented demands.


The Dems didn't go crazy. LOL

They realized that Barr most likely lied under oath, and left some gaping holes in his testimony, so much so that they decided it would be best to have an attorney, as a 3rd person, ask the questions like the Republicans had a 3rd party attorney question Christine Blasey Ford.

Barr realized his legal jeopardy and chickened out. That's what happened, in my opinion.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Please reread Grambler's Post above since he already clarified why there is no comparison.

So yes, the house and Nadler went crazy. I watched them refusing to acknowledge Repub members. It was shameful. I could not blame Doug Collins rebuke to Nadler when Barr did not appear.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

I'm sorry/not sorry to disagree with you and Gambler. It makes sense to have an attorney do the questioning when the AG is trying to walk back lies, bad faith and the lack of candor of his previous testimonies.

Barr knew he couldn't legalese his way out of lawyerly questions, and faced lying further, therefore facing charges perjury and possible impeachment, or obstruction of justice charges for ignoring the summons. He chose obstruction, that's what he's getting.





edit on 8-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
42
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join