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

a reply to: Sillyolme
slate.com...

The raid was by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and not directly by Robert Mueller’s special counsel’s office.

It is not even in muellers report as it was handed off.
and if you think it wouldnt have leaked by now I have a bridge across the Chesapeake to sell you

btw
if you understand the "grand jury stuff" then you understand what fat jerry wants from barr is illegal

yet still you yammer on

a reply to: CynConcepts

Can you tell me what ''law'' the House committee was asking the AG to break?
The power in my area is being turned off in a couple of minutes so I may not be back to read your response for several hours so if I do not get back to you with a response to your info, that is the reason.

a reply to: CynConcepts

The dems are going to play this till election. Do they have an ace in the hole? My guess is no, but I have been wrong before.

a reply to: Rewey

grand jury testimony has been released in the past and it can be released now. Its not against the law but does require a court order.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Rewey

grand jury testimony has been released in the past and it can be released now. Its not against the law but does require a court order.

Is there a court order present?

Like he said: its illegal.

a reply to: UKTruth

Actually the request was for Barr to seek permission from the courts to release the grand jury data.
The lackey said no.
No one asked anyone to break any laws.
These guys didn't just walk in off the street. Unlike the guy in the white house who did and knows nothing about anything.
Especially about the law.

What the left doesn’t understand is that, We the People hold the house in contempt. The election is coming and I can hardly wait.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Actually the request was for Barr to seek permission from the courts to release the grand jury data.

I'd be interested in the source for this.

And the legal argument that would overwhelm his decision to not seek permission, if that was the case.

a reply to: Sillyolme
why do you come here and tell lies?

No one asked anyone to break any laws.

do you not think anyone else reads?
www.cnbc.com...

Justice Department threatens complete withholding of unredacted Mueller report

The department said in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler that any move by Democrats to hold Barr in contempt would compel the attorney general to “request that the President invoke executive privilege” over the unredacted materials in Mueller’s report that the Democrats previously subpoenaed.

you know
the grand jury stuff they wanted and had previously subpoenaed?

that is exactly asking barr to break the law

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.

Well exactly! That is why I think the Dems in the house are being illogical about this whole ordeal. Sure those 6 Dems could not speak about what they read, but their words would have more impact with voters and I dare say, many would figure if they want it released unredacted something juicy must really be in there. They didn't do that though? Why?

As it stands, their argument has no logical weight and credibility. Nadler really did not think this through and it will hurt the Dems in 2020. They swung and missed the ball again, perhaps they should actually keep their eye on the real ball.

a reply to: CynConcepts

That is why I think the Dems in the house are being illogical about this whole ordeal.

I disagree. If they see something they feel compelled to pass on to the American people, or their fellow lawmakers, now they cannot. That's exactly the opposite of their constitutional duty of oversight and checks and balances.

Doesn't matter now.

en.wikipedia.org...
Executive privilege
Executive privilege is the power of the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch of the United States Government to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of information or personnel relating to the executive.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

That is why I think the Dems in the house are being illogical about this whole ordeal.

I disagree. If they see something they feel compelled to pass on to the American people, or their fellow lawmakers, now they cannot. That's exactly the opposite of their constitutional duty of oversight and checks and balances.

Oh my God.
Their duty of oversight is EXACTLY the reason that they should have jumped at the opportunity to see the unredacted version!

PREDICTION!

Democrats are going to vote to hold Barr in contempt.

Republicans will not.

More democrats so Barr will be held in contempt.

. . . . . . . . Aaaand then, nothing. Not a damned thing. Life will go on.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

That is why I think the Dems in the house are being illogical about this whole ordeal.

I disagree. If they see something they feel compelled to pass on to the American people, or their fellow lawmakers, now they cannot. That's exactly the opposite of their constitutional duty of oversight and checks and balances.

You do realize that the law barring grand jury material from being released to the public was passed by Democrats after Clinton's impeachment?

If they want to change the law, then as the legislative branch they can certainly try, but have not.

Nadler is quite aware of this, since he was involved in passing the law in the first place.

No... this is just a way to try to discredit Barr in the court of public opinion before Declass, Horowitz and Huber drop the bomb on the previous administration.

Not to mention Barr and the FBI now looking into the SC in the first place.

a reply to: DBCowboy

How can they hold him in contempt for not producing something that he can not?
It is barrs fault the president exerted privilege?
That privilege will shut down the rest of this discussion.
no barr
no mueller
no one else can testify

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

That is why I think the Dems in the house are being illogical about this whole ordeal.

I disagree. If they see something they feel compelled to pass on to the American people, or their fellow lawmakers, now they cannot. That's exactly the opposite of their constitutional duty of oversight and checks and balances.

and History repeats itself !

Fast and Furious scandal: House panel votes to hold Eric Holder in contempt
AND
President Obama Grants Executive Privilege to Eric Holder Over 'Fast and Furious' Documents

for those paying attention

a reply to: DBCowboy

And that'll make a few headlines and articles in CNN and MSNBC for a few days to keep the crazy train going...

Bad media coverage of the Trump administration is the only thing the left has got left now.

Good thing people are waking up to this #.

a reply to: MetalThunder

Did you approve of Congress holding Holder in contempt? Did you approve of Obama exerting executive privilege?

a reply to: Lumenari

I realize that there are laws that protect the identity of jurors, but I'm not aware of any law that forbids grand jury testimony or the witnesses being revealed to Congress, unless it would adversely effect an ongoing case.