House Dems are trying to hold Barr in "contempt" for....Upholding the Law

Wow, Barr UPHOLDING THE LAW Getting in contempt. How bullshit. House Dems are screwed. Its gonna be another 1998.

But he's also breaking the law by ignoring a house-issued subpoena right?

Expand

Isn't this old news? Like from a month ago?

nah

So my understanding of the situation is that the house judiciary committee officially issued a subpoena for the unredacted mueller report and its underlying evidence. Barr ignored this subpoena. Defying a federal subpoena is a federal misdemeanor crime

He needs word from DOJ and Mueller first.Thats integrity and upholding the law

And that was enough for Democrats to lock in to a “coverup” narrative. Never mind that Barr soon waived all executive privilege claims and released the whole report, redacting only a sliver of material that relied on confidential grand jury testimony and a few sentences that might reveal sources and methods of intelligence gathering. The latter is stuff the Russians would presumably love to see, the former is stuff Barr is barred by law from releasing. If you read the report – a bestseller on Amazon — it’s clear there was no coverup.

This is news from May 14.

We've known for a month now that Nadler was going to hold Barr in contempt for not releasing grand jury testimony, even though it is clearly illegal for Barr to release grand jury testimony under current law.

Besides, there is no way in hell Trump is going to do anything at this point but escalate impeachment proceedings as the public perception has shifted dramatically with the critical findings of the Mueller report. He WANTS to be impeached. Even Pelosi knows this, as stupid as she is about some things.

I just want to make sure the guy that says "Nah" in response to an objective current events post is in good faith asking for evidence from other posters, here.

Da fuq bro.

You don't converse in good faith.

Can you elaborate on which laws require him to converse with his department and/or Mueller first?

The article on my first post says ANOTHER house vote

I do have evidence.MY article was written yetserday

Well,if its mulluer and the DOJ report,common sense says thy will give the green light to congress.

But you said he was upholding the law. What law(s) require him to consult with Mueller and the DOJ first or for them to give the green-light to congress first?

Its a metaphor

I'm not sure I understand your reaction then. If Barr knowingly and willingly broke the law, and there is no mitigating legal circumstance which justified his action, it seems hardly unsurprising or unfair that he got held in contempt

How did he break the law?

I told you why he did that and how its not a crime

You certainly said why you thought he did that. You didn't explain why it's not a crime however.

To me it's quite simple.

There was a federal subpoena

That subpoena was ignored

He did not have a reasonable reason to ignore the subpoena

Ignoring a federal subpoena is a crime

Why are those reasonable reasons if he's not compelled to consult with Mueller and the DOJ by law?

Releasing grand jury testimony is a crime.

And there is very good reason for that. If the grand jury finds insufficient evidence, then the state should not impose burdens on the people compelled to give testimony to the grand jury. It's almost like double jeopardy where a person testifies in front of a grand jury, the evidence is lacking so the case is thrown out by the grand jury, and now the Congress wants a redo bringing back the person to testify after insufficient evidence was already established by the grand jury for the sole reason for the Congress to intimidate and smear their political rivals. That is something Putin does. I don't want to live in a country that operates like Russia.

I think it's a real sign of character that Trump has not gone down the path of jailing his political opponents like Putin does. While he has plenty of evidence to indict Hillary for an amazing amount of malfeasance, and has used rhetoric to indicate that Hillary is a criminal, he has not used the FBI or the Congress as a weapon against his political rivals in any way shape or form that resembles how Obama used the FBI to imprison his opponents and how Congress has abused their power to jail their opponents.

Well there are several points to be made here. 

1. Even if grand jury testimonies cannot be released, why not release the less-redacted version as a sign of good faith towards complying with the subpeona to the best of ability and law?

2. While releasing grand jury testimony is generally illegal, there are certain circumstances where it is permissible. For example, grand jury testimony was released in the Nixon case so that congress could properly determine whether there was any malfeasance on Nixon's part. Hence there is precedent in releasing grand jury testimony so that congressional oversight can be performed.

From what I understand, he made a version that revealed the sources and methods in a controlled room where only congress could go in to view, but not take notes due to the sensitivity of sources and methods. As far as grand jury testimony, Barr really has no choice about that. He will go straight to jail, do not pass go if he reveals any of the grand jury testimony without due process.

Disclosing the grand jury testimony involves a long and lengthy legal process. It took 50 years for the Nixon case to be revealed to the public, so you might have to set a few calendar reminders if that is the precedent.

From a little research on why grand jury testimony is secret...it is about these 3 things.

(1) preserving the willingness and candor of witnesses called before the grand jury...

(2) not alerting the target of an investigation who might otherwise flee or interfere with the grand jury.. and

(3) preserving the rights of a suspect who might later be exonerated.

So there can be a heck of a lot going on with #2 and #3 on that list especially as Barr has opened up new investigations into FISA malfeasance.

I wouldn't expect that testimony to be released from any judge while investigations are proceeding.

The less redacted version was available to only 12 congressional leaders under several restrictions that stop discussion of the unredacted portions even between committee members. This negates the point of unredacting those portions and is not in compliance with the subpoena. 

As far as grand jury testimony goes, it took around 2 years for the decision to release the watergate grand jury material. The reasoning to me is not overly different in this case

That's fine. I can wait 2 years.