Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drobeski

Dems want to hold Barr in contempt.

Recommended Posts

He didn't show up for a congressional subpoena, I'm a little surprised he wasn't found in contempt immediately---admittedly, I don't know if it's the same as not showing up to court when subpoena'd.  :dunno: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

He didn't show up for a congressional subpoena, I'm a little surprised he wasn't found in contempt immediately---admittedly, I don't know if it's the same as not showing up to court when subpoena'd.  :dunno: 

Either way ....contempt is really really bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh. Holder was held in contempt of congress. Nothing happened to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Meh. Holder was held in contempt of congress. Nothing happened to him. 

Well - then I agree, if it the punishment is a big nothingburger, than Meh.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The liberal nut jobs in the House just want SOMETHING, ANYTHING at this point to get a win.  Unfortunately for them, this is another loss they're going to take on the chin.

At this rate, in 2020 Trump and the GOP are going to slaughter the Democrats.  People are seeing just how crazy, unhinged and hysterical these guys are in their corrupt attempts to gain power.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Well - then I agree, if it the punishment is a big nothingburger, than Meh.  

It seems to be more symbolic than anything else. Holder didn't suffer any consequences whatsoever IIRC. No fines or jail time. He didn't even have to step down as AG.  :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

He didn't show up for a congressional subpoena, I'm a little surprised he wasn't found in contempt immediately---admittedly, I don't know if it's the same as not showing up to court when subpoena'd.  :dunno: 

The subpeona was for the Report, not Barr.   Barr can't legally release it because it focuses too much on obstruction.  :dunno: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 1:54 PM, Mike Honcho said:

He didn't show up for a congressional subpoena, I'm a little surprised he wasn't found in contempt immediately---admittedly, I don't know if it's the same as not showing up to court when subpoena'd.  :dunno: 

The charge against him was not providing 500+ COMPLETELY UNREDACTED copies of Mueller report to Congress. That would be highly illegal for Barr to do so. By law he is only permitted to release as much as he has. 

The Dems want to see who else is being criminally referred in section D5. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

The charge against him was not providing 500+ COMPLETELY UNREDACTED copies of Mueller report to Congress. That would be highly illegal for Barr to do so. By law he is only permitted to release as much as he has. 

Honestly, where are you getting that from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wiffleball said:

Honestly, where are you getting that from?

 

I am curious, are you aware of some element of the law that congress is not?

 

Quote

"Since first communicating its need to obtain this information, the Committee has acknowledged the Attorney General’s legal and policy concerns regarding release of these materials and has sought to negotiate an accommodation acceptable to both the Attorney General and the Committee," the report stated. "Nevertheless, Attorney General Barr failed to comply with the Committee’s request for these documents and thereby has hindered the Committee’s constitutional, oversight, and legislative functions."

Link

 

If you object to this, you need to go back to what seems to be the source for all the legal stances the Dem's seem to detest.,......the Dems themselves, notably the Clintons.

Quote

The Clinton Justice Department crafted the special counsel regulations to ensure that the relatively independent special counsel was properly restrained and accountable.

Link

 

Quote

In this light, and especially in light of subsequent events, I fail to see how Barr warrants the super-harsh personal criticism he has received over the letter. Those subsequent events include (i) publicly clarifying that he, Barr, did not purport to capture or summarize everything in Mueller’s report; (ii) working around the clock to get the relatively lightly redacted report made public—something Barr had no legal duty to do; (iii) testifying twice before Congress to explain his reasoning; and (iv) allowing Mueller to testify before Congress if he wants. These are not the actions of a man trying to mischaracterize the report or hide the ball. And they cured any objections that might have properly been lodged against the quickly written original letter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

The charge against him was not providing 500+ COMPLETELY UNREDACTED copies of Mueller report to Congress. That would be highly illegal for Barr to do so. By law he is only permitted to release as much as he has. 

The Dems want to see who else is being criminally referred in section D5. 

You are correct, I was wrong that the contempt violation was due to not showing up for the hearing.   I'd not followed it close enough to learn the details, appreciate the extra information.   

I'll have to do a little more reading/research to find out how/why Nadler believes he has a case here.   Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

You are correct, I was wrong that the contempt violation was due to not showing up for the hearing.   I'd not followed it close enough to learn the details, appreciate the extra information.   

I'll have to do a little more reading/research to find out how/why Nadler believes he has a case here.   Thanks.

Couple things with Nadler proceeding with that. So he thinks he can order Barr to break the law? Isn't that in itself breaking the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sensenbrenner just nailed it: "I can't believe the majority of this committee is asking the Attorney General to commit a crime"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Couple things with Nadler proceeding with that. So he thinks he can order Barr to break the law? Isn't that in itself breaking the law?

They are setting traps, just like they have been doing for the past 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nadler is a 5 year old playing with matches.  All results are bad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Couple things with Nadler proceeding with that. So he thinks he can order Barr to break the law? Isn't that in itself breaking the law?

I've read a couple of things and don't see anything that contradicts your assertion that Barr is protecting the confidentiality of the Grand Jury material, so unless I've missed something, yeah it seems he's asking the AG to break the law. 

If I find a better legal explanation for Nadler's thought process I'll post, but so far I haven't come across it yet.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I've read a couple of things and don't see anything that contradicts your assertion that Barr is protecting the confidentiality of the Grand Jury material, so unless I've missed something, yeah it seems he's asking the AG to break the law. 

If I find a better legal explanation for Nadler's thought process I'll post, but so far I haven't come across it yet.    

I believe the Dems are taking the stance "We have oversight and we get to see everything!"  Not according to law they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

I believe the Dems are taking the stance "We have oversight and we get to see everything!"  Not according to law they don't.

If they want to see it then they should change the law.

And I bet they would as that approach would fit well with their historical behaviors to do stuff that serves their immediate need while screwing things up for them in the future....so focking stupid....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone give a valid reason why Nadler and company would be doing this (demanding Barr break the law)? They're offering all sorts of excuses but seriously; for those that support the Democrats; why would they do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Can anyone give a valid reason why Nadler and company would be doing this (demanding Barr break the law)? They're offering all sorts of excuses but seriously; for those that support the Democrats; why would they do this?

They need to discredit Barr, it is imperative to them keeping the obstruction and collusion narrative alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

They need to discredit Barr, it is imperative to them keeping the obstruction and collusion narrative alive.

Agreed but I want one of the left leaners here to come up with a valid reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Agreed but I want one of the left leaners here to come up with a valid reason. 

Orange man bad

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the NYT, Barr appointed Connecticut U.S. Attorney named John Durham to investigate the origins of the Trump Russia investigation. While true this guy is investigating, he's been on it since before Barr was nominated.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6fVddeWsAEvZ_a?format=jpg&name=small

That's from James Baker's testimony on Oct. 3rd, 2018

PANIC in DC

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Barr did not mince words about his brawl with House Democrats when he ran into Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday on the sidelines of a Capitol Hill event.

According to a source close to the attorney general, Barr approached her in a holding tent after the National Peace Officers Memorial Service and asked whether she had brought her handcuffs.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-teases-pelosi-asks-if-she-brought-her-handcuffs-on-sidelines-of-dc-event

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

Bill Barr did not mince words about his brawl with House Democrats when he ran into Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday on the sidelines of a Capitol Hill event.

According to a source close to the attorney general, Barr approached her in a holding tent after the National Peace Officers Memorial Service and asked whether she had brought her handcuffs.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-teases-pelosi-asks-if-she-brought-her-handcuffs-on-sidelines-of-dc-event

That is outstanding!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

Bill Barr did not mince words about his brawl with House Democrats when he ran into Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday on the sidelines of a Capitol Hill event.

According to a source close to the attorney general, Barr approached her in a holding tent after the National Peace Officers Memorial Service and asked whether she had brought her handcuffs.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-teases-pelosi-asks-if-she-brought-her-handcuffs-on-sidelines-of-dc-event

Should have pushed her down and kicked her in that dried up pusssy. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×