House panel issues report citing Barr for contempt

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ericgtr12, May 6, 2019.

  1. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #1
    Time for games are over, nobody is above the law, not even Trump and his AG who is far more concerned with protecting Trump than the country. If they are truly convinced of their own findings, why are they keeping the underacted report from Congress?

     
  2. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #2
    Much to do about nothing and pure grandstanding... It's almost like they want Trump reelected in 2020.......
     
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    You’d be frothing at the mouth if it was a Democratic President.
     
  4. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #4
    Especially if he had socialist leanings. He’d be demanding a public execution.
     
  5. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #5
    Only if it's guillotine.
     
  6. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    WE could pay off the national debt in pay per view :D
     
  7. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #7
    I was not 'frothing at the mouth' nor did I call for 'a public execution' when they held Holder in contempt....

    Since you know so much about me, anything else about myself that I should know or that you'd like to share with me? ~ Thanks
     
  8. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #8
    It would not be so bad if Nadler would actually factually do his job.
    But no .... he has to grandstand the Democratic Party into another four years of Trump. :rolleyes:
     
  9. ericgtr12 thread starter macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #9
    It's a bit odd how Trump supporters seem upset that Democrats want to "just hand Trump 4 more years" isn't it? You would think if that's what they really thought they would be welcoming this news.
     
  10. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #10
    They don't really care about laws. As making the full report unredacted would break several laws such as unmasking members of the Grand Jury and confidential information. They are just grandstanding.
     
  11. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #11
    Your reply makes little sense.
    Welcoming deliberate violation of the law by Nadler and crew? :confused:
     
  12. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #12
    Good. Then have the Seargeant at arms of the House perp walk him straight to jail. Unfortunately, that won’t happen.
    --- Post Merged, May 6, 2019 ---
    You’re conveniently ignoring that he’s in violation of the law. Should he not be held accountable?
     
  13. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #13
    Or you know - not support Trump/not vote for him.
     
  14. ericgtr12 thread starter macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #14
    Actually, within the confines of Congress it is perfectly legal and legitimate and is done on a regular basis.
     
  15. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #15
    He also lied to Congress. The man was hired to play a part and did so well. But it's at his own peril.
     
  16. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #16
    So are leaks from Congress.
     
  17. ericgtr12 thread starter macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #17
    None of them can be as leaky as that sieve they call Trump's inner circle.
     
  18. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #18
    False! Please source instances where members of congress had unfettered access to Grand Jury information.... Since this is done 'on a regular basis' in your words, you should have no problem providing several instances of such..
     
  19. ericgtr12 thread starter macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #19
    If you can provide proof that congress is not privy to grand jury findings and cite a credible source that would be great.
     
  20. raqball, May 6, 2019
    Last edited: May 6, 2019

    raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #20
    You can't dodge a request for sources by demanding your own... Please provide the sources asked for per forum rules.. You do this constantly then never provide them. Please do so....

    As far as your request goes:

    https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal...occurring-grand-jury-department-justice-attys

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R45456.pdf

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-dc-circuit-rules-mckeever-v-barr

    *snip*

    On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in McKeever v. Barr, a case concerning the court’s power to release material protected under grand jury secrecy. Its opinion, which holds that a district court lacks inherent authority to disclose the grand jury records, may make it more difficult for those who have called upon Attorney General William Barr to release Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report to obtain its full and unredacted findings.

    and

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled in McKeever v. Barr, a case concerning whether federal courts have the inherent authority to release grand jury information protected under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A divided panel found that courts do not have this inherent power, with Judge Sri Srinivasan dissenting. The decision is available in full here and below.

    Now please backup the above claim with sources per forum rules.. 2nd request...
     
  21. ericgtr12 thread starter macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #21
    Okay, I'll play. One of many from Reuters. In the future I suggest you do your own research to post information you must already know instead of simply trying to score political points.

     
  22. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #22
    All you had to do was say my bad and move on but since you didn't ----> I want you to backup your claim.. 3rd and final request then I'll let the powers that be decide..

    You said:

    Please source factual data that backs up the claim that Grand Jury information is handled by congress on a regular basis and that's it's legal for them to do so..
     
  23. linuxcooldude, May 6, 2019
    Last edited: May 6, 2019

    linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #23
    Generally, yes, specifically, not always as laws or court verdicts may prevent release of such information. Weak argument in general. You really didn't submit any evidence where grand jury information was released to Congress.


    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/mueller-report-attorney-general-grand-jury-information/
     
  24. ericgtr12 thread starter macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #24
    First, LOL at all this legal speak, you guys are suddenly scholars.

    Secondly, STOP inserting your opinions as fact. Just because you don't agree or like the outcome doesn't mean you can suddenly jump in and force other board members to cite laws around your ambiguous and arbitrary claims. Even if/when you are hit with something factual, you'll just refute it anyway.
     
  25. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #25
    6e is pretty clear and has court rulings to back it up.. McKeever v. Barr addresses the very issue we are discussing. The link was previously posted by me but there is no way that poster read it before responding......

    I'll wait for forum rules to be followed and the factual sources I asked for to be listed... If they are not provided in the next post then I'll assume they are not coming and move on letting others decide.
     

Share This Page

243 May 6, 2019