House panel issues report citing Barr for contempt

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

  1. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #226
    A court already ruled on the matter in Haldeman.
     
  2. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #227
    Oh I completely agree.... But that won't stop someone hell bent on doing so.... How does that one saying go? You can lead a horse to water but...... Well in this case the water won't do the horse any good as it's already been beaten to death! LOL
     
  3. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #228
    Barr is just an attorney with the government.

    If Congress wants the grand jury testimony, then they can petition the court for the grand jury testimony. The court can then give Barr legal permission to release the grand jury testimony to Congress.
     
  4. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    watching the birth of the Dem Communist Party
    #229
    In many / most cases involving politics they are not looking to discuss but rather to convince you they are right and you are not. Your opinion, fact stating, article interpretation is of no consequence except if it can be utilized in whole or part to convince you to change your mind.
     
  5. Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #230
    Would the unredacted Muller report be safe?
    Or, shortly after the full unredacted Muller reports are handed over to the Democrats, somehow parts of it will find their way into the public domain for anyone to see?
    There is a process in law to help prevent situations like this. It is called a bond, which anyone with access to the full report could commit to personally pay in full if the report was somehow leaked.
    Maybe paying out just money would not be significant punishment for a breach of security.
     
  6. pl1984 Suspended

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    #231
    I feel attempting to change someone's mind on a position isn't unreasonable. However if you want to change my mind you're going to need at least a sound argument. IMO anyone who cannot separate their opinion from fact is unable to make an argument which is likely to change my position.
     
  7. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #232
    Fair enough. I don’t know either way. Just passing on Nadler’s reasoning.
     
  8. pl1984, May 9, 2019
    Last edited: May 9, 2019

    pl1984 Suspended

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    #233
    IMO not in the hands of the Democrats. They've demonstrated their willingness to toss all the rules, and law, aside in their quest to get President Trump. Or did I miss Mr. Nadler and / or other Democrats condemnation of the NY Times releasing President Trumps tax returns?
     
  9. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #234
    This isn’t a question of my opinion. It’s a court ruling upheld unanimously by an appeals court and cited in multiple impeachment investigations by the House.
     
  10. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    watching the birth of the Dem Communist Party
    #235
    Most of Congress will agree, many stating so publicly, that they are like a sieve.
    --- Post Merged, May 9, 2019 ---
    However if the intent is not to discuss but rather only attempt to change another's mind while keeping theirs closed to change, that makes the "discussion" a bit disingenuous.
     
  11. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #236
    Sorry for the confusion then.
     
  12. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #237
    How is it not clear Barr auditioned for and was chosen for AG, and he held up his end of the bargain? Barr is what Trump has all but explicitly said; he thinks the AG should be his personal defense attorney. He calls Mueller and others biased. What do you call an AG who wrote a letter in support of the president and before being hired? More deflection from the bozo in chief.
     
  13. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #238
    Oh noes, Trump's obstruction and Barr's coverup could all be for naught if this information gets out! We must do something!
     
  14. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #239
    Hah, maybe. I'll just leave this here... :) (from The New Yorker, 2007 April 02)
    cartoon - Leak - New Yorker 2007 Apr 02.jpg
     
  15. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #240
    Thats very appropriate for this thread.. :D
     
  16. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #241
    Ok, so I looked up your post that started this discussion:
    I now realize you meant just the Judiciary Committee, but I thought you meant Congressional committees in general. Are we now on the same page?

    If so, I have to ask you, why do you think that precedents from other committees shouldn't apply to the Judiciary Committee? Like, I don't know, if X Committee has never had a staff lawyer question executive branch witness before, but Y committee has. Why shouldn't X Committee point to Y Committee as precedent?
     
  17. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #242


    You might recognize the voice of the questioner.



    at the time, Thompson was not a Senator. Instead he was minority counsel.
     
  18. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    watching the birth of the Dem Communist Party
    #243
    Out is amazing at times how far you miss the point deliberately or via folly. ;)
    --- Post Merged, May 9, 2019 ---
    Each committee has it's own precedents based on the topic or area of expertise. I do not know if others have had their staff question the Executive Branch in testimony. I do know that the rules change during impeachment process. That is not standard and any precedent is specific to impeachment. not something we do as part of a normal activity.

    Still, I think if Nadler had kept to the negotiated rules and not played games, Barr would have dropped in. Adding those last minute changes shows how lacking in character he is. You cannot trust him to play by the rules.
    His loss.
     
  19. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #244
    oh, you have got to be kidding. The irony of this post is not measurable with current technology.
     

Share This Page