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
    #101
    I have no idea how that rebuts the information that I posted. Again, McKeever v Barr cites multiple cases that classify a House impeachment investigation as meeting the "judicial proceeding" exemption of Rule 6(e).
     
  2. pl1984 Suspended

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    #102
    Discussion by who? Likewise his viewing the less redacted report doesn't preclude him from a future argument that it should be released to other Committee members. Having said that Mr. Nadler doesn't find the proposal acceptable. That's his right. It's also the expectation the AG will not release information which cannot be released.
     
  3. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #103
    I can't do anything about the fact that you don't see the difference between a judge (or panel of judges) declaring that the judge that worked the case in question can hand the evidence vs. a lawyer (or team of lawyers, which are not part of the judicial branch ) that worked the case (plus, in this case no one declared anything).
     
  4. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #104
    Congress or "even with other Committee Members."

    Likewise, his disagreement with you doesn't mean he's not interested in oversight.

    Again, I posted a link to court documents that cite multiple cases that say he can.
     
  5. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #105
    No you didn't. You referred to a footnote in a case that proves the opposite, and the footnote itself is about something different.
     
  6. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #106
    That's because you are ignoring the rest of the precedent built on the case. Again, McKeever v Barr cites multiple cases that classify a House impeachment investigation as meeting the "judicial proceeding" exemption of Rule 6(e). Which is what we were discussing.
    --- Post Merged, May 7, 2019 ---
    Nope. It clearly states that a House impeachment investigation meets the "judicial proceeding" exemption of Rule 6(e) regarding the disclosure of grand jury information.
     
  7. pl1984 Suspended

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    #107
    I think both sides have a credible argument and that one, or the other, should reach out to the courts for resolution.
     
  8. Rhonindk, May 7, 2019
    Last edited: May 7, 2019

    Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    watching the birth of the Dem Communist Party
    #108
    No. It has been linked to and cited repeatedly.
    Not playing the "can you do this .... again? :rolleyes:

    Update: Thanks to @yaxomoxay and @pl1984 for their replies.

    --- Post Merged, May 7, 2019 ---
    What does that have to do with the contempt charge? ;)
     
  9. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #109
    Good luck with that; try and let's see what the SCOTUS says about lawyers releasing grand jury proceedings for an impeachment (=political) trial.
    Also, there is nothing that you posted that would even remotely indicate what you're saying.
     
  10. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #110
    You mean other than a direct quote from a court ruling that cites multiple precedents stating that a House impeachment investigation meets the judicial proceeding exemption? It can’t be any more on point.
     
  11. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    watching the birth of the Dem Communist Party
    #111
    And Baldi will keep claiming otherwise irrespective of anything else that is rolled out. ;)
     
  12. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #112
    I cited legal precedent. Do you have anything to add besides a personal insult?
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #113
    If Trump should be charged with obstruction it seems reasonable to question his AG. Especially when his AG released a ridiculous summary.
     
  14. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #114
    You’re both right, but arguing around the issue. The McKeever case is not applicable, since the whole issue there was whether a historian is entitled to have access to grand jury testimony and the appellate court said that the district court is limited to the enumerated exceptions in the statute for releasing the testimony. However, one of the enumerated exceptions has been interpreted to include the House Judiciary committee in the context of an investigation of the president. But Barr does not have the unilateral right to make the decision to release. He would need to get a district court order to do so. That said, in order to comply with the Democratic subpoena, Barr should request such an order from the district court. It’s Barr’s refusal to seek such an order that is at the crux of this issue.
     
  15. pl1984 Suspended

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    #115
    With the release of the report the summary has become irrelevant. If you don't like how the games score is summarized you're free to watch the game. Neither objecting to the reporting or watching the game will alter the outcome.
    --- Post Merged, May 7, 2019 ---
    Why should Mr. Barr make such a request? Shouldn't that be from the entity that wants the protected information?
     
  16. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    watching the birth of the Dem Communist Party
    #116
    Okay. Still, I do not see what this has to do with the contempt charge ...
    This contempt charge has to do with the failure to release the entire unredacted report.
    --- Post Merged, May 7, 2019 ---
    Just commenting on your behavior based on prior interaction including the information and links provided in these last group of posts. I have to fully agree with @yaxomoxay. I fail to see how you reach the conclusion you are espousing.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #117
    So why didn’t Barr appear to Congress?
     
  18. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    watching the birth of the Dem Communist Party
    #118
    You do realize this still has nothing to do with the contempt charge?

    Last minute rule changes by Nadler. Kind of surprised me what Nadler did. Never in the history of the Committee has staffers questioned Executive Branch members in place of or with Committee members. I just has not been done.
    If contentions exist, the two parties usually negotiate instead of pursuing. Nadler did not even attempt to negotiate; he demanded. Heck, if not for Pelosi, Nadler would be starting impeachment proceedings already.
    Personal opinion; the Dems need a new Chairman in that position.
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #119
    But Ford was questioned like that, and she was a civilian.
     
  20. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    watching the birth of the Dem Communist Party
    #120
    Very different situation. The Ford item was an agreed upon solution for questioning a witness and an candidate for a judicial position; neither a current member of the Executive Branch nor was the "questioner" a member of the Committee staff.
     
  21. Night Spring, May 7, 2019
    Last edited: May 7, 2019

    Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #121
    Happened during Watergate.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/27/michael-cohen-hearing-225343
    "Once upon a time, committee lawyers, rather than legislators, conducted much of the questioning. Think of Joseph Welch eviscerating Senator Joe McCarthy, or Robert Kennedy grilling Teamsters officials, or Sam Dash and Fred Thompson at the Watergate hearings."
     
  22. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #122
    Yes, for 2-4 can be subsumed under my second category, but in any case, all of these seem to hinge on keeping certain information out of public hands. I agree that this information should not be made public. The issues is whether Congress can do its constitutionally mandated job of reviewing this case with respect to impeachment without the redacted information. The answer is no. Surely there is a way Congress can access this information without it becoming public. Congress handles all sorts of classified and privileged information all the time. The only alternative to seeing the complete reported is for Congress to start questioning the same people that testified to Mueller.

    I am a research psychologist. If you can fathom accurately somebody's else's true intentions from such scant information, then you deserve a Nobel prize. At best your making a very weakly supported inference. Trump's unpopularity has decreased recently, and the Democrats are aware of this. If they were the Machiavellian politicians they are often accused of being, they'd have caved about this long ago, just like Trump did on the government shutdown (that he supposedly 'owned'). Even as somebody leaning to the left, I'd rather the Democrats do their duty to investigate this matter to the satisfaction of Congress, even if the conclusion there is no case for impeachment for Trump to answer, than the Democrats to weasel out of their responsibilities to win the next election.

    At the end of the day, the executive branch should never be allowed to dictate to Congress what evidence can and cannot be seen when investigating the President. In this case perhaps the courts will, but at least that follows the Constitution.
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #123
    So a civilian woman is fine to be questioned in a certain way but the attorney general can’t be questioned like that. What a snowflake he is.
     
  24. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #124
    White House exerting executive privilege over all materials related to Mueller investigation. My guess is this makes its way to the Supreme Court.

    [​IMG]
     
  25. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #125
    Both side should be ashamed of themselves but mainly the (D) in this entire Russia, Russia, Russia fiasco.. This is the crap they'd rather focus on as opposed to trying to fix the real issues out there...

    Every last one of them, on both sides, need to be voted out of office and we need to start anew....
     

Share This Page