Democrats in Congress want to force the AG to disclose Grand Jury information and all the supporting documentation to the Mueller Witch Hunt - so much that he's going to hold him in Contempt for refusing to break the law. This is the unhinged behavior we can expect all summer as the tables are slowly turning and the Democrats and those who invented the fake Dossier are under the spotlight.
Who will win? The Democrats or AG Barr and the rule of law?
Will you quote the rule of law that you are using here? One reason that isn't true is because some of the things cited in the Mueller report were done by Trump BEFORE he became president, and those aren't subject to the same law that allegedly covers a sitting president.
Nobody can quote the "Rule of Law" MizBejabbers because it doesn't exist: This is just more false "nationalist" conspiracy nonsense which will sooner or later get Hupages in deep trouble with MAJOR Social Media sites that are beginning to BAN this kind of fake garbage:
Shill Barr is NOW in "Contempt of Congress": I just hope Dems LOCK him Up so he can think about which direction he wants to go: Does he really want to Ruin his career and reputation for a mad nut case in the oval office like many have already done, or abide by the law and co-operate with full disclosure? We'll soon find out I guess:
Yes Jake, somebody can "quote the Rule of law."
It relates to making Grand Jury testimony public without court approval.
Since I know you are a stickler for 'facts', here is the exact law pertinent to this subpoena and Barr's refusal to comply:
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure › TITLE III. THE GRAND JURY, THE INDICTMENT, AND THE INFORMATION › Rule 6. The Grand Jury
"(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:
(i) a grand juror;
(ii) an interpreter;
(iii) a court reporter;
(iv) an operator of a recording device;
(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;
(vi) an attorney for the government; or
(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).
Source: Grand Jury Law Rule 6 - Cornell Law School
As a note: the rest of your comment is as wrong as the part addressed is. I am aware that real facts don't affect your diatribes Jake, but you really should refrain from claiming such inaccurate rants as factual declarations. It doesn't wear well.
That has absolutely nothing to do with providing ALL Evidence Pertaining to the Mueller Report to Congress which is exactly what Dems are demanding:
Once again, an irrelevant nationalist attempt at deflection:
A deflection? You ask for the "fact" of law. I provided that fact of law, and now you call it a deflection.
Come on Jake, at least acknowledge that your requests are being honored - even if you don't like the answer.
The law prohibits the demand of the Congress, (or at least this Congressional committee's demand). Does that matter to you?
You frequently speak of the Rule of Law, and that we are a nation of laws, yet it seems when the Rule of Law doesn't support your diatribes you are willing to call it a "deflection."
By your own standards Jake, that Rule of Law has everything to do with providing the evidence.
Do you really want to be perceived as only believing in a standard of law when it agrees with you? And just dismissing it when it doesn't?
Pick a stand Jake, you can't have it both ways. The law matters, or it doesn't, where do you stand?
GA, I'm afraid you've misinterpreted this law. It does not cover Congress unless that part is in a section that you have not quoted here. Please state in which subdivision you interpret that it does.
Hello again MizBejabbers, as you will see from a previous response, I don't know what you mean by "It does not cover Congress..."
Are you saying that Congress can ask for any Grand Jury material anytime, and be entitled to it?
I'm saying that some people are interpreting it that way because of the checks and balances of the three branches of government, which makes the legislative branch equal to the executive and Judicial branches. Whether or not you agree, or any of us for that matter, that is the way some lawyers are interpreting it. I'm just trying to explain where that side is coming from.
Don W. brings it out in his explanation below (no. 2) and the letter gives a pretty good explanation of their viewpoint. I'm just explaining the logic behind their arguments. Congress is not mentioned.
Actually, GA, this rule you quoted (i)-(vii) only cover grand jurors and the people who work with the grand jury, including (vi) an attorney who works for the government, which could include Barr. It does not cover Congress. In this case, Mueller is not acting as an attorney for the government. That is why it is such a gray area. The law is not written to give the Executive Branch power over the other two branches. That would be a dictatorship or at the least, a monarchy and a breach of the checks and balances. So it isn't as cut and dried as you believe.
To top it off, the Republicans on the Senate Committee are demanding a subpoena for Don Jr to testify. So it doesn't sound like only the Dems are your "bad guys."
Hi there MizBejabbers, I don't think I understand your point about "Congress."
Simply put, as I understand it, the 6(e) section of the law prohibits public, (which I think includes Congressional committees), disclosure of Grand Jury testimony. *except as later defined; with the court's consent.
Since I think that Congress would never be the direct recipient of Grand Jury materials--there would always be an attorney for the government intermediary--I don't understand your implication that Congress is exempt from Grand Jury materials receipt restrictions.
What am I missing?
As for the rest of your comment; I agree, I don't think the law is intended to give the Executive branch power over the other branches, and, the Don Jr. subpoena is an interesting development. Are the Republicans going off the reservation?
You are right, it does not mention Congress either way, and that is my point. My Code Revisor said that a law pertains to anyone (group, whatever) that was spelled out in the law. If that person, group, whatever wasn't included in an enumeration (or did not fall into a group that was enumerated) then the law didn't apply. I think it is a matter of interpretation as to whether the law applies to Congress and that is why they are arguing.
Hi MizBejabbers, the law in question relates to the public release of Grand Jury, (6(e)), testimony. Either of us could Google the specific law, but it is illegal to make grand jury testimony public without court approval.
That is one of the reasons the Nadler committee subpoena is so controversial. The committee's offer to work with Barr, (rather than find him in contempt), if he would join them in requesting court permission to disclose the grand jury material shows that they are aware he is constrained by law from honoring their subpoena.
In short - they know their subpoena is asking him to break the law.
MizBejabbers, this entire thread is Nationalist NONSENE: Jerry Nadler is NOT asking anyone to break the law but according to the evidence, guess who is and or has instructed or asked staff and others to break the law? Yup, you guessed it the 72 year old plopped in our oval office:
Nationalistic nonsense? Come on Jake, I thought you believed in the Rule of law.
Here is a thought; why don't you disprove that the law prohibits the publication of Grand Jury testimony without court approval.
Stand up to your claims bud, dispute the fact of law that you claim to support.
Jake, it's a given that the President has broken the law in several instances. The Trump supporters don't seem to realize that Barr is overstepping his office in order to protect the "72-year-old plopped in our oval office." He is no longer the neutral AG whose job it is to work for the country, but instead has become Trump's personal protector. For Nadler to offer to work WITH Barr is the Dems way of being nice when they don't have to be.
MizBejabbers: Not more than 15 minutes ago, Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC blew this whole nationalist LIE right out of the water: He played the tape from todays congressional gathering to prove Jerry Nadler NEVER asked anyone to break the law and that's the simple fact:
This is simply a FALSE Topic and that's sad, and hopefully Hubpages cleans up this kind of nationalist nonsensical propaganda wherever it's coming from:
Jake, I looked for your "Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC" rebuttal, alas, it was no more than a 'Jake' interpretation. The facts are that Nadler's subpoena demanded the AG break the law, (which has already been quoted to you).
Do you really want to deny that you only believe in the rule of law--that has been documented for you--when it supports your claims Jake?
What is really false is your proclamations. Can you disprove that with an MSNBC clip?
GA, Jerry Nadler NEVER asked anyone to break the law but there seem to be a lot of Russian bots around here who are trying to spread this LIE, but are you going to continue on with repeating RJ Schwartz' Blatantly False Narrative or stop with the nationalist propaganda?:
I know your weirdo lawless hero sitting in our oval office spews LIES in Perpetuity and that's just one reason WHY he'll be REMOVED soon, but why emulate his dark, nefarious behavior? How will Trump followers act when he's gone??
"GA, Jerry Nadler NEVER asked anyone to break the law..."
Do you deny that Jerry Nadler's committee issued a subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report?
Do you deny that the Mueller report contains Grand Jury testimony?
Do you deny that a law prohibits releasing Grand Jury testimony without a court's approval?
If you can not deny those facts, then you can not deny that Nadler's subpoena was demanding AG Barr break a law.
A former deputy attorney general and federal prosecutor disagrees with your last question.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … 7bce3a8192
Should we leave interpretations of U.S. laws to the experts?
Nice to see you dipping a toe in the water promisem.
I think you are right, we should leave it to the experts, but which experts?
Even your linked expert seems to agree with the spirit of my comment. He speaks to the apparently necessary 'judicial proceeding' qualifier. And he also speaks to releases being pursuant to court direction, (as the spirit of my comment says).
The only disagreement I could see was his 'opinion' that “preliminary to" was a possible exception. Since I am just a Google-informed layman, I am not sure how confident I should be in my reading that even in his description of that possibility he referred to a court involvement in the Starr precedent.
On the other hand, we could begin an exchange of "experts" links to see where the balance of opinion lay.
Or perhaps I should have been more precise in my question's wording. Even though I think the intended message was understood, I should have qualified the question with the list of 6(e) exceptions.
Regarding "which experts", I suggest a former deputy attorney general is more expert than any of us on here.
If you can find an expert with the same stature who contradicts the article I referenced, please feel free to post a link.
That said, your final paragraph is a fair revision.
I'm more concerned about the inflammatory and misleading title of the OP. We saw it on Fox News, so it went straight from there to here.
Your dislike of the title and its source does not negate the probable truth of it.
You linked to a "former deputy attorney general" as the definitive answer, yet his opinion contrasts with the opinion of a current Attorney General, (Barr), a lawyer leading the process, (Nadler*), and a legislative leader commanding the process, (Nadler*).
* Nadler is/was a lawyer and asked Barr to join him in his petition to the court asking for the release of the 6(e) materials, which indicates he too thought a court approval was needed for the demand to be lawful.
I have read other legal "expert" opinions that confirm the title's message. I didn't see the need, then, to save their links, and I don't see the need to hunt for them now. It is a legal question to be resolved. Out of all the "opinions" I have heard so far, your link is the only one that is contrary to the general consensus.
At this point, whether the OP title is inflammatory and misleading is not determined.
Here we go again -- putting words into my mouth. I simply said the deputy AG didn't agree with you and offered a link. Where did I say he had the definitive answer?
You object to the article with an expert opinion different than yours and then say it's a "legal question to be resolved". You are contradicting yourself.
You're also the one who said we can leave it to the experts and have more links. Now you're backtracking on that one too.
Finally, the fact that you are refusing to do any research on the opposite side of the issue doesn't mean that plenty of articles about it don't exist, such as this one from a Constitution think tank:
https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/ … er-report/
Please try to stay on point.
You are right promisem, "Here we go again."
I did not intend to put words in your mouth. What I said was my perception of what you said. Perhaps I am doing a lousy job of communicating, but I think it is also possible that you are misreading my responses.
I will offer this explanation of why I said what I said, and then leave the last word to you - if you wish to tell me where I misinterpreted your words.
As for my label of "the definitive answer:" You offered your former deputy AG's opinion as a rebuttal to a statement I made. You then said we should leave the interpretation to the experts. When the "experts" credentials, entered the conversation, (relative to my point that there were "experts on both sides of the issue), you said;
"Regarding "which experts", I suggest a former deputy attorney general is more expert than any of us on here.
If you can find an expert with the same stature who contradicts the article I referenced, please feel free to post a link."
Was I really so far off-base to conclude that, you believed your source to be an expert authority and that you agreed with his opinion, equated to you thinking his answer was the right one, ie. the defining answer to the question? If that was a completely wrong assumption then my "putting words in your mouth" was at least an honest mistake.
For me to be contradicting myself you will first have to show where I objected to the article. I even noted that I found only one instance in the article that seemed to disagree with the spirit of my comment: "The only disagreement I could see was his 'opinion' that “preliminary to" was a possible exception."
Now, as for having more links ... when was the last time you saw me in some kind of rebuttal--my-link-is-better-than-your-link--link war? What good are they? I will post information links, but if you don't believe a point I make, that's fine with me. I would have made that point with information from readings and don't see a benefit from throwing links in to prove' what I said. I have the impression that is more your style. My reference to finding a "link" balance was tongue-in-cheek.
Also, as I mentioned reading multiple articles;
"Since I am just a Google-informed layman, I am not sure how confident I should be in my reading that even in his description of that possibility he referred to a court involvement in the Starr precedent."
... I think that should make it obvious that I had done some looking around, (not just blindly believing a "Fox" headline). So you are wrong promisem, I am not "refusing to do any research on the opposite side of the issue ."
Finally, I think my response was "on point," so for you to make that closing comment seems to be nothing more than a bit of snark that doesn't sit well. Perhaps, like my offer of a link balance, I could offer a few suggestions relative to your "Please try to stay on point."
Apparently the Attorney General of the United States contradicts your article. Is that enough stature for you? Or do you not like the results of his opinion and therefore it has to be wrong?
Anyone outside of Trump's appointed AG will do. But I'm sure you prefer Barr's spin.
Civility: "formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech."
You might give it a try.
Ah. Anyone that agrees with what you want to hear is fine. Pretty sure you can find others that agree with Barr, but also pretty sure you will deny they have "stature". (GA mentioned Nadler - does he have the stature to comment?)
Denial and deflection.
Feel free to offer expert opinion from a former Republican with high stature and offer something of real substance to this discussion.
Take that civility pill yet?
Deflection? By discussing the exact thing you complained about (the "stature" of anyone disagreeing with what you want to hear)? By requiring that only past Republicans are acceptable you but cement your position that only those agreeing with you are acceptable and have that stature.
Think you need to open the pill bottle yourself.
Deflection: Changing the subject from an article you don't like to the claim that I don't want other opinions. Yet I asked you to provide some. Still waiting.
Deflection The dizzying "logic" that says no republicans understand the law; that only Democrats or ex-Republicans can. Or that the highest attorney position in the land doesn't...because Trump appointed him and he was approved by the Senate.
Denial: Undermining the credibility of a person or statement simply because you don't like it. Or because a primarily Republican Senate approved his appointment.
Promisem, the problem here is that the Trump supporters are cherry picking the law. They've quoted only Title III, Rule 6, (E)(2)(B)(i)-(vii). But the law doesn't stop there. There is more clarification in subsection (3) Exceptions, which muddies the water in subdivision (2)(B). Again, Congress is not mentioned or forbidden to see the report, but (D)(ii) says if the attorney for the government discloses the information under subdivision (D)(i), the attorney must file (after the fact) under seal a disclosure with the court in the district where the grand jury convened. It does not say the attorney must first get permission to disclose the information.
It really doesn't matter what these reported sources such as Fox News, CNN, etc. are saying. It is how these legal eagles are interpreting the law. As usual, the brilliant minds of the law can't agree.
Not sure where to jump in here, but this seems good a place as any.
I was reluctant to get drawn into specifics on a different thread, but . . .
"(D) . . . An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand-jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent, to any appropriate federal, state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities" (my Emphasis)(1)
Could it be argued that the matter under consideration was not a "grave" hostile act? Yes, but I think that's very generous given the nature of the actions and the intended outcome. But I can see where a slither of doubt might be had.
However, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the matter does not involve "clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent".
Likewise, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that a member of Congress does not constitute an "appropriate federal . . . official".
And I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that consideration by the House Judiciary Committee is not "for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities".
So 6(e)(3)(D) provides the appropriate exception to allow the AG to give the relevant material to the Judiciary Committee. And I think it's almost inconceivable that the Committee has not been advised to that effect by its Chief Counsel.
Therefore, I think the suggestion that Nadler made the request because he wants Barr to "break the law" is not only unjustified, but also a misrepresentation of the current situation.
Wait. Are you proposing that a demand to see Trump's IRS filings is considered "grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent"? Or because they might find terrorism there?
Both are patently false - the only reason to see those papers is that they hope to find political dirt to keep him out of office. That hardly constitutes hostile acts of a foreign power.
This thread is about the House Judiciary Committee's request for an unredacted version of the Mueller report.
That report contains grand jury evidence.
The law GA referred to restricts the disclosure of grand jury evidence, with very few exceptions.
On that basis, the opening poster and others, have suggested that the Judiciary Committee Chair, Jerry Nadler, wants Barr to break the law.
I have pointed out that one of exceptions (outlined in my previous comment) is applicable in this case, and therefore the AG is able to provide the unredacted material to the Judiciary Committee without breaking the law.
I have also pointed out that it's very likely that Nadler has been advised of this by the Committee's Chief Counsel. Therefore, suggesting Nadler wants Barr to break the law is a misrepresentation of the situation.
Hope that brings you up to speed on the proceedings.
In other words, this is just another "FAKE Topic" started by a nationalist: I proved it was a FAKE Topic hours ago but suspected the nationalists around here would continue with the disingenuous nonsense, just like a 72 year old in the oval office:
And I mentioned the IRS files. My bad. But you listed some exceptions, such as "An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand-jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent,"
Still, none of those would seem to have anything at all to do with the report. Certainly there is no "threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power" and no "terrorism" involved anywhere.
So how is it legal when none of the exceptions apply? Are you considering Russia's fake FB posts as a threat of attack, or terrorism? That would seem to be a gigantic stretch even a judge would laugh at.
I think I've made it reasonably clear why I think 6(e)(3)(D) applies. So which part of this comment is not clear to you?
"Could it be argued that the matter under consideration was not a "grave" hostile act? Yes, but I think that's very generous given the nature of the actions and the intended outcome. But I can see where a slither of doubt might be had.
However, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the matter does not involve "clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent".
Likewise, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that a member of Congress does not constitute an "appropriate federal . . . official".
"Both are patently false - the only reason to see those papers is that they hope to find political dirt to keep him out of office."
How do you know what's in his tax returns? Have you seen them?
Do you have personal knowledge of all of his income sources? Can you guarantee he is not under the influence by a foreign country?
Would it have to be shown that Trump was already under the influence of a foreign country, or mere speculation?
I think any speculation is based on what we already know about Russian investment in Trump properties and contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign.
For those reasons, I think wanting to see Trump's tax returns is well justified.
Plus, all of our Presidents and candidates for the Oval Office since Nixon have released their tax returns to prove they are not under undue influence.
If Trump is innocent, why not release them?
"If Trump is innocent, why not release them?"
Wrong question. The right question is "Why should he release them?" And the answer is not that political foes are getting desperate to find dirt on him. Neither is it that Trump haters speculate a thousand vile things, all hidden in the returns.
You want all his business contracts, too? His personal correspondence? His checkbook(s)? His credit card statements? Will you demand the accounts of anyone he has ever spoken with? Will you leave no stone unturned in the intense desire to find wrongdoing, somewhere, somehow?
We are not a country that has zero privacy - because you think there just has to be something somewhere, no matter hard hard you wish it to be true, that there is something wrong it is not sufficient reason to violate personal privacy. We had a 2 year investigation that found nothing - that doesn't mean you simply switch to some other avenue because you want it so badly.
As usual, your comment required some consideration before answering Don.
Looking at your parsing, (not a negative insinuation), of what you see as supporting aspects of the law's further details sent me back to the Mueller Report's collusion and obstruction conclusions and findings.
I also considered your comment, (that I agree with if your overall point is correct), that you felt Nadler could not be unaware of the opportunity this reasoning provided for the legal demand for the unredacted Report.
First, I don't see your referenced exceptions as being applicable to the content and nature of the Report. Of course, that is just an opinion, uninformed by legal expertise, but I look to another aspect to support it. Namely, Chairman Nadler's actions.
If as you say, the Chairman would most certainly have been advised of this validation for demanding the material, then why would he ask AG Barr to join him in petitioning the court for permission to release the 6(e) materials?
This hearing hasn't been friendly so I can't imagine Nadler deferring to any 'nicities' of asking Barr for help if he didn't need it.
However, even if your point were correct and Nadler did justify his request with your example, then we are still headed for the courts, (Barr would almost certainly challenge that reading) - and the validity of my opinion will hang on that court decision.
I know this last point is a weak one, but with all the legal brain power; from Congress' lawyers to the Committee's legal counsel, and all the legal "research" media analyst and pundits must have done to support their pronouncements, I find it surprising that your justification hasn't been widely trumpeted to debunk claims like this OP's title.
All of this boils down to me being stuck with my original layman's opinion. Complying with the subpoena demanding the unredacted report--without court involvement--would be asking the AG to break the law.
But that's not so bad. I don't think I have formed this opinion rashly, and if it's wrong then it's wrong. That has happened before. I am sure you have seen my past mentions of '78. ;-)
I've found some further information that sheds light on the legal reasoning the House Committees are using.
As far as I can see, you are right, in that the Committees are not using the exception in 6(e)(3)(D) as justification for requesting the disclosure of grand jury evidence. It seems they are not using any of the exceptions in Rule 6(e).
Personally I still think 6(e)(3)(D) applies, but it would be unreasonable to maintain that is the likely basis of the Committees argument for disclosure, now we can see exactly what that reasoning is.
The reasoning was laid out in the appendix of a letter sent to the AG on April 9, from the Chairs of six House Committees. That letter reiterated the request for an unredacted copy of the Special Counsel's report. The appendix explains three things:
1. Why the Committee Chairs are requesting an unredacted version of the report;
2. The reasoning behind why the Committee Chairs believe (or have been advised) that the application of Rule 6(e) is limited and does not barr disclosures to Congress;
3. The reasoning behind why the Committee Chairs believe other restrictions (executive privilege, ongoing investigations etc.) do not justify withholding the report from Congress.
I'll concern myself only with 2, as that's the most relevant to this thread.
I strongly recommend reading the appendix, but in summary, the document addresses the issue of Rule 6(e) in two ways.
1. It cites legal precedent to make the case that using Rule 6(e) as justification for a blanket refusal to disclose grand jury evidence, is a misapplication of Rule 6(e).
For example, the document cites Labow v. Dep't of Justice which found that Rule 6(e) does not "draw a veil of secrecy . . . over all matters occurring in the world . . . The mere fact that information has been presented to the grand jury does not itself permit withholding."(1)
It also cites Barkto v. U.S. Dep't. of Justice which found that information cannot be withheld under Rule 6(e) merely because they constitute "records provided to a federal grand jury"(2). The information would need to reveal something about the grand jury itself for Rule 6(e) to be applicable.
In short, the Committees argue that not all evidence that has made contact with a grand jury, is subject to Rule 6(e).
2. The Committee Chairs acknowledge there may be parts of the requested report for which restrictions under Rule 6(e) genuinely apply (obviously they can't know for sure), but as you and others pointed out, the Committees outline a legal mechanism which has been used to resolve such issues in the past:
"As to testimony or other grand jury materials that are genuinely subject to Rule 6(e), the Department can and should work with the House Judiciary Committee to obtain the permission of the district court overseeing the grand jury to make disclosures to Congress on a confidential basis, as it has done in the past in analogous circumstances."(3)
So, while reason dictates I abandon my assertion that 6(e)(3)(D) is the likely basis of the House Committees' legal reasoning, I stand by my original assertion that the title of this thread is a misrepresentation of the current situation. I also don't accept the view that the subpoena demanded ". . . the unredacted report--without court involvement. . . ."
My own reasoning can be summed up in 4 points:
1. Nadler clearly believes, and/or has been advised, that contact with a grand jury does not necessarily preclude evidence from being disclosed to Congress. For him to believe otherwise would require him to dismiss all the "legal brain power" at his disposal (the result of which can likely be seen in the document outlined above) not to mention his own professional political and legal knowledge and experience. The possibility of that is extremely unlikely.
2. For material in the report that is genuinely subject to Rule 6(e), Nadler knows there is a legal mechanism by which even that information can be disclosed to Congress; a mechanism that has been successfully used in the past.
3. From the very beginning the House Committee Chairs (including Nadler) have explicitly requested that Barr provide the relevant information in a way that complies with the law, which belies any suggestion to the contrary:
"We write to you to express, in the strongest possible terms, our expectation that the Department of Justice will release to the public the report Special Counsel Mueller submits to you—without delay and to the maximum extent permitted by law." (my emphasis)(3)
That was correspondence from Nadler to the AG almost a month before Barr was subpoenaed. It also included:
"We also expect that the Department will provide to our Committees, upon request and consistent with applicable law . . ."(my emphasis)(4).
Likewise, the appendix outlined above was sent on April 1, over a month before Barr was subpoenaed, and included:
". . . if the Department believes it is unable to produce any of these materials in full due to rules governing grand jury secrecy, it should seek leave from the district court to produce those materials to Congress. . ."(my emphasis)(5).
4. The subpoena makes no demand for anything "without court involvement". It merely demands the AG "produce the things identified on the attached schedule" by May 1 (it was issued on April 18)(6).
I think it would be cynical to suggest that Nadler wanted Barr to break the law because the subpoena (a simple legal order) did not discuss the legal nuances of specific legislation and how it applies to the evidence requested. That's not what a subpoena is for. And it must be noted that those issues were repeatedly raised prior to the subpoena, in letters which not only mentioned court involvement, but explicitly requested it.
If the argument is that the timeframe for compliance (13 days) implies lack of court involvement because a court decision could not be obtained in that time, then first I don't know if that's true. But assuming it is, the counter argument is that Congress simply wanted to compel Barr to begin legal proceedings to seek permission for disclosure, not necessarily to produce the report. Subpoenas can only be used to demand testimony or evidence though. So compelling Barr to produce the report (and therefore take whatever actions are needed to do that legally) was the only option available.
And we can see from those prior requests that the intent was clearly not to ask Barr to break the law, but for Barr to seek permission for disclosure. Had that happened, the AG would likely not have been found in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the subpoena, as he would have had a legitimate reason (awaiting a court decision) for not being able to comply.
So for those reasons, I don't accept the suggestion Nadler "wants AG Barr to Break the Law". On the contrary, Nadler has explicitly requested Barr act within applicable law, and not only outlined the mechanism by which Barr can gain permission to disclose information subject to Rule 6(e), but also repeatedly entreated Barr to do so.
On another note, notwithstanding the interesting (and I think genuine) discussion on the legal question that has come out of this thread, I believe the title of the thread was a bad-faith attempt to misrepresent the situation, rather than a sincere attempt to explore those legal issues. Given the current circumstances, both the thread title and opening comment reek of hypocrisy to such an extent that it borders on parody. But I feel myself slipping into rant mode, so I'll leave that there.
(1) https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democ … pendix.pdf (Labow v. Dep't of Justice, cited in Six House Committees Letter to William Barr, Appendix, p.5)
(2) Ibid (Barkto v. U.S. Dep't. of Justice, cited in Six House Committees Letter to William Barr, Appendix, p.5)
(3) https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democ … Report.pdf
(5) https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democ … pendix.pdf
(6) https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democ … .18.19.pdf
Perhaps Nadler could deal with public confusion here by CLEARLY laying out for all Americans, in layman terms, the gist of the committee's reasoning. Certainly, it can't be too difficult for them to do that.
On the other hand, it would be good also for the White House to lay out for all Americans to see, in layman terms, the gist of its reasoning.
If both sides would be more transparent with the public at large instead of relying on grandstanding (appealing to the base), we'd be much closer to an understanding.
Considering 'nationlists' NEVER seem to stop Propagating a Falsehood or LIE just like the topic of this discussion even after finding out it's not true, even though the film clip isn't even added to you-tube yet since the show was apparently taped yesterday, the clip of Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC Show which OBLITERATES the republican LIE which almost ALL republican congress-persons CONTINUED to regurgitate to the sickening point, here's the full show which aired last night but I'm pretty confident it still won't stop the proliferation of this alt right nationalist propaganda because that's ALL the right wing has at this point, LIES:
Go to MINUTE 6:00 and WATCH: MSNBC ALWAYS does a stellar job of Obliterating Fox Channel Nationalist Propaganda and Falsehoods:
You are aware that Actors and News Reporters regardless of which outlet they are working for, aren't considered reputable sources or experts. With the rare exceptions of a few who actually hold doctorates in fields to which they may be speaking to. Your chosen "expert" is not in that arena.
So after I post video which clearly proves the topic of this discussion is fake, it NEVER happened, you still refuse to accept the truth?:
The video you linked does not prove the discussion is fake. So it is a matter of me refusing to accept the truth, but rather I am refusing to believe your take on what is truth.
AG was not held in contempt for not working with congress, but rather for not providing the whole report which contains information that is not allowed to be released except under certain criteria as authorized by the court.
So the only thing that your video proves is that the based on the reasoning behind the contempt and the words of the Chairperson, is that the Chairperson may be guilty of telling fibs...
Of course I did happen to watch the whole proceedings yesterday and I also read the contempt notice...So I suspect that what you consider to be truth and what I consider to be more factual in nature...varies greatly...But then again...I don't rely on others to tell me what to believe, I look into all of the evidence for myself and decide for myself.
You do realize a simple fix to this, would be for congress to change the law concerning restrictive 6(e) material. Although, according to current laws, the AG didn't need to provide congress with jack.
I believe it's globalists who are pushing falsehoods Jake.
This whole discussion seems ridiculous to me. Nadler acknowledged that certain portions of the subpoenaed materials would need to be approved by a court to be turned over to Congress. It is absurd to say he is asking Barr to break the law.
It's just another dumb talking point that is being parroted to make points.
Could be wrong, but didn't Nadler ask Trump to aid in getting court approval? It isn't Nadler demanding the materials - it is a congress full of lawyers. Lawyers that know better but just don't care!
Democrats asked Barr to work alongside them to petition a judge to turn over grand jury materials to Congress in a closed setting, the only way the material can be released.
Four kinds of content are redacted from the Mueller report: grand jury material, matters related to ongoing investigations, classified intelligence, and private information about peripheral third parties. It’s true that members of Congress cannot see the grand jury material without court approval, but they have every right to see the rest of the redacted content and the underlying evidence of the report. The subpoena asks for all those items; the grand jury materials are just one portion of the requested information.
Why use facts and logic with someone who simply wants to argue?
"It’s true that members of Congress cannot see the grand jury material without court approval..."
I'm rather surprised that you of all people agree that Congress has no right to see what they are demanding - the unredacted report, in full.
That's what I've come to believe also, is that they want EVERYTHING, and it seems, from what I've heard, that Congress can't legally obtain the grand jury material except for cause. And cause is debatable, which seems to leave the AG in good shape at this point.
Yes - they want anything that might conceivably give Trump political problems. That they can use to convince a gullible public he is a scoundrel. It's getting rather old.
Yes, that "cause" is VERY debatable. Excuses can be made, but they don't hold much water. They're just searching for anything they can find. And have run out of (reasonable) possibilities.
No one has to convince rational people that Trump is a scoundrel. If you don't think so after reading the Mueller report (though I'm guessing you haven't read it), then I 'm really not sure what Trump would have to do for you to think so. Shoot someone on 5th Avenue?
I think you're right - most people (including me) think he is a scoundrel.
But being a scoundrel, IMHO, does not preclude being a better president than most could hope to be - many of our presidents, and not just the bad ones, have been scoundrels. Again, IMO, he understands the needs of the country better than most...and will work to satisfy those needs. Which few on the Hill will do - their party (job security) and their pocketbook are much more important than the country.
And, of course, being a scoundrel does not mean he is a thief, in the pay of Russia or connected to any serious crimes.
I guess my standards for conduct of the President are vastly different from yours.
Or just unrealistic. Personally I prefer Trump to one that cares not for the country, but only for himself, and if that means he is more than a little rough around the edges, so be it. I was sick of "politics as normal" and the past two years, watching Democrats nearly pee themselves trying to dig up dirt and cancel out the election they lost, has only reinforced that.
We don't have leaders on the Hill anymore; we have a pack of self serving scoundrels interested only in protecting and growing their political power. In that respect Trump is head and shoulders above them in spite of his obvious faults. IMHO.
It is a fact than they do have that right, with the exception of the grand jury material, which will need court approval. My point, which you unsurprisingly ignored, is the no one is asking Barr to break the law. That is a ridiculous assertion, but I am not surprised to see you doing your twisting routine to defend it.
But, but wait ... Your comment seems to contradict itself PrettyPanther.
The subpoena is a demand for the release of materials that you acknowledge require court approval to release. Court approval is needed because a law is involved.
Isn't that essentially your point?
If so, then consider; Nadler's subpoena isn't demanding that Barr go to the court to get permission, it is demanding the release of the report because he didn't do so when asked to do it without being subject to the force of a subpoena.
How can that not be asking for an action to be taken that would break a law if it was taken?
That is not true. It is what the lier, fraud, criminal wants you to believe. Think for yourself. Each of the last two impreachment hearings Nixon and Clinton obtained waivers from the courts and included the grand jury testimony. Congress had to keep it confidential but they did have it. Why follow someone that lies all the time?
Now he has Iran, China, and North Korea with their sights aimed on us. Personal displomacy. He is too dumb to understand. And a business man? He lost more than any other person in the United States in 1990 and 1991. This does not include the amounts he lost for the 8 preceding years. You have a brain. All you have to do is Google anything he says.
Is there anyone in the country that can possibly believe that if congress finds dirt it will remain confidential? Legal or not?
Congress is not just a sieve - it is a loudspeaker blaring out anything it thinks can possibly help their party.
You're apparent paranoia about "LEAKS" is irrelevant: Congress has the right to receive this information and they have a right to "Grand Jury" info as well with court approval as Chairman Nadler has stated which makes the topic of this discussion FALSE:
But what are Trump followers frightened of? I don't blame them to be fearful after that DAMNING NYT investigative report about Donald's Tax Records for the years 1985 thru 1995:
"LEAKERS" have been around since the beginning of time and GOD knows in this NIGHTMARISH era of conspiracy, chaos, constant crisis and undermining of our institutions from the inside, the more information we get from patriotic insiders the better prepared we as a nation will be to protect ourselves from this oval office madness:
Damn Don, you are forcing me to dust off my old law clerk habits to consider and respond. ( a joke of course)
Building from the base, here is the actual demand of the subpoena for the unredacted report:
"1. The complete and unredacted version of the report submitted on or about March 22, 211119 by Special Counsel Robert lvluelier, [sic] pursuant to his authority under 23 CPR. entitled, Report on the investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election" (?the Report?). This includes, but is not limited to, all summaries, exhibits, indices, tables of contents or other tables or figures, appendices, supplements, addenda or any other attachments whether written or attached in a separate electronic format. " [my emphasis]
It appears to be fact that the subpoena demands production of the unredacted report. It also appears that the subpoena does not apply any of the nuances or considerations noted in your response.
That certainly appears, on its face, to be asking AG Barr to unilaterally do something a law precludes him from doing.
To consider those nuances and considerations you noted seems secondary to the demand of the subpoena. I think those points, (the nuances and considerations), are integral to the spirit of the "demand," but do not alter the technicality of the demand being an unqualified demand on its face.
If the basis of that reasoning is valid, then it appears to be a contention of whether AG Barr has any standing to assign the duty of getting court approval for 6(e) materials release to the requester, (the Committee), or whether the subpoena forces that responsibility onto him - in order to comply.
In short; AG Barr has taken a non-cooperative position of placing that responsibility on Nadler. Does he have the legal position to do that?
Your position seems to be that he does not, that the fact of the subpoena's request requires him to take those necessary steps to allow him to comply.
That may be the real legal question that will resolve the argument about the OP's title. (I will readily concede your point about its intent)
So as mentioned before, the validity of my original, (and current) opinion stands, but its correctness will turn on what seems a very arguable legal question.
I guess we will see. ;-)
by ga anderson 9 months ago
AG Barr defied the House Committee invitation to appear. On the most basic level, I think he should have appeared. I think his absence will be the only message heard, but ...I can understand why he took this step. Democrat Representative Steven Cohen of Tennesee illustrated the mindset and purpose...
by Marlene Bertrand 6 years ago
Have you ever received a subpoena to appear in court?If so, how did it make you feel? Were you excited? Did you feel like your time had been violated? Would your appearance help or hurt someone you knew?
by Mavhe Quijada 8 years ago
What is the difference between a "Subpoena" and a "court summon"? or are they the same?Just wondering.
by Ralph Schwartz 3 weeks ago
There have been deals floating around on "witness trades" - the Democrats want Bolton and the Republicans want Hunter Biden. The Democrats want Mulvaney and the Republicans want Eric Ciarmella. The list continues, but it's not necessary to list everyone.The bottom line is that...
by JAKE Earthshine 6 months ago
Jail this cultish 72 year old bum immediately until all legal matters are ADJUDICATED and Tribunals are completed before the eyes and ears of the American People and before it‘s TOO LATE: Flimsy DOJ Policy is just that, a policy, but the constitution and oath of office are the LAW of this land...
by Danette Watt 8 years ago
Have you ever served on a jury and if so, was it boring or interesting?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|