William Barr: House votes to hold US Attorney General in contempt

William Barr was greeted in this morning's White House cabinet meeting with a standing ovation.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The not turning up had nothing to do with the subpoena, it had to do with breaking judicial committee procedures.

What procedures?

Hiding evidence that proves your innocence.

Totally what an innocent person does.

a reply to: shooterbrody

You know what they say about opinions right?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari

I realize that there are laws that protect the identity of jurors, but I'm not aware of any law that forbids grand jury testimony or the witnesses being revealed to Congress, unless it would adversely effect an ongoing case.

In this case, the committee has the documents available to see.
With Fast and Furious, they didn't get to see them until Attorney General Jeff Sessions turned them over to Congress.

I miss the good ol' days when legislators made laws and juries voted on whether or not someone broke the law.

a reply to: shooterbrody

No its not illegal. They had to get grand jury testimony released before they requested Nixons famous tapes. Its illegal to just release GJ testimony but it is not illegal to ask that it be released by a court. And its precedent.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Nadler asked Barr to seek the order. He asked the DOJ to seek the order.

a reply to: Nickn3

mid terms

a reply to: underwerks

Ignoring all the facts around the topic is what stupid people do.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Court orders Nixon's grand jury testimony unsealed

Released 40 YEARS later LoL and they couldn't even get it all then ...... sssssshhhhhh

Lamberth limited his order to the release of Nixon's testimony and related records. In a separate order filed on the same day, Lamberth rejected a broader request to release all Watergate grand jury-related records, as well as other related congressional and trial materials. Lamberth ruled that the broad request for grand jury records did not meet the special exception to grand jury secrecy and that a decision to release congressional records should be left to Congress. The request to unseal trial materials lacked sufficient information to allow the court to weigh the competing interests in such a request, Lamberth said.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

No its not illegal. They had to get grand jury testimony released before they requested Nixons famous tapes. Its illegal to just release GJ testimony but it is not illegal to ask that it be released by a court. And its precedent.

so then show me the source prior to today where nadler asked barr or anyone else in the doj to get a court order to release the grand jury info.....
I will wait....

spoiler alert:
he did not

so yes it is illegal

a reply to: butcherguy

Can you imagine the sort of insanity if it was Obama that claimed executive privilege.

Republicans would be hopping around madder than a apoplectic Rumplestiltskin with a bad case of St. Vitus dance and Alex Jones style tourettes.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

www.cbsnews.com...

this article lists the requests made to the DOJ by Nadler.
the second one is this.

Help from the Justice Department in seeking "court order permitting disclosure" of grand jury materials. Nadler says that in the past, courts have agreed to provide 6(e) documents in the past. The Justice Department has previously denied this request.

You're Welcome

a reply to: shooterbrody

Why do you falsely accuse me?
see above...

He asked them to go to the court. Its not a lie.

Yes I forgive you.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

The not turning up had nothing to do with the subpoena, it had to do with breaking judicial committee procedures.

What procedures?

continue to pretend nobody else is paying attention
from cnn
www.cnn.com...

A Republican Judiciary Committee spokesperson criticized Nadler for fighting with Barr over the format, arguing the attorney general voluntarily agreed to testify and there's no precedent for having staff interview witnesses at an oversight hearing that's not part of an impeachment proceeding.

oh and in the same story....

The committee has set a deadline of Wednesday for the Justice Department to comply with the subpoena to turn over the full unredacted report.

nothing about asking for a "court order" toots
more exposure of your easily verified lies

a reply to: shooterbrody

He needs a time machine.
The testimony is already out there. I have a copy in my computer.
I can just wait for the other cases to be settled to know who's name is behind the black bars.

a reply to: Sillyolme

saying courts have agreed is not a request for barr to ask the court

what a piece of work
lies lies lies

a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah.... go read a book... in that room with no windows... oh and leave the lights off.

Thats about what permission they were granted.

Yeah you can see it but you can t take notes or talk about what you saw.
What good does that do anyone?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

He needs a time machine.
The testimony is already out there. I have a copy in my computer.
I can just wait for the other cases to be settled to know who's name is behind the black bars.

they will get what has been released
they will get no more
they have sacrificed muellers testimony

perhaps that was the plan all along
mueller cant perjur himself this way