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

a reply to: DBCowboy

There is a jail there. Hasn't been used since the thirties but its there.
Probably has rats.

a reply to: gortex

This is an excellent article (imho) that gives the history and legality behind Congressional subpoena powers and the ability (or inability) to enforce Congressional contempt. There seem to be a lot more "moving parts" required to be PUNISHED for congressional contempt, than there are for contempt of court.

I AM NOT A LAWYER

..... From 1857 on, a U.S. attorney was asked to certify contempt citations and bring them before a federal judge.

Slate article 2005

a reply to: Lumenari

Yeah we're still reeling from that first IG report. LOL...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DBCowboy

There is a jail there. Hasn't been used since the thirties but its there.
Probably has rats.

Oh please!

PLEASE have the democrats put Barr in jail!

LMAO!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Its the grand jury stuff. The IG aint getting it without a court order either.

The IG has access to that by law. 😎

The OIG is Entitled to Receive Grand Jury Materials as an “Attorney
for the Government” Under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i).

(from p.9 👇)

Official Source

a reply to: shooterbrody

Until the courts tell him its overreach.
Delay delay delay..... its trumps trump card... lol . see what I did there?

a reply to: Sillyolme

lol
what court and from what challenge?
you think the dems are so dimwitted they would risk a separation of powers issue over a special council report that did not come out in their favor?
with the court stacked by trump?
whether you believe it or not, executive privilege is an established concept and has legal precedents

but by all means I hope fat jerry and the dems are stupid enough to fight this to the supreme court

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: CynConcepts

Can you tell me what ''law'' the House committee was asking the AG to break?
The power in my area is being turned off in a couple of minutes so I may not be back to read your response for several hours so if I do not get back to you with a response to your info, that is the reason.

Rule 6(e)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P., prohibits "an attorney for the government" from disclosing matters occurring before a grand jury, except as otherwise provided in the rules. Rule 1(b), Fed.R.Crim.P., defines "attorney for the government" to include as the Attorney General, an authorized assistant of the Attorney General, a United States Attorney, an authorized assistant of a United States Attorney, and certain other persons in cases arising under the laws of Guam. In United States v. Forman, 71 F.3d 1214 (6th Cir. 1995), the court of appeals held that an attorney employed in the Tax Division of the Department of Justice who had gained access to grand jury materials but had not been assigned to review the materials or to participate in the grand jury proceedings was not "an attorney for the government" because he was not an "authorized" assistant to the Attorney General with respect to the grand jury materials that he disclosed to the target of the investigation. The court of appeals, construing 28 U.S.C. § 515(a), held that an "authorized" assistant of the Attorney General is one whose superiors have assigned him or her to work in some official capacity on the criminal proceeding. Id. at 1220. Having found that Forman was not an "attorney for the government" with respect to the grand jury matter, the Sixth Circuit held that Forman was not bound by the secrecy requirement of Rule 6(e)(2), and it therefore reversed his criminal contempt conviction. United States v. Forman, 71 F.3d at 1217-1220.

DOJ Criminal Resources Link

Thus, the House was asking the AG to break the law rather than follow set legal procedure. The house committee do not fit the criteria of being ' attorneys for the government'...they are representatives.


Edit add: a reply to: Sillyolme
HeY how about that? I can respond to 2 people at once. Less carpal tunnel syndrome this way.

originally posted by: underwerks
Hiding evidence that proves your innocence.

Totally what an innocent person does.

First then I assume you find the fbi refusal to release unredacted info and the Dems support of that as proof of their guilt

Second, mueller saw all the evidence and did not recommend charging trump with a crime. So are you saying mueller is corrupt or incompetent?

a reply to: Sillyolme

so...what compels the DOJ to seek a court order? That is what i am wondering.

It seems that Nadler would be the one to do this, and if he gets it he can compel release by the DOJ. Especially considering that release of said information could constitute obstruction of justice by tipping off current investigations.

Now, for what it is worth....what you claim is possible (that the courts can release the material outside of 6e) isn't really possible. Or, rather....the opinions are split on if its legal. But the DC Circuit Court seems to think that its not legal:

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.

www.lawfareblog.com...

Nadler may think that grandstanding fools some people....but the reality is we all watched this nonsense unfold with Sessions and the demands made of him.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

Yeah we're still reeling from that first IG report. LOL...

How is that dossier looking you told us was all true?

originally posted by: grey580
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.

President Obama Grants Executive Privilege to Eric Holder Over 'Fast and Furious' Documents

It did happen. I don't remember the kind of hissy fit we see from the idiot left here, but I may be wrong. it was a while ago.

a reply to: network dude

not many were happy about that event
but the gop were not stupid enough to get the legislative branch slapped in public by the judicial branch
perhaps this batch of dems is?

a reply to: Sillyolme

What good does that do anyone?

Protects classified information.
Protects the reputations of individuals that were not indicted.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

That is why I think the Dems in the house are being illogical about this whole ordeal.

I disagree. If they see something they feel compelled to pass on to the American people, or their fellow lawmakers, now they cannot. That's exactly the opposite of their constitutional duty of oversight and checks and balances.

The Dems would have had a better leg to stand on in requesting a court order to view the whole report if those 6 Dems would have viewed it and then made the request to enact a court order release.

a reply to: MetalThunder

After the House voted to find Holder in contempt of Congress, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, Holder’s No. 2, issued a letter to the House stating: “The department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General.”

www.dailysignal.com...

Probably just be more of the same.

a reply to: MetalThunder

the bulk yes but some were released in order to use the info to compel Nixons admin to turn the tapes over.

If the name of any congressman or inteligence employee is in the unredacted version and if that congressman's or other government workers actions are being investigated, then subpoenaing is obstruction of justice. The Democrats are probably the only ones voting for this, so I would say all should be impeached. Now, since all Democrat congressmen in the house voted for it, none can actually vote on the impeachment issues that arise.

Just an idea, this seems like the Democrats want all out war, but the existing laws of the land are not on their side. If they want to vote on changing the laws, go right ahead, but the change cannot be retroactive, meaning it cannot be applied to this case.

a reply to: shooterbrody

the source was from five days ago.

a reply to: shooterbrody


Expect when they call in an outside prosecutor to question Christine Blasey Ford.
Oh how quickly we forget...