- Joined
- May 25, 2008
- Messages
- 18,464
- Reaction score
- 0
Barr and Mueller's Two Testie-fy (SCO v. 34)
- Thread starter Quipling
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 24,977
- Reaction score
- 1,193
LMAO!
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 8,879
- Reaction score
- 0
1. Stop dodging and just quote and cite where it clarifies that Barr, in his role working for the DOJ, could have gone against the OLC guidelines about indicting a sitting POTUS.
2. You still seem to be suffering from the "public confusion about critical aspects of our investigation" that Barr created.
Again, Barr spun it that because of the special counsel not "reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the attorney general to determine whether the conduct in the report constitutes a crime", which is why people thought Mueller had punted, until they saw the actual report.
It was clear in the report that Mueller was following OLC guidelines that he couldn't indict a sitting president, and that coming to conclusion on obstruction wouldn't allow Trump the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law, but that the report "also does not exonerate him". He then said that "the conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law". He obviously wanted congress to make the call.
And that is why Mueller wrote that March 27th letter (after talking with the department in person on the day Barr released his memo on March 24th, and sending a letter on March 25th, per what was said in the March 27th letter) saying that Barr's memo had created "public confusion about critical aspects of our investigation". In the March 25th letter he "enclosed the introduction and executive summaries for each volume of the special counsels report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Procedure... accordingly the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and department policies." And that he then sent him that second letter on March 27 "requesting that you provide these materials to congress and authorize the public release at this time".
And Barr didn't do that. And then on April 9th he lied to Rep. Crist about it:
Rep Charlie Crist: "Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the Special Counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, Do you know what they are referencing with that?"
Barr: "no I don't."
Click the damn links you lazy bum.
- Joined
- May 25, 2008
- Messages
- 18,464
- Reaction score
- 0
You were gonna quote and cite where it clarifies that Barr, in his role working for the DOJ, could have gone against the OLC guidelines about indicting a sitting POTUS if he thought the evidence was sufficient.
- Joined
- May 25, 2008
- Messages
- 18,464
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 8,879
- Reaction score
- 0
That’s correct, but I don’t think Dems care. They just want to be able to say Barr was held in contempt. I don’t think it will work out well for them. Barr is in a position to ruin their day.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 8,879
- Reaction score
- 0
my clicker is broken, could you help me out, since you know where to find it?
This is rape
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2019
- Messages
- 22,680
- Reaction score
- 25,909
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 8,879
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually, I was commenting on how Mueller provides reports to Barr, not Congress.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 15,458
- Reaction score
- 768
Imprisoning AG Barr becomes new rallying cry as Dems reel from Mueller report's release
The battle between congressional Democrats and the Justice Department over Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report has reached new levels of vitriol, as some on the left call for Attorney General Bill Barr to be physically dragged in to testify or even locked up for defying congressional subpoenas.
The demands have escalated after the attorney general refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee last week amid disagreements over the format of the hearing.
Though he testified a day earlier on the Senate side, Democrats on the committee still want to bring in the DOJ leader to answer questions on the conclusion of Mueller's investigation. Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., also imposed a Monday morning deadline for Barr to turn over the full, unredacted Mueller report and additional files -- a deadline the DOJ apparently missed, prompting Nadler to schedule a Wednesday vote on contempt proceedings against Barr.
Committee member Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., over the weekend urged the panel to specifically pursue “inherent contempt,” calling for Barr to be arrested by the Sergeant at Arms and be physically brought before the committee to testify—a tactic reportedly not employed since the 1930s.
“I think they will stonewall at all costs,” Cohen told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, adding that the situation “leaves us no other alternative than to have our Sergeant at Arms bring him in. He is being utterly contemptuous of Congress. He lied to the Congress.”
Inherent contempt, which allows a person to be held until they provide testimony, is one of three contempt options available, along with criminal contempt (under which an individual is charged with a crime) and civil judgment (leading to a civil court process)
Cohen added: “You have to have him sit for a hearing and you have to have him locked up until he agrees to participate and come to the hearing.”
Cohen said that he did not know what the committee would do but argued that without pursuing that avenue, a congressional contempt citation would be “meaningless.”
The DOJ has not publicly responded to Cohen's warning, though a spokeswoman fired back last week when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Barr of committing a crime by allegedly lying in prior testimony. The DOJ called the attack "reckless, irresponsible and false."
Still, the scenario Cohen suggested has thus far not been entertained by higher-ranking Democrats. Cohen -- who drew mockery last week for bringing a KFC bucket to the no-show hearing, eating fried chicken in full view of press cameras and placing a toy chicken by Barr's empty seat in order to suggest Barr is, himself, like a chicken -- even suggested the contempt scenarios might not produce much action.
“It shows we want to hold him in contempt, but that fact is, he won’t be held in contempt because the Justice Department is not going to enforce a contempt citation against their boss,” Cohen explained. “It’s just not going to happen. Trump and Barr would fire whoever tried to do it.”
But Cohen isn’t the only one on the left calling for such a drastic measure.
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich penned an op-ed last week titled "Congress should be ready to arrest Bill Barr if he defies subpoena."
“[T]he House can order its own sergeant-at-arms to arrest the offender, subject him to a trial before the full House, and, if judged to be in contempt, jail that person until he appears before the House and brings whatever documentation the House has subpoenaed,” Reich wrote in the op-ed for Salon. “Congress hasn’t actually carried through on the threat since 1935 — but it could. Would America really be subject to the wild spectacle of the sergeant-at-arms of the House arresting an Attorney General and possibly placing him in jail?”
“Probably not,” he wrote. “Before that ever occurred, the Trump administration would take the matter to the Supreme Court on an expedited basis.”
Reich also said that Trump’s alleged “contempt for the inherent power of Congress” is “the most dictatorial move he has initiated since becoming president.”
Another column in The Week, titled "William Barr is in contempt. Congress should send him to jail," discussed a similar scenario.
“And there's a simple solution for the House to enact if Barr really doesn't show up: Formally hold him in contempt of Congress, then send him to jail,” Joel Mathis wrote. “That's a radical suggestion, but this is a radical moment.”
Meanwhile, most prominent Democrats have argued instead that Barr should resign amid the controversy.
“He lied to Congress. And if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime,” Pelosi told reporters. “Nobody is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not the attorney general.”
Pelosi’s public comments came after she, according to Politico, told Rep. Charlie Crist, D-Fla., during a private caucus meeting Thursday: “We saw [Barr] commit a crime when he answered your question.”
She was referring to an April 9 hearing, where Crist had asked whether Barr knew what prompted reports that prosecutors on the special counsel team were frustrated with his initial summary. Barr said he did not.
But last week, The Washington Post first reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller contacted Barr, both in a letter and in a phone call, to express concerns after Barr released his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings in March. Mueller pushed Barr to release the executive summaries written by the special counsel’s office.
However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel that Barr’s summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had “misinterpreted” the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.
Pelosi, last week, was asked if Barr should go to jail for the alleged crime.
“There is a process involved here and as I said, I’ll say it again, the committee will have to come to how we will proceed,” Pelosi said.
>>> Good luck with enforcing "inherent contempt" from your Legislative Benches, morons.
The battle between congressional Democrats and the Justice Department over Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report has reached new levels of vitriol, as some on the left call for Attorney General Bill Barr to be physically dragged in to testify or even locked up for defying congressional subpoenas.
The demands have escalated after the attorney general refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee last week amid disagreements over the format of the hearing.
Though he testified a day earlier on the Senate side, Democrats on the committee still want to bring in the DOJ leader to answer questions on the conclusion of Mueller's investigation. Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., also imposed a Monday morning deadline for Barr to turn over the full, unredacted Mueller report and additional files -- a deadline the DOJ apparently missed, prompting Nadler to schedule a Wednesday vote on contempt proceedings against Barr.
Committee member Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., over the weekend urged the panel to specifically pursue “inherent contempt,” calling for Barr to be arrested by the Sergeant at Arms and be physically brought before the committee to testify—a tactic reportedly not employed since the 1930s.
“I think they will stonewall at all costs,” Cohen told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, adding that the situation “leaves us no other alternative than to have our Sergeant at Arms bring him in. He is being utterly contemptuous of Congress. He lied to the Congress.”
Inherent contempt, which allows a person to be held until they provide testimony, is one of three contempt options available, along with criminal contempt (under which an individual is charged with a crime) and civil judgment (leading to a civil court process)
Cohen added: “You have to have him sit for a hearing and you have to have him locked up until he agrees to participate and come to the hearing.”
Cohen said that he did not know what the committee would do but argued that without pursuing that avenue, a congressional contempt citation would be “meaningless.”
The DOJ has not publicly responded to Cohen's warning, though a spokeswoman fired back last week when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Barr of committing a crime by allegedly lying in prior testimony. The DOJ called the attack "reckless, irresponsible and false."
Still, the scenario Cohen suggested has thus far not been entertained by higher-ranking Democrats. Cohen -- who drew mockery last week for bringing a KFC bucket to the no-show hearing, eating fried chicken in full view of press cameras and placing a toy chicken by Barr's empty seat in order to suggest Barr is, himself, like a chicken -- even suggested the contempt scenarios might not produce much action.
“It shows we want to hold him in contempt, but that fact is, he won’t be held in contempt because the Justice Department is not going to enforce a contempt citation against their boss,” Cohen explained. “It’s just not going to happen. Trump and Barr would fire whoever tried to do it.”
But Cohen isn’t the only one on the left calling for such a drastic measure.
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich penned an op-ed last week titled "Congress should be ready to arrest Bill Barr if he defies subpoena."
“[T]he House can order its own sergeant-at-arms to arrest the offender, subject him to a trial before the full House, and, if judged to be in contempt, jail that person until he appears before the House and brings whatever documentation the House has subpoenaed,” Reich wrote in the op-ed for Salon. “Congress hasn’t actually carried through on the threat since 1935 — but it could. Would America really be subject to the wild spectacle of the sergeant-at-arms of the House arresting an Attorney General and possibly placing him in jail?”
“Probably not,” he wrote. “Before that ever occurred, the Trump administration would take the matter to the Supreme Court on an expedited basis.”
Reich also said that Trump’s alleged “contempt for the inherent power of Congress” is “the most dictatorial move he has initiated since becoming president.”
Another column in The Week, titled "William Barr is in contempt. Congress should send him to jail," discussed a similar scenario.
“And there's a simple solution for the House to enact if Barr really doesn't show up: Formally hold him in contempt of Congress, then send him to jail,” Joel Mathis wrote. “That's a radical suggestion, but this is a radical moment.”
Meanwhile, most prominent Democrats have argued instead that Barr should resign amid the controversy.
“He lied to Congress. And if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime,” Pelosi told reporters. “Nobody is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not the attorney general.”
Pelosi’s public comments came after she, according to Politico, told Rep. Charlie Crist, D-Fla., during a private caucus meeting Thursday: “We saw [Barr] commit a crime when he answered your question.”
She was referring to an April 9 hearing, where Crist had asked whether Barr knew what prompted reports that prosecutors on the special counsel team were frustrated with his initial summary. Barr said he did not.
But last week, The Washington Post first reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller contacted Barr, both in a letter and in a phone call, to express concerns after Barr released his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings in March. Mueller pushed Barr to release the executive summaries written by the special counsel’s office.
However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel that Barr’s summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had “misinterpreted” the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.
Pelosi, last week, was asked if Barr should go to jail for the alleged crime.
“There is a process involved here and as I said, I’ll say it again, the committee will have to come to how we will proceed,” Pelosi said.
>>> Good luck with enforcing "inherent contempt" from your Legislative Benches, morons.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 15,458
- Reaction score
- 768
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 8,879
- Reaction score
- 0
The one prosecutor who matters said no. All those “former” prosecutors can go back to their cubicles at SPLC and STFU.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 25,462
- Reaction score
- 13,351
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 15,458
- Reaction score
- 768
Pretty much.
Remember how Dems were all like "If you criticize Mueller, you are criticizing our Nation's Law" or some bullshit like that?
My how times have changed....
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 8,879
- Reaction score
- 0
Pretty much.
Remember how Dems were all like "If you criticize Mueller, you are criticizing our Nation's Law" or some bullshit like that?
My how times have changed....
They were worried Trump wouldn’t accept the results of the election
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 15,458
- Reaction score
- 768
Because it's what he does : Post over-the-top tweets when the mood strikes him.
He probably thinks Mueller may take that opportunity in front of Congress to try to continue the Muh Russia Collusion / Obstruction to give something for the Dems to sink their teeth(or dentures) into.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 39,109
- Reaction score
- 9,765
It's amazing how we've all had access to searchable version fo the Mueller report for weeks, and so many of us are still acting as if there's nothing wrong with Trump at all, and everyone else is just against him, EVERYONE. This is pure abject credulity.
- Joined
- May 25, 2008
- Messages
- 18,464
- Reaction score
- 0
You said: Mueller "will go on record saying he accepts Barr’s determination that no crime was committed, because that is what DOJ regulations require him to do" and "Regs require him to submit his report to the AG (not Congress) who then either accepts or rejects its recommendations."
And then you sent me on a wild goose chase to try to find what you say exists in the links you cited. So again, prove me wrong, quote and cite the links that supports your position, or drop it and you can get back to your usual "Mueller and his team are all criminals" territory.
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Messages
- 27,869
- Reaction score
- 23,051
370 registered Democrats is more like it.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
PBP UFC 302 Makhachev vs. Poirier Main Card PBP Discussion: Sat. 6 / 1 at 10pm ET- Latest: MichiganMMA1978
-
News César Almeida vs Roman Kopylov is set for UFC 302 on June 1st
- Latest: checktheknuckles
-
-