Democrats' effort to put William Barr before federal judge crumbling

1) It first requires the Court to order the release
2) How does the House's purpose fall into any of the listed exceptions? They to file a motion before teh Court and make their case...

 

It does?

 

He hasn't refused to turn over documents or testify under summons. Refusing to an invite isn't refusing a summons (subpena). The law also doesn't supercede other laws dealing with classified or privledged material.

 

Yes....the line "
(E) The COURT may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter:
(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;

(ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;

(iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation;

(iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or

(v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6

So has anyone from the House filed a Motion with the Federal Court? Can they make their case under the execeptions? If they haven't filed a motion, then we know this is merely political games.

 

I'm not sure what you cut and pasted but that's not the 6(E) section that is at play

 

No, we do not know that Barr can not be trusted. That might be YOUR reality (that I suspect is formulated on partisan beliefs), but it is not the true reality. Barr is the AG and redacting material from a report made by his Special Counsel (a report Barr was not even required to provide to Congress) is Barr's responsibility....whether YOU trust him or not. Also, Barr was not the sole decider as to what material was to be redacted.

From a legal perspective, Barr CAN NOT release the GJ material in an unsecured manner.....period. To say that Rule 6e "can be interpreted to contradict that" is a false premise. It does not contradict that in any way shape or form. The funny thing about law is that it is most often interpreted very literally. If Rule 6(e) felt that members of Congress fall into the list of exceptions, then they would have been specifically listed as such.

Whereas 3 USC 192 might not provide exceptions, no law is enforceable if it requires a person to break other laws while attempting to conform. Rule 6(e) DOES NOT leave it up to Barr based on your argument. None of the exceptions to Rule 6(e) apply to this situation.

 

How does coercing Barr to violate the law curb Trump's abuses of power?

How does illegitimately obtaining Trump's tax returns curb his abuses of power?

Additionally: just because there are a bunch of Democrat politicians and operatives on the talking-head shows screaming "constitutional crisis, it doesn't make it true.

 

That's not true. The const gives congress original juris to investigate matters of impeachment. I know this is a RW talking pt you're making but it's simply bullshit.
Congress was not legislateing when investigating fast and furious or Benghazi.

this is merely the gop trying to cover up embarrassing evidence, as was when Holder was held in contempt, but that was the dems.

 

You don't think being charged for refusing to break the law is a big deal?

 

Impeachment and "investigating a crime" are 2 different discussions. I know this is a concept that seem to be completely incomprehensible to the LW. While I have constantly stated the truth that Congress can only investigate for Legislative reasons, it is very easy to attach "Legislative reasons" to a Congressional investigation. This is why I feel that Congress has every right to also "investigate" the Mueller report....though i will argue that they have no right to require Barr to break laws and demand the release of unredacted copies of that report. The Congressional investigation into Fast & Furious and Benghazi were over suspected violations of existing laws. Had Congress determined that someone broke the law, then they could only recommend charges....they could not file them.

 

As a matter of fact and history, you are simply wrong. No alternative facts.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight
Oversight occurs through a wide variety of congressional activities and avenues. Some of the most publicized are the comparatively rare investigations by select committees into major scandals or into executive branch operations gone awry.

Cases in point are temporary select committee inquiries into: China’s acquisition of U.S. nuclear weapons information, in 1999; the Iran-Contra affair, in 1987; intelligence agency abuses, in 1975–1976, and the Watergate scandal in 1973–1974. The precedent for this kind of oversight goes back two centuries: in 1792, a special House committee investigated the defeat of an Army force by confederated Indian tribes.

By comparison to these select panel investigations, other congressional inquiries in recent Congresses—into the Whitewater controversy, access to Federal Bureau of Investigation files, White House Travel Office firings, and campaign financing—have relied upon standing committees.

The impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton in 1998 in the House and in 1999 in the Senate also generated considerable oversight. The oversight not only encompassed the President and the White House staff, but also extended to the office of independent counsel, specifically its authority, jurisdiction, and expenditures. Although such highly visible endeavors are significant, they usually reflect only a small portion of Congress’s total oversight effort. More routine and regular review, monitoring, and supervision occur in other congressional activities and contexts. Especially important are appropriations hearings on agency budgets as well as authorization hearings for existing programs. Separately, examinations of executive operations and the implementation of programs—by congressional staff, support agencies, and specially created commissions and task forces—provide additional oversight.

Another avenue of oversight is a resolution of inquiry, which is a simple resolution making a direct request or demand of the President or the head of an executive department to furnish the House of Representatives with specific factual information in the Administration’s possession.[10]

 

You think that law overrides the special counsel law (that Congress passed after the Clinton impeachment), and the laws specifically covering grand jury information?

Do you know how the law works?

 

Newsome's boyfriend won't let him run....

 

I think they are saving him for 2024.

They are going to blame the AOC crowd and identity politics for the 2020 loss and try to bring Democrats back to the middle

 

do you think the spec counsel law supercedes that law? or to state it more clearly, do you believe congress may only subpoena documents with a special prosecutor appointed?

Benghazi anyone?

https://republicans-oversight.house...partment-witnesses-in-benghazi-investigation/

 

Of course it does.

Congress can only subpoena documents that's legal for them to subpoena.

Congress can't subpoena classified information to be viewed by people without security clearances, nor can they subpoena grand jury information without a court order.

 

They can subponena whatever they want, but they'll only get things that are not privledged, or classified, with out those things overided by Court Order, or waived. The law doesn't supercede the other laws mentioned, the laws however work together.

 

That isn't supportable. But finding out what Mueller discoved seems important to oversight.

This is another one where the law is black and white. They must provide those returns, unless you don't believe in the rule of law. But, we have a president who is addicted to loosing money. In fact he may be the biggest looser on the planet, but we know he is the biggest looser in the country. Also, all of that money was either inherited or borrowed. Except for one or two lucky shots, and market manipulation(which was lost) he never earned anything, everythign he lost was either given to him or borrowed. That means that more than any other president in memory, it is important to know who he owes. Who is this looser beholden to? Is it russians? Is it the saudis? Is it all of the above? With secret phone calls and inexplicable policy, we need to know. This is what our system was designed to avoid. This is what is important.

And yet, just because talking-heads etc scream 'deep state' or 'no collusion' or 'overreach' does that make it true?

 

Just to be sure, do you want a dictator? Some trumpers do want one. I thought I should ask.

 

This is idiotic.

What does Congress need to know?

They've got their Mueller report.

It's over.

Why do you support their insanity?

 

WUT??!?

 

That's not a "no"

 

Did you watch any of the contempt vote hearing.
The subpoena is fundamentally flawed because it requests for Barr to violate the orders of two judges.

The Republicans were literally raking Nadler for trying to amend the subpoena after it went out.

So the answer is no... I am not fine with Nadler's incompetence and potential desire to violation two court orders.