Democrats Accuse AG Barr of Doing Exactly What Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch Did for Obama
AG Barr doesn't suffer fools or their....
Posted on 05/08/2019 9:16:19 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Read the letter that was sent from the White House counsel to Congress over this matter. That's exactly what the letter says.
Yes, but executive privilege did not need to be invoked to refuse any further release. This just looks like the coverup the Dems have been claiming all along.
It'll wind up there eventually but a lower court judge can rule on executive privilege question in this matter. That's how it will wind up at the Supreme Court.
They want executive privilege to be a cornerstone of the scotus case when it gets there
The case would never even get to SCOTUS.
Can you see any court ordering the Atty Gen to break the law that Congress itself had passed?
“...It should have just been blasted out that what the House Dems were demanding IS illegal....”
The RATS are the epitome of “illegal”...if it suits their end, breaking the law is OK. So many examples of this. I think the bottom line is that no matter what Trump/Barr do, the RATS will be running around in their maze of unreality lying and screaming about something. They are, and have, nothing else. Anti-American empty useless suits.
Of course they will. Judges are politicians. They will use gobbledygook interpretations of “AG discretion.”
The problem is that they don’t want to look at it in a controlled environment or even see the less redacted copy. They want a physical un-redacted copy. That way they can leak it. Once the redacted names and grand jury information are out of the bottle there is no putting them back in. Their lunatic supporters will go after the names in the report. They are completely lawless.
There are lawyers much smarter than me involved in this process, and I can almost guarantee that it was NECESSARY to invoke executive privilege in this case.
When a governing body with the authority to issue a subpoena does so, the recipient is obligated to either answer the subpoena or assert a legal reason -- usually a privilege enshrined in the law -- not to do so. A typical response in a legal proceeding would have been to assert that the requested information was covered under lawyer-client privilege (for example).
So the DOJ could have:
1. Provided the information to Congress.
2. Ignored the subpoena.
3. Refused to provide the information, while giving a reason that had no basis in law.
4. Asserted a legal privilege in refusing to turn over the information.
I'm not sure exactly what your point is here. Option 1 was off the table because it would be illegal. So which of the three remaining options would NOT have "looked like the coverup the Dems have been claiming all along?"
What the hell do you, or anyone, think is being covered up? It’s about as covered up as a Playboy Bunny wearing socks.
Barr offered for them to review and take notes and they refused that offer.
Dems are claiming Barr obstructing because he won’t go to a Judge and get the un-redacted report released.
Just heard on FoxNews that when Barr walked into cabinet meeting this am he got a standing ovation.
Barr offered Nadler and his team to review 198 pages of the 400 plus report in SKIFF and be able to take notes. They refused.
I don’t think anything is being covered up, but that hasn’t stopped the Dems from screaming coverup from the outset. pay attn
From one point of view, I agree. But from another, I can see the reason.
There's no point in having a contempt hearing over whether or not Barr is releasing documents once the President has declared them shielded under Executive Privilege. No matter the merit of the assertion, it's got to go through the President and the Courts just to break the Executive Privilege. The beef is now with the President, not Barr.
I see it as the President supporting a key employee and member of the Executive Branch.
Your reason #3 is applicable in this case: that the law prohibits any further release.
That is so glaringly true that even the diehard Leftist press could not refute it.
Democrats Accuse AG Barr of Doing Exactly What Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch Did for Obama
AG Barr doesn't suffer fools or their....
....”I see it as the President supporting a key employee and member of the Executive Branch”....
Nadler wants Barr ‘to break the law’ by releasing Grand Jury information which has to (by law) be redacted. Trumps protecting the cases and people of ongoing investigations and protecting those laws.
Nadlers A fraud and a total embarrassment to our Great Republic.
I wholeheartedly disagree. The damage of a trumpeted contempt citation against AG Barr would be a higher price to pay than defending the privilege claim. The mediots are going to push the dem party line anyway, so...
It should have just been blasted out that what the House Dems were demanding IS illegal.
The "blast" would be deflected by the mediots' rantings, IMO. Now, should the dems decide to pursue a lawsuit against the privilege claim, they will have to answer for their demands that AG Barr violate law in a court. It's very black and white - I do not see how they can justify it legally. Even the Watergate grand jury information was only released under court order - and the dems have failed to pursue such a court order.
Also, consider that tweet storms from President Trump are only so useful in getting his enemies to back down. Under the privilege claim, they will have to fight a protracted battle in the courts to invalidate their own laws, which serves the dems' interests much less than getting AG Barr to violate the law.
President Trump does not play the Washington DC game. He protects his people, when they do their job. AG Barr is doing his job very well at the moment, IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.