Posted on 05/08/2019 9:50:53 AM PDT by Kaslin
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Wednesday after President Trump invoked executive privilege to reject Chairman Jerrold Nadler's (D-NY) demands to see the full unredacted Robert Mueller report. Democrats on the committee are pursuing contempt charges against Barr for refusing their demands. At the hearing, Republican Rep. Andy Biggs (AZ) said he “can’t wait” to see the look on the judge’s face when his Democratic colleagues provide the following facts:
Attorney General William Barr offered to let us view the less redacted version of the report, but we didn’t even bother to look at it.
He permitted us to take notes and asked if we can continue to negotiate, but we rejected that too.
We didn’t hold a hearing with Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein before our contempt citation.
We wanted him to violate federal law by complying with our subpoena.
The funny thing is, Republicans point out, is that the DOJ says it has offered Congress 92 percent of the report. The rest Barr is legally forbidden to release, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) noted.
Not good enough, says Democrat Cedric Richmond. He "wishes" he could have gotten away with only telling 92 percent of stories as a kid. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) went further in asserting that Trump is undermining the Constitution.
McClintock said the American people know better. They won't soon forget that for two years, they were "force fed a monstrous lie." Mueller and his investigators didn't find collusion between Trump and Russia, so Democrats "needed to come up with a new lie quick" about obstruction.
Depends on the judge, regardless of what the Chief Justice said about judges.
:: for two years, they were “force fed a monstrous lie.” Mueller and his investigators didn’t find collusion between Trump and Russia, so Democrats “needed to come up with a new lie quick” about obstruction. ::
And that no substantive legislation was brought to vote.
The Democrats are experts on obstruction. They obstruct everyone everyday in one form or another from getting on with their lives.
Excellent post, Kaslin. Thanks.
More proof of how illogical and hate driven the Dems are.
Is there a video clip of this? BRILLIANT
We wanted him to violate federal law by complying with our subpoena.
Would seem Jabba The Nadler needs to be charged with a crime here.
He sure does, and I hope he will be.
Exactly!!! I can’t wait to see the look on this reps face when he realizes that a great many of those on the bench are no more than political hacks. They could care the less about the law or the facts of the case. They have their agenda and they will weave the law and facts to suit the desired result.
There is no case involving Trump that the left can’t forum shop a judge to make the most outrageous ruling. PERIOD.
“...Not good enough, says Democrat....”
Yes, obeying the law just does not cut it for the RATS....they are going to choke on it this time.
All of the FBI 302s of every interview they conducted over the two years of the Mueller investigation, as well as any other investigative material they uncovered, including all of the evidence seized from Cohen, Manafort, Stone, etc. during FBI raids.
The Democrats want all of the dirt Mueller found that was unrelated to the declared goal of investigating "Russian Collusion."
Once again the dhimmis overreach and will be denied!
Maybe they( Nadler) will be stupid enough to file this BS in the DC circuit. Does not really matter though the DC circuit answered the question about GJ testomony on 4/5/19 that GJ info can only disclosed to prosecutors, defendants, other GJ’s. Chef justice stated judges cannot carve out exceptions mandated by R6e rule is absolute. Note what the chief justice said. The DC circuit has control over all the other circuits including the 9th. The only group that can over rule the DC circuit is the SCOTUS. If Nadler wants this information the democrats will have to change the law
I would think at this point that this whole thing now is a witch hunt like trying to people in Salem. And Lee’s statement that Trump is undermining the Constitution is hilarious. He is using it correctly while the libs on the committee are not. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “[n]o person shall be held to
answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” How many witches do they have to burn till they think they find something?
Prior Congresses have considered legislation that would have expressly permitted a court to authorize disclosure of grand jury matters to congressional committees on a showing of substantial need. However, in response to such
proposals, the executive branch has voiced concerns that the legislation would raise due-process and separation of-powers issues and potentially undermine the proper functioning of federal grand juries. These concerns may have resulted in Congress declining to alter Rule 6(e).
As a result, to the extent Rule 6(e) constrains Congress’s ability to conduct oversight, legislation seeking to amend the rules governing grand jury secrecy in a way that would give Congress independent access to grand jury materials may raise additional legal and pragmatic issues for the legislative branch to consider.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R45456.pdf
rwood
I don't even think changing the law works. IANAL, but I would think that the constitutional protection against ex post facto laws would work here.
Make the claim that some of the GJ testimony might well have been different if the witnesses knew it could go to Congress. Not that they would have lied, but they could very well make a 5th amendment claim.
Would seem Jabba The Nadler needs to be charged with a crime here
Suborning a crime? Conspiracy? Is he a lawyer? Could they run him through a lengthy trial and strip him of his law license?
bkmk
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.