• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

US Democrats set contempt vote for Barr over Mueller report

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,578
5,538
860
US Democrats set contempt vote for Barr over Mueller report

United States House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler on Monday scheduled a Wednesday vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after Barr failed to comply with a deadline to provide Special Counsel Robert Mueller's full report on his Russia probe.

In an escalation of the battle between the Democrat-led House and President Donald Trump's administration, Nadler proposed to hold Barr in contempt after the Justice Department declined to provide the unredacted report. The committee had given Barr until 9am (13:00GMT) on Monday to comply.

"The attorney general's failure to comply with our subpoena after extensive accommodation efforts, leaves us no choice but to initiate contempt proceedings in order to enforce the subpoena and access the full, unredacted report," Nadler said in a statement on Monday.

"Even in redacted form, the special counsel's report offers disturbing evidence and analysis that President Trump engaged in obstruction of justice at the highest levels," he added. "Congress must see the full report and underlying evidence to determine how best to move forward with oversight, legislation and other constitutional responsibilities."

The vote on Wednesday will be on a resolution that says: "William P Barr, the Attorney General of the United States, shall be found to be in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena."

Barr's failure to comply "has hindered the Committee's constitutional, oversight and legislative functions", it adds.

Proceedings could be postponed if the attorney general makes a good faith effort to comply with the committee, but that appears unlikely.

If the panel adopts the resolution, it would then go to the full House for a vote, according to a congressional aide.
Democrats have gone full retard and have no respect for the law anymore. You can't release it un redacted due to other cases and the need to protect innocent 3rd parties.

Democrats are just throwing anything at the wall at this point because Mueller didn't give them collusion. This is insanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,940
2,415
670
Canada
They can't compel someone to break the law. Releasing the entire unredacted report would be doing just that. What is even funnier is that there is nothing in the Obstruction part of the report that can't currently be seen by anyone on this committee who wants to see it. 99.99% of the grand jury redactions are in part 1. This is just political theater and anyone falling for this shit is a fucking idiot.
 
Oct 2, 2017
146
156
240
This is good. The public is getting sick of the antics. Focus on improving our country somehow, you lost.
 

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
4,543
1,943
535
USA
This is unhinged.

They are trying to manufacture showdowns and crises, similar to how the Mueller investigation itself generated more crimes than it uncovered.
 

Ixiah

Member
Feb 16, 2018
269
246
250
"Wahh wahh you didnt deliver the Unicorn we wanted, now we are gonna be angry with you!"
Im getting more and more convinced these morons are bought by Trump to get him reelected, no one can be this fucking stupid and not wear Pants on their Head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KINGMOKU

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,028
1,678
1,490
"Wahh wahh you didnt deliver the Unicorn we wanted, now we are gonna be angry with you!"
Im getting more and more convinced these morons are bought by Trump to get him reelected, no one can be this fucking stupid and not wear Pants on their Head.
I cant believe it, but you saying that Trump is paying them to be this dumb makes more sense then anyone actually being this dumb.

Does anyone on NeoGAF, Republican, Democrat, fringe left, fringe right, think this makes sense in any damn universe?

I honestly want to hear from you because as smart as I think I am, i HAVE to be missing something here.

How do you hold someone in contempt for not releasing what they legally cannot. WTF is going on? Suppression? You have the report as unredacted as legally possible, and you have the letter from Mueller. Barr didnt have to release anything!

I'm actually shocked at this display...of...I'm not sure what to call this?
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,578
5,538
860
How is this not obstruction?

If Dems think wanting to fire Mueller is obstruction, how is wanting to fire/force to resign/hold into contempt the AG obstruction?
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,647
4,525
375
The democrats have completely lost me here. I don't even understand what their goal is anymore.

Is it just to keep this russian hoax story on CNN?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pramod

pramod

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
1,939
1,833
600
The democrats have completely lost me here. I don't even understand what their goal is anymore.

Is it just to keep this russian hoax story on CNN?
It's a dog and pony show. They know impeaching Trump is suicide. So they are throwing their base a bone by impeaching Barr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and cryptoadam

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
77
76
190
They can't compel someone to break the law. Releasing the entire unredacted report would be doing just that. What is even funnier is that there is nothing in the Obstruction part of the report that can't currently be seen by anyone on this committee who wants to see it. 99.99% of the grand jury redactions are in part 1. This is just political theater and anyone falling for this shit is a fucking idiot.
Per my understanding, anything read on the floor of Congress basically becomes public record and nothing said during a session can lead to criminal proceedings/procesution. My understanding could be flawed or incomplete.

How would he be breaking the law?
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
4,355
4,226
1,265
You little bitches have no right to the unredacted report. Shut the fuck up and learn your places. You will NOT be allowed to leak the report like you all leaked everything else you get ahold of. The innocents' right to privacy is worth more than any congressional inquiry ever.

Goddamn, I hate these clowns.
 
Last edited:

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
77
76
190
You little bitches have no right to the unredacted report. Shut the fuck up and learn your places. You will NOT be allowed to leak the report like you all leaked everything else you get ahold of. The innocents' right to privacy is worth more than any congressional inquiry ever.

Goddamn, I hate these clowns.
Ok.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
4,355
4,226
1,265
Just because they subpeona it does not give them a right to it, because the unredacted report is protected by law. That is why the redactions were authorized back in the Clinton administration - otherwise, the opposition party can use the findings to smear innocent people who were investigated. By law, REDACTIONS MEAN INNOCENCE.

Barr does not have to comply. It would be as asinine as subpeoning Trump for the nuclear football codes, then trying to impeach him for not turning them over. They have no right to them.
 
Last edited:

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
77
76
190
Just because they subpeona it does not give them a right to it, because the unredacted report is protected by law. That is why the redactions were authorized back in the Clinton administration - otherwise, the opposition party can use the findings to smear innocent people who were investigated. By law, REDACTIONS MEAN INNOCENCE.

Barr does not have to comply. It would be as asinine as subpeoning Trump for the nuclear football codes, then trying to impeach him for not turning them over. They have no right to them.
So what is the purpose of congressional oversight, of the legislature serving as a check and balance to the executive branch, if an internal investigation (by said branch into said branch) can simply redact portions it deems necessary? In particular when the AG is appointed by POTUS and, in this case, was an outspoken critic of Mueller prior to his ascension? The investigation is targeting his boss who also happens to be the head of the executive branch.

From how I'm looking at it there's no check going on here. Barr said that he would allow select members of Congress (12) to look at the report (those with the appropriate clearance) but only if they left any notes they took with him and refused to discuss findings with their colleagues. I understand the importance of need to know and sensitivity of information, but in this case we're talking about an investigation into POTUS and the legislative branch is asking to see it.

Sure, Congress is a circus and alot of this is fueled by political theatrics. But my concern here is that going forward future presidents can insulate themselves similarly. Just cycle through AGs and FBI directors until you land on those who will play ball.

Really, the Executive branch is saying 'this is sensitive and need to know, we can't show you all of it because it will jeopardize national security. Trust us.' and that statement carries weight. But fundamentally, we are being asked to 'trust them' when it comes to an internal investigation aimed at the leader of the branch performing it. They're also asking Congress to simply 'trusts them' too.


Whether or not this becomes controversial for people, I think, depends on if you think we should actually take them at their word.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Silas Lang

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,940
2,415
670
Canada
Per my understanding, anything read on the floor of Congress basically becomes public record and nothing said during a session can lead to criminal proceedings/procesution. My understanding could be flawed or incomplete.

How would he be breaking the law?
They aren't asking him to read 400 pages and 1.4 million pages of documents on the floor of congress. They are asking for a fully unredacted report that contains grand jury information and the underlying documents. Releasing active grand jury information that might compromise the cases currently in progress is against the law. The mueller report conclusions would have taken this redacted information into account. They are just details that are sensitive.


So what is the purpose of congressional oversight, of the legislature serving as a check and balance to the executive branch, if an internal investigation (by said branch into said branch) can simply redact portions it deems necessary? In particular when the AG is appointed by POTUS and, in this case, was an outspoken critic of Mueller prior to his ascension? The investigation is targeting his boss who also happens to be the head of the executive branch.

From how I'm looking at it there's no check going on here. Barr said that he would allow select members of Congress (12) to look at the report (those with the appropriate clearance) but only if they left any notes they took with him and refused to discuss findings with their colleagues. I understand the importance of need to know and sensitivity of information, but in this case we're talking about an investigation into POTUS and the legislative branch is asking to see it.

Sure, Congress is a circus and alot of this is fueled by political theatrics. But my concern here is that going forward future presidents can insulate themselves similarly. Just cycle through AGs and FBI directors until you land on those who will play ball.
The redactions were under the supervision of the special council (mueller). Not just some guy appointed by POTUS. He was not an outspoken critic of Mueller. They are actually acquaintances. Barr released the report for everyone to see, it has minimal redactions, they can look at a less redacted version but as of now not one single democrat has read this. You can do congressional oversight with what is available to them in the report that they just spent years preparing. This is just some way to bloody up Barr because he is investigating the origins of the whole thing. It isn't looking good for democrats and they need to attack his credibility.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
4,355
4,226
1,265
So what is the purpose of congressional oversight, of the legislature serving as a check and balance to the executive branch, if an internal investigation (by said branch into said branch) can simply redact portions it deems necessary? In particular when the AG is appointed by POTUS and, in this case, was an outspoken critic of Mueller prior to his ascension? The investigation is targeting his boss who also happens to be the head of the executive branch.
"Congressional oversight" is not some magical ability - it is constrained by laws. In this case, congress themselves (and a lot of the same people who are still in congress) set this redactions as a result of the Clinton impeachment proceedings.

Mueller collaborated and authorized the redactions, along with his team and Barr. You lot keep saying that Mueller and his Democrat band were unbiased and above reproach, so prove that the redactions are not.

From how I'm looking at it there's no check going on here.
Yes, there is. It's called Mueller, who is accountable to Congress, authorizing the redactions.

Barr said that he would allow select members of Congress (12) to look at the report (those with the appropriate clearance) but only if they left any notes they took with him and refused to discuss findings with their colleagues. I understand the importance of need to know and sensitivity of information, but in this case we're talking about an investigation into POTUS and the legislative branch is asking to see it.
No, they don't. They have proved themselves to leak information indiscriminately and outright lie about what they have "officially" seen (see Schiff). They also must work under their own rules.

Really, the Executive branch is saying 'this is sensitive and need to know, we can't show you all of it because it will jeopardize national security. Trust us.' and that statement carries weight.
Wrong. Rules congress set in place demand the redactions, which were done by a bipartisan team of Barr AND Mueller AND the Democrat who worked for him.

But fundamentally, we are being asked to 'trust them' when it comes to an internal investigation aimed at the leader of the branch performing it. They're also asking Congress to simply 'trusts them' too.
Congress literally spent years claiming that Mueller is trustworthy. Why the change now? It's because they want to harass their enemies.
 
Last edited:
Jan 18, 2019
249
361
270
So what is the purpose of congressional oversight, of the legislature serving as a check and balance to the executive branch, if an internal investigation (by said branch into said branch) can simply redact portions it deems necessary?
The only thing Congress doesn't have access to is stuff the Judicial branch (the courts) deemed should be redacted (grand jury testimony.) This is all just political grandstanding.

But my concern here is that going forward future presidents can insulate themselves similarly. Just cycle through AGs and FBI directors until you land on those who will play ball.
Yeah... your kind don't get to open that can of words after setting the precedent of not taking issue with Eric "wingman" Holder.
 

Sacred

Member
Aug 22, 2018
361
338
275
We'll accept the election no matter the result.

We'll accept the midterms no matter the result.

We'll accept the report no matter the outcome.

It's fucking exhausting listening these dumbasses contradict themselves over and over. Hypocrites to the highest degree.
 

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
77
76
190
I appreciate the insight Teletran, thanks.

As for squiggle and infinitys: "You lot", "your kind". This is juvenile. I am not, and have never been, a leftist. Since we are proudly proclaiming our tribal affiliations: I'm a centrist, albeit reluctant to describe myself in that way. I have very strong beliefs (e.g. 2A, net neutrality, digital privacy, etc) which anchor me, through tension, towards the middle of the political spectrum. To put it in terms you might more easily digest: I've never in my life voted for a Democratic presidential candidate.

But that doesn't mean there aren't issues or perspectives those on the left hold that I'm not sympathetic with. It isn't all or nothing. A key difference between me and 'them', or whatever, is that I'm intrinsically pessimistic about the nature of mankind; I'm not an optimist about it. I understand the need for tradition and 'guide rails' as a realistic way of moderating the extremes of human behavior. So I'm hardly an idealist.

"Congressional oversight" is not some magical ability - it is constrained by laws. In this case, congress themselves (and a lot of the same people who are still in congress) set this redactions as a result of the Clinton impeachment proceedings.

Mueller collaborated and authorized the redactions, along with his team and Barr. You lot keep saying that Mueller and his Democrat band were unbiased and above reproach, so prove that the redactions are not.



Yes, there is. It's called Mueller, who is accountable to Congress, authorizing the redactions.



No, they don't. They have proved themselves to leak information indiscriminately and outright lie about what they have "officially" seen (see Schiff). They also must work under their own rules.



Wrong. Rules congress set in place demand the redactions, which were done by a bipartisan team of Barr AND Mueller AND the Democrat who worked for him.



Congress literally spent years claiming that Mueller is trustworthy. Why the change now? It's because they want to harass their enemies.
Barring your barely constrained animosity, this was a solid post. I have no problem with Mueller, and yes I am aware that he approved of the redactions. I am also aware that he is unhappy with the current handling of his report by Barr, so that has my eyebrows raised. I'm aware that the two are acquaintances.

The only thing Congress doesn't have access to is stuff the Judicial branch (the courts) deemed should be redacted (grand jury testimony.) This is all just political grandstanding.



Yeah... your kind don't get to open that can of words after setting the precedent of not taking issue with Eric "wingman" Holder.

Holder? why would I like him? The BATFE should have been shut down decades ago and Holder held to account for Fast and Furious and the other shenanigans that went on. You guys labor under a fiction that just because I'm critical of the executive branch (currently this is trump) I'm somehow a leftist. I'm also critical of the legislature and our justice system.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,578
5,538
860
Dems are drunk with power, they want to hold everyone in contempt and start throwing them in jail. They also want to not pay anyone who doesn't comply!

This is turning into Soviet Russia the way they are treating their political opponents. Having a Dem say outloud that Trump should be impeached so the American people cant re elect. Calling to have Barr and Munchin paraded around in handcuffs and thrown in jail. Whats next send them to a Gulag in Siberia comrad?
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
4,355
4,226
1,265
Barring your barely constrained animosity, this was a solid post. I have no problem with Mueller, and yes I am aware that he approved of the redactions. I am also aware that he is unhappy with the current handling of his report by Barr, so that has my eyebrows raised. I'm aware that the two are acquaintances.
Where does it say that he is unhappy with his handling of the report (or the redactions) itself? Those are regarding his summary released ahead of the report.

That is also irrelevant to your original post and argument, as you claimed there to have concerns over the redactions:

So what is the purpose of congressional oversight, of the legislature serving as a check and balance to the executive branch, if an internal investigation (by said branch into said branch) can simply redact portions it deems necessary? In particular when the AG is appointed by POTUS and, in this case, was an outspoken critic of Mueller prior to his ascension? The investigation is targeting his boss who also happens to be the head of the executive branch.
Why would Mueller let Barr get away with it?
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
8,507
7,191
715
. I have no problem with Mueller, and yes I am aware that he approved of the redactions. I am also aware that he is unhappy with the current handling of his report by Barr, so that has my eyebrows raised. I'm aware that the two are acquaintances.
Go to the source, not interpretations of the letter.

The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations
Mueller isn't saying the summary is incorrect, he is saying that it left room for the media to create 'public confusion'.

Given that any summary is, by nature, a summary, I would argue any summary could be charged with not fully capturing the source document, especially given the media's desires.

And given that Barr made clear he would release the full report, who the hell cares about the summary?

It's clear the dems and media are just kicking the ball around. Collusion became obstruction. Legally required redactions become lies. The summary isnt the full document. Barr is a liar. Yadda yadda yadda.

Anything to keep people from asking why all this happened.
 
Last edited:

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
77
76
190
I didn't say that Mueller said the summary was incorrect. Don't put words in my mouth. I said that he was upset with how his report has been handled. Allegedly, he claimed that the summary "“did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” , which is a far cry from saying it was 'inaccurate'. He believes that his report has been subject to more political theater and confusion than what could have occurred.

It is clear though that he isn't pleased with Barr.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,134
21,645
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
This is still going on, remarkably, and yet the cowards couldn't even vote to hold him in contempt like they've continued to threaten for weeks.


Instead, Barr will let them look at some "key evidence". Democrats threaten to take him to court for contempt if they don't like what they see feel as though they are seeing all the key evidence, but I don't think it'll go that far anyway.

Another capitulation from spineless politicians. Can't this circus end? It has gotten so boring lately.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
6,387
3,390
1,400
If there is anything of great importance in the key evidence it will already be included in the report. I don’t know what this doofus thinks he is going to find. He just makes himself look dumber every passing week.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,544
3,240
625
When are they releasing this constitutional crisis Trump is causing that I’ve heard so much about for 2.5 years? Was it delayed again? I’m really sick of waiting for it. Might have to cancel my preorder.
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
1,649
1,161
435
When are they releasing this constitutional crisis Trump is causing that I’ve heard so much about for 2.5 years? Was it delayed again? I’m really sick of waiting for it. Might have to cancel my preorder.
After ww3 has ended, first those atomic waste the world is covered with atm needs to be cleaned up.