House Committee will vote to cite Barr for contempt Wednesday.

[Hayabusa Rider]

And we go full Nixon.

Barr asks Trump to use Executive Privilege to block the release of Mueller's unredacted report.

Worse and worse.

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty sure the forums weren't around in the Nixon days. Point still holds that folks tend to base their positions on something depending on whether it benefits their side at the moment. Point also still holds that a Congress held by the opposition party will always seek documents and information as much for simply finding things that make the POTUS look bad regardless of whether it has larger oversight concerns or not and the POTUS will seek to withhold this for the same reasons. In this particular case folks should take a few moments to think through whether effectively killing the privacy principle for grand jury testimony is worth some ephemeral political victory. Especially since the GOP has repeatedly shown that once some formerly "red line" principle is breached that they'll take it to the ultimate logical extreme in ways the Democrats will find very unsatisfactory.

Grand jury testimony was released under Nixon so if doing it now would kill the principle then the principle has been dead for almost half a century.

 

[K1052]

And we go full Nixon.

Barr asks Trump to use Executive Privilege to block the release of Mueller's unredacted report.

Worse and worse.

The House is going to have to use all the tools at its disposal.

 

[fskimospy]

It is frankly baffling to me that anyone would be so naive as to think that the GOP would let the idea of grand jury secrecy stop them for even a second if they thought the information was useful to them.

This is like the third or fourth thing that Democrats are doing that Glenn says they should not because otherwise the GOP would do it as the norm will be gone. Anyone paying attention over the last 15 years should see it is entirely obvious that the GOP does not give a single, solitary shit about governing norms and so this thought is incredibly naive.

And remember, the Democrats are looking for this information to determine if the president should be impeached or not, which is basically the most important possible thing they could be investigating. They should hold absolutely nothing back.

 

[glenn1]

Grand jury testimony was released under Nixon so if doing it now would kill the principle then the principle has been dead for almost half a century.

Released in 2011 (15 years after his death) which seems irrelevant here since I presume you want it released now instead of some indefinite future date.

http://documents.latimes.com/richard-m-nixon-watergate-grand-jury-testimony/

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/us/newly-released-transcripts-show-a-combative-richard-nixon.html

 

[umbrella39]

I presume you think Trump is going to resign for any and all of these false equivalencies to finally hold some weight...

 

[akenbennu]

I presume you think Trump is going to resign for any and all of these false equivalencies to finally hold some weight...

That would require Trump to have some sense of honor and ethics, which clearly isn't the case.

 

[fskimospy]

Released in 2011 (15 years after his death) which seems irrelevant here since I presume you want it released now instead of some indefinite future date.

http://documents.latimes.com/richard-m-nixon-watergate-grand-jury-testimony/

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/us/newly-released-transcripts-show-a-combative-richard-nixon.html

Incorrect. The fight here is about releasing grand jury testimony to CONGRESS, not to the public. During Watergate grand jury testimony was released to Congress contemporaneously. That is what Barr is fighting.

Surely you agree that evidence presented in criminal investigations such as evidence before the grand jury should be available to the only part of government that is able to hold the president to account for criminal activity. Correct?

 

[glenn1]

Incorrect. The fight here is about releasing grand jury testimony to CONGRESS, not to the public. During Watergate grand jury testimony was released to Congress contemporaneously. That is what Barr is fighting.

Surely you agree that evidence presented in criminal investigations such as evidence before the grand jury should be available to the only part of government that is able to hold the president to account for criminal activity. Correct?

Grand jury testimony was released in Nixon's case pertinent to a judge's ruling (see https://casetext.com/case/haldeman-v-sirica ) under circumstances very different than what exist now (for example, Nixon Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski submitted his report and grand jury testimony to District Judge Sirica instead of the Attorney General). We shall see if the current Congress can get that ruling to hold in this case given the material isn't already in the hands and controlled by the judiciary who would also be ruling on whether to release it to Congress which is a very different circumstance than Nixon.

Surely you agree that if Congress thought having easy access to grand jury testimony is something they needed such a provision would have been expressly written into the law authorizing Special Counsels in the first place? Again surely you can understand my concern that breaking the seal on this principle while it serves limited short-term goals will open the possibility for it to be weaponized later? If you think the grand jury testimony is somehow going to bring an end to the Trump presidency I think you're frankly delusional, so unless your entire goal is to leak it to make Trump look bad for a news cycle or two what's the point? Congress has the information it needs to decide to impeach or not and the testimony isn't going to be the deciding factor for them. I'd be all for impeaching Trump but the GJ testimony isn't something that's needed to do that nor would it lead to a conviction so I'd prefer to defend the principle of GJ secrecy given that.

 

[fskimospy]

Grand jury testimony was released in Nixon's case pertinent to a judge's ruling (see https://casetext.com/case/haldeman-v-sirica ) under circumstances very different than what exist now (for example, Nixon Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski submitted his report and grand jury testimony to District Judge Sirica instead of the Attorney General). We shall see if the current Congress can get that ruling to hold in this case given the material isn't already in the hands and controlled by the judiciary who would also be ruling on whether to release it to Congress which is a very different circumstance than Nixon.

It's really not very different and the principle is the same. Just think about this logically - on what planet would the Constitution hold that evidence of criminal activity by the chief executive that the government holds could not be legally released to the only people capable of acting on it? Any time your logic dictates such an absurd result it's best to revisit it.

Surely you agree that if Congress thought having easy access to grand jury testimony is something they needed such a provision would have been expressly written into the law authorizing Special Counsels in the first place? Again surely you can understand my concern that breaking the seal on this case while it serves limited short-term goals will open the possibility for it to be weaponized later?

Again, Congress has already gotten it when needed in the past when such a provision wasn't explicitly written in so no, I wouldn't think so. Grand jury secrecy here is being weaponized to enable criminal activity and we need to fight against that. I 100% support the release of any and all grand jury testimony related to criminal proceedings against the president or his associates without reservation and in all cases for all time. It's vital for the functioning of constitutional government. Any official that attempts to stand in the way of that should be removed from office for violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

If you think the grand jury testimony is somehow going to bring an end to the Trump presidency I think you're frankly delusional, so unless your entire goal is to leak it to make Trump look bad for a news cycle or two what's the point? Congress has the information it needs to decide to impeach or not and the testimony isn't going to be the deciding factor for them. I'd be all for impeaching Trump but the GJ testimony isn't something that's needed to do that nor would it lead to a conviction so I'd prefer to defend the principle of GJ secrecy given that.

Trump personally is utterly irrelevant to this. By FAR the most important Constitutional principle to defend is that Congress must have all pertinent information at its disposal as it relates to whether or not to remove the most powerful person on planet Earth from their position if they are engaging in criminal conduct. Grand jury secrecy should NEVER apply to that sort of information because it then removes all avenues of action.

Again, you are arguing for evidence of criminal activity by the president to be withheld from Congress, the only body that can hold him accountable for criminal activity. If you can't see why that's a gigantic problem you're frankly delusional.

 

[SMOGZINN]

serves limited short-term goals will open the possibility for it to be weaponized later?

No one has any faith that Republicans will play by fair rules. This Administration has destroyed any semblance of tit-for-tat politics that might have at one time held. Republicans will do anything they see fit to win and then use arguments like this as if there was some good faith left. There is not.

Basically at this point we have to assume that the Republicans will weaponize it anyway and strike first.

 

[fskimospy]

I love the prosecutorial two-step here:

1) We investigated the president and found a bunch of evidence of criminal activity.
2) The president can't be indicted so the proper avenue for adjudicating this is through impeachment.
3) Also, we can't give the people responsible for impeachment the evidence so they can't impeach him either.

 

[glenn1]

It's really not very different and the principle is the same. Just think about this logically - on what planet would the Constitution hold that evidence of criminal activity by the chief executive that the government holds could not be legally released to the only people capable of acting on it? Any time your logic dictates such an absurd result it's best to revisit it.



Again, Congress has already gotten it when needed in the past when such a provision wasn't explicitly written in so no, I wouldn't think so. Grand jury secrecy here is being weaponized to enable criminal activity and we need to fight against that. I 100% support the release of any and all grand jury testimony related to criminal proceedings against the president or his associates without reservation and in all cases for all time. It's vital for the functioning of constitutional government. Any official that attempts to stand in the way of that should be removed from office for violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution.



Trump personally is utterly irrelevant to this. By FAR the most important Constitutional principle to defend is that Congress must have all pertinent information at its disposal as it relates to whether or not to remove the most powerful person on planet Earth from their position if they are engaging in criminal conduct. Grand jury secrecy should NEVER apply to that sort of information because it then removes all avenues of action.

Again, you are arguing for evidence of criminal activity by the president to be withheld from Congress, the only body that can hold him accountable for criminal activity. If you can't see why that's a gigantic problem you're frankly delusional.

The principle of secrecy isn't to protect the president or anyone else, it's to protect the members of the grand jury. Look at what just happened to Christine Blassey Ford when she alleged misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh, do you think members of a future grand jury would want to subject themselves to that so that a political party could score a few minutes of bad press against their opposition?

 

[K1052]

WH has a statement out declaring executive privilege over the Mueller report and underlying evidence.

House Judiciary proceeding to hold Barr in contempt.

 

[fskimospy]

The principle of secrecy isn't to protect the president or anyone else, it's to protect the members of the grand jury. Look at what just happened to Christine Blassey Ford when she alleged misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh, do you think members of a future grand jury would want to subject themselves to that so that a political party could score a few minutes of bad press against their opposition?

You still aren't getting it. Under your standard the government could be given evidence of the president committing crimes and then be unable to act on it, meaning a criminal president could act with impunity. That is an utterly insane result at odds with everything we know about how the Constitution was written.

That's why the courts have rejected your idea and will continue to reject it. Again, anyone who does otherwise should be removed from office for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

 

[K1052]

You still aren't getting it. Under your standard the government could be given evidence of the president committing crimes and then be unable to act on it, meaning a criminal president could act with impunity. That is an utterly insane result at odds with everything we know about how the Constitution was written.

That's why the courts have rejected your idea and will continue to reject it. Again, anyone who does otherwise should be removed from office for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

I don't think you understand the many really good reasons that proof of the President's exoneration must be withheld at all costs. The evidence exonerates him so much that it would actually be bad to show it to Congress. It's just that exonerate-ey.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think you understand the many really good reasons that proof of the President's exoneration must be withheld at all costs. The evidence exonerates him so much that it would actually be bad to show it to Congress. It's just that exonerate-ey.

The contortions people are going through are truly amazing. I never thought I would see the following sequence:

Grand jury: hey, did people commit crimes here?
Witness: yes, the president committed a crime.
Grand jury: we want to indict the president but since we can't this information must never be known by another living soul.

 

[glenn1]

You still aren't getting it. Under your standard the government could be given evidence of the president committing crimes and then be unable to act on it, meaning a criminal president could act with impunity. That is an utterly insane result at odds with everything we know about how the Constitution was written.

That's why the courts have rejected your idea and will continue to reject it. Again, anyone who does otherwise should be removed from office for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Congress is not being constrained from being able to act on evidence of the president committing crimes; the grand jury and its testimony is specifically there to provide the filter for determining if there was credible evidence of crime. If there was credible evidence and the GJ passed a true bill verdict then the information would already be in the unredacted part of the report.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Congress is not being constrained from being able to act on evidence of the president committing crimes; the grand jury and its testimony is specifically there to provide the filter for determining if there was credible evidence of crime. If there was credible evidence and the GJ passed a true bill verdict then the information would already be in the unredacted part of the report.

All evidence points to the fact that the GJ was instructed that they could not pass a true bill verdict against the President.

 

[K1052]

The contortions people are going through are truly amazing. I never thought I would see the following sequence:

Grand jury: hey, did people commit crimes here?
Witness: yes, the president committed a crime.
Grand jury: we want to indict the president but since we can't this information must never be known by another living soul.

The exoneration itself is so fucking unbelievably mindbendingly huge that even thinking about it could the tiny non-Trump power level minds of our duly elected representatives to implode. They're just protecting everyone's safety.

That keeping it secret protects the President from impeachment is really just pure coincidence...

 

[glenn1]

All evidence points to the fact that the GJ was instructed that they could not pass a true bill verdict against the President.

Then why was it even brought before a GJ?

Look, I have no desire to do anything that helps Trump in any way. However the general principle shouldn't be thrown out to score some momentary political victory. I'd enthusiastically support changes to the Special Counsel law to specifically authorize release of GJ testimony to Congress with appropriate safeguards for privacy and such. I'd enthusiastically support creating a separate process for investigating the POTUS that specifically address some of the constraints posed by separation of powers concerns and the "unitary executive" theory. However I don't believe and see no one who has presented a credible case why the Grand Jury testimony in this case is the single piece of missing information that is absolutely required to impeach the president or remove him from office if he was impeached. It's simply a Hail Mary attempt to get something, anything to make Trump look bad for a cycle or two (as if he needs the help). If Congress truly feels there is something in there which they absolutely cannot do their oversight jobs without, then they can make accommodations for the privacy and other concerns. For example, the GJ testimony is completely sanitized of any and all information which identifies or could potentially identify a grand jury member. And that they are allowed access to only physical copies in a controlled SCIF facility instead of electronic copies which would be leaked in milliseconds after receipt. Et cetera.

 

[sportage]

If Trump was truly innocent he would not obstruct any of this.
He could sit back and let it go on and on and on until either Trump made his point or the house made their point.
If I remember, and I do remember, Trick Dick refused to cooperate as well and like Donald Trump, tricky Dick insisted that his being investigated was total nonsense and nothing was there to be found.
THAT was before we learned that tricky Dick had indeed conducted criminal acts as president.
And as with tricky Dick, Donald Trump is afraid what will show up if people are allowed to testify and documents are allowed to be released.

This is truly a losing battle for donald Trump.
As the election nears, people will come to realize this president truly believes himself above the law and totally unaccountable.
That little reality will stick in peoples minds, including in the minds of Trump people.
It will not look good for Donald Trump.

 

[glenn1]

If Trump was truly innocent he would not obstruct any of this.
He could sit back and let it go on and on and on until either Trump made his point or the house made their point.
If I remember, and I do remember, Trick Dick refused to cooperate as well and like Donald Trump, tricky Dick insisted that his being investigated was total nonsense and nothing was there to be found.
THAT was before we learned that tricky Dick had indeed conducted criminal acts as president.
And as with tricky Dick, Donald Trump is afraid what will show up if people are allowed to testify and documents are allowed to be released.

This is truly a losing battle for donald Trump.
As the election nears, people will come to realize this president truly believes himself above the law and totally unaccountable.
That little reality will stick in peoples minds, including in the minds of Trump people.
It will not look good for Donald Trump.

Was the release of GJ testimony helpful in the Bill Clinton impeachment case? Do you think the GOP wanted to public to hear news reports about embarrassing comments from GJ testimony like the Monica Lewinski cigar because they thought this represented some great moral imperative, or because they couldn't possibly make up their minds about whether to impeach without it?

 

[interchange]

What in the utter hell? The DoJ requests that the President exert executive privilege? Isn't that an action that the President should consider and use the White House Counsel as the source of legal recommendation here? How is it that we can have a system of government where no one has the authority to act in the people's interest of oversight?

 

[fskimospy]

Congress is not being constrained from being able to act on evidence of the president committing crimes; the grand jury and its testimony is specifically there to provide the filter for determining if there was credible evidence of crime. If there was credible evidence and the GJ passed a true bill verdict then the information would already be in the unredacted part of the report.

No it wouldn't, because the president cannot be indicted.