House Committee will vote to cite Barr for contempt Wednesday.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,637
50,864
136
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.

Evidence was brought before the grand jury as part of the overall investigation, it was not a 'Trump grand jury'.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,188
136
Trump just asserted EP over the Mueller Report, the "entirety of the subpeonaed materials."

I'm almost to the point of wishing someone would just shoot the traitor. That's not how you're supposed to deal with criminals I know but this is beyond ridiculous. Republican is now synonymous with 'treasonous contempt for American law.'
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,938
9,221
136
I’m pretty sure that the Administration is doing everything in their power to force the House to formally open impeachment proceedings. Somehow, they’re convinced this will benefit GOP politically (especially GOP senators with at-risk seats.)

McConnell already played his hand. “Move on” was just code for “impeach or get off the pot.” They would risk a constitutional crisis for a few fucking votes.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Trump just asserted EP over the Mueller Report, the "entirety of the subpeonaed materials."

I'm almost to the point of wishing someone would just shoot the traitor. That's not how you're supposed to deal with criminals I know but this is beyond ridiculous. Republican is now synonymous with 'treasonous contempt for American law.'

In parallel with assertion that USC § 6103 prevents release of GJ testimony to make it a 2-pronged defense. The EP defense is weaker but will still suck up time to resolve in court.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If Trump was truly innocent he would not obstruct any of this.

If Obama was innocent of trafficking guns to drug gangs in Mexico then why did he obstruct release of material about "Fast and Furious" to the point his AG was found in contempt of Congress? Presidents have routinely asserted whatever rights they could against the legislative under all kinds of "oversight" scenarios.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
It's hard to believe that one single president could screw things up so much.
Is able to cast a spell over so many to cheer on Russia and demonize their own American institutions.
Can carry such a distaste that President Obama ever existed that the Obama legacy must be entirely wiped away.

We wonder and ask how could it be that an Adolf Hitler ever came about?
How it was that so many people signed onto such insanity and evil.
Well, now we know exactly how that happens.
How that process evolves.
That era was not some fluke of nature or some one time failed attempt at power.
That repeat is now taking place before our very eyes.
Maybe we have yet to reached the point of concentration camps and crematories, but we have an entire second term to face.
Maybe we have yet to reach the point of nazi gestapo tactics, but just wait... more Donald Trump rallies are on the horizon.

A huge chunk of American society are taking an active part with destroying America, destroying America constitution, and destroying America institutions.
And for what?
What the hell is America thinking? That 38 percent?
Has hate risen to such a level?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,637
50,864
136
I feel like it bears mentioning that this is the basic set of facts behind this:

1) a hostile foreign power intervened in our elections to elect the current president.
2) the special counsel determined that the president engaged in criminal activity to thwart an investigation into it.
3) the president is currently refusing to allow congress access to evidence related to this criminal activity and is actively attempting to prevent witnesses from testifying about it.

If you put forth that set of facts to people in America without any party labels attached I think close to 100% of Americans would be in favor of removing the president. Sadly, one of our parties is sick.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Then why was it even brought before a GJ?

Because Mueller did not have subpoena power and could not compel testimony with out a GJ.
It is worth noting that those grand juries did return 34 indictments, just none of them against the President, very likely because they were instructed that they were not allowed to.

Any investigation serious enough to warrant the appointment of a special counsel always involves a grand jury because that is how a special counsel goes about the investigation. With out one they have almost no power to actually investigate.
 

IJTSSG

Golden Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,122
278
136
Trump just asserted EP over the Mueller Report, the "entirety of the subpeonaed materials."

I'm almost to the point of wishing someone would just shoot the traitor. That's not how you're supposed to deal with criminals I know but this is beyond ridiculous. Republican is now synonymous with 'treasonous contempt for American law.'

All I did was grab a quote. Please don't burst into tears and hit the report button like you normally do.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
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.

The President cannot be indicted. He can only be impeached. No grand jury has the power to do that. We saw that in the reference to Individual_1 in the Cohen indictment.

Barr disgraces his office & his oath, as does our current President. Supporting & defending the Constitution *obviously* supercedes doing that for the POTUS.

You can dance, spin, equivocate, obfuscate, quibble & claim hypocrisy by those who say that's true all you want but there's no integrity in it.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
136
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.
Members of Congress already have clearances that allow them to review top secret intel so whats the problem with them accessing the full unredacted report?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
136
The President cannot be indicted. He can only be impeached. No grand jury has the power to do that. We saw that in the reference to Individual_1 in the Cohen indictment.

Barr disgraces his office & his oath, as does our current President. Supporting & defending the Constitution *obviously* supercedes doing that for the POTUS.

You can dance, spin, equivocate, obfuscate, quibble & claim hypocrisy by those who say that's true all you want but there's no integrity in it.
Then I guess that makes the President above the law since until impeachment and removal happens he has the means to shield himself from arrest and prosecution.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
136
If Obama was innocent of trafficking guns to drug gangs in Mexico then why did he obstruct release of material about "Fast and Furious" to the point his AG was found in contempt of Congress? Presidents have routinely asserted whatever rights they could against the legislative under all kinds of "oversight" scenarios.
F&F was a policy dispute and EP was used by the exec to guard
Nixon could not use EP because the investigation was a law enforcement issue
The Mueller Report is a law enforcement issue
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
All I did was grab a quote. Please don't burst into tears and hit the report button like you normally do.


If you look at what I posted you'll find that EP isn't valid based on prior case with Whitewater. In essence, declaring "the report" is subject to being withheld is not valid as the report is already released. What is also public are Mueller's statements written which clearly is at odds with Barrs statements on the matter. So there is no EP possible binding on Mueller's testimony in relation to his report and any tightning of what is protected now has to pass the same hurdle that Nixon did, that is the protection of material that demonstrates instances of obstruction and other matters which concern the Executive. As the SCOTUS is unlikely to revisit Whitewater or Nixon it is unlikely that any EP declared will stand. Of course the DOJ can file a suit with the SCOTUS and hope it's heard regarding Mueller and other things, but an indictment blocking Congressional action has the smallest chance of all.

The only fly in the ointment is the split decision regarding release of grand jury information, but everything else including classified material is permissible for Congress to view, if not made public. Remember that whole committees are empowered to view the any and all classified and secret including compartmentalized material of the most guarded type if it falls within the scope of oversight, which Congress has without question.

So no security matters are valid under the constraints already long placed on all levels of classification. Yes access would be limited to others outside those immediately concerned, but this is no ordinary situation where a Senator could run to the President in the dead of night or anyone else as they face felony and possible treason charges and this material (assuming the material is, in fact, secret) would be viewed in a SCIF facility that Congress has one or more of on site.

To bottom line this there is no justification to withhold this from official oversight with the possible exception of some grand jury material.

BTW I doubt it makes much difference but Holder was found to be in contempt and if Congress had taken him to court and won then Holder should have faced the same fate as any others. Congress had the same powers then as now and I am not any parties apologist in holding each to the same standard concerning egregious actions. Again, FWIW.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Then I guess that makes the President above the law since until impeachment and removal happens he has the means to shield himself from arrest and prosecution.

I didn't write the Constitution. OTOH, we must abide by it if our intent is to preserve our form of Democracy. Anything else lacks legitimacy.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
F&F was a policy dispute and EP was used by the exec to guard
Nixon could not use EP because the investigation was a law enforcement issue
The Mueller Report is a law enforcement issue


What I don't know is if this was taken to court. If EP is claimed then Congress needs to take it to court to decide what is valid. If Congress passed on the opportunity then there is no equivalence to today unless Congress likely does not exercise its rights.

If Congress did petition courts and they agreed then Holder should have been forced to resign and provide all material with Obama's blessings or the latter impeached and removed.

So the critical questions? Did Congress pursue the matter in court, if they did what was the judgment, and did the Obama administration comply with the court's decision?

In the case of Trump at this moment in time, we are dealing with something that is in part political dispute complicated by a finding of incidents of obstruction and more, contrary to Trump, Republican and Barr's assertions.

A metric fuckton of shit.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If you look at what I posted you'll find that EP isn't valid based on prior case with Whitewater. In essence, declaring "the report" is subject to being withheld is not valid as the report is already released. What is also public are Mueller's statements written which clearly is at odds with Barrs statements on the matter. So there is no EP possible binding on Mueller's testimony in relation to his report and any tightning of what is protected now has to pass the same hurdle that Nixon did, that is the protection of material that demonstrates instances of obstruction and other matters which concern the Executive. As the SCOTUS is unlikely to revisit Whitewater or Nixon it is unlikely that any EP declared will stand. Of course the DOJ can file a suit with the SCOTUS and hope it's heard regarding Mueller and other things, but an indictment blocking Congressional action has the smallest chance of all.

The only fly in the ointment is the split decision regarding release of grand jury information, but everything else including classified material is permissible for Congress to view, if not made public. Remember that whole committees are empowered to view the any and all classified and secret including compartmentalized material of the most guarded type if it falls within the scope of oversight, which Congress has without question.

So no security matters are valid under the constraints already long placed on all levels of classification. Yes access would be limited to others outside those immediately concerned, but this is no ordinary situation where a Senator could run to the President in the dead of night or anyone else as they face felony and possible treason charges and this material (assuming the material is, in fact, secret) would be viewed in a SCIF facility that Congress has one or more of on site.

To bottom line this there is no justification to withhold this from official oversight with the possible exception of some grand jury material.

BTW I doubt it makes much difference but Holder was found to be in contempt and if Congress had taken him to court and won then Holder should have faced the same fate as any others. Congress had the same powers then as now and I am not any parties apologist in holding each to the same standard concerning egregious actions. Again, FWIW.

The obvious solution to the grand jury testimony question is to have Mueller testify (via subpoena if needed) and have him provide an abstracted overview of the testimony and answer questions from Congress as they arise. His expert opinion about the legal relevance of any/all the GJ testimony and the ability to synthesize the important bits and linkages while still preserving the privacy rights of ancillary actors is really what Congress needs, not the in the weeds verbatim transcripts. Who knows how much of the GJ testimony was false leads/dry wells that rightfully don't need to be examined by Congress so that also focuses them on the important stuff. Again, the Starr Report is the relevant analog here, what Clinton liked to do with his cigars is completely irrelevant to the Congressional investigation then just as some material in the Mueller report would be completely irrelevant now.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
The obvious solution to the grand jury testimony question is to have Mueller testify (via subpoena if needed) and have him provide an abstracted overview of the testimony and answer questions from Congress as they arise. His expert opinion about the legal relevance of any/all the GJ testimony and the ability to synthesize the important bits and linkages while still preserving the privacy rights of ancillary actors is really what Congress needs, not the in the weeds verbatim transcripts. Who knows how much of the GJ testimony was false leads/dry wells that rightfully don't need to be examined by Congress so that also focuses them on the important stuff. Again, the Starr Report is the relevant analog here, what Clinton liked to do with his cigars is completely irrelevant to the Congressional investigation then just as some material in the Mueller report would be completely irrelevant now.


At this point I would favor holding Barr in contempt, the reason being Barr and Trump are looking not to negotiate but to force Congress to do something showing weakness and thereby furthering unlawful actions to be taken. Tax returns under 6103 may be something you dislike but Barr has not made any argument against Congresses power, nor sought an injunction. For the time being Mnuchin and all those who are part of this act are as yet uncharged criminals. One's dislike for a law does not change that in the slightest.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,188
136
All I did was grab a quote. Please don't burst into tears and hit the report button like you normally do.

Report button? You've confused me with someone who does more than laugh at your posts. Someone shedding tears over you is indeed some comedy, although I'm sure I wouldn't feel that way if you weren't such a low information douchebag.

Since you brought it up, I think my entire time on this forum I've used the report function once, sometime ago. Don't even remember the poster. Mods can confirm that I bet, if they wanted to. Shits and giggles stuff.

Anyway yes, by all means keep grabbing quotes. It's not hard, and is a much better look for you compared to the nonstop eating of Trump's ass.
 
Last edited:

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,188
136
Wow, John Fucking Yoo of all people is now saying that Trump has taken this too far.

That’s right, the guy who said the president had the power to crush a child’s testicles says Trump has exceeded his power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/us/politics/trump-democrats.html

I hope everyone is aware of just how extreme a threat is currently being posed to the Constitution here.

If he's lost Yoo then it might be time to start talking to Dear Putin about asylum. Wow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111