Barr to Nadler: ‘I’m NOT talking to your staff attorneys’ regarding Mueller redactions

[playtime]

barr doesn't get to dictate how nadler wants to conduct biz'nez.

Fat Jerry is trying to pull a fast one.

In over 206 years of the House Judiciary Committee, staffers have never questioned a witness, let alone the US Attorney General, in an oversight hearing.

These clowns fool no one.

[...]
Congress has a long history of using staff to question witnesses. During the Senate Watergate hearings, committee counsel Fred Dalton Thompson (later a senator himself) asked the questions of White House employee Alexander Butterfield that prompted the revelation of the Oval Office taping system that proved President Nixon’s downfall.

Yes, Congress Should Let Staff Question Witnesses Like William Barr

Despite Barr’s Objections, It’s Totally Normal for Congressional Staff Members to Question Witnesses
[...]

Despite Barr’s Objections, It’s Totally Normal for Congressional Staff Members to Question Witnesses

 

[playtime]

barr doesn't get to dictate how nadler wants to conduct biz'nez.

Apparently, he does.

congress isn't powerless no matter how trump wants to play this. you think going against the constitution is wise? you are willing to give up & let the constitution die? of course you do because you are loyal to a man baby. but this nation is a nation of laws, not men.

Again for the SLOW and CRIMINALLY STUPID. Barr VOLUNTEERED to go to Congress, he was not summed, he was not subpoenaed he was acting in good faith to address concerns by Congress, UNTIL Nadler tried to turn it into a court case with lawyers.

of course he volunteered until he was told that lawyers - other than the senators that are - would be questioning him. he got scared. you do know that (R) staff would have equal time.... but he knows the heat would be on & he'll get burned.

 

[playtime]

He most certainly can decline to be a performer in Fat Jerry's Circus.

Mueller’s follow-up letter of complaint did not allege that Barr lied or that he had deliberately misled anyone.

& nadler can slap a contempt of congress charge on him if he refuses the subpoena that will be delivered to biily boy.

Just as soon as Nadler gets a judge to hold Barr in contempt.

Contempt of Congress doesn't require a judge, just a majority in the House, which Democrats have.

It also does not have any consequences. Or did something happen to Holder when he was held in contempt?

Normally, a contempt of Congress charge results in a criminal referral to the Justice Department that may or may not be acted on by Justice, but there is something called inherent contempt in which the Congress arrests and imprisons an individual in the Capitol building until he either complies or the next election comes. This is rarely used anymore.

the last time that happened, was in the 1930s... if that should happen, then it would be fast tracked to the SC. i say bring it on.

 

[gtopa1]

Nah; it's over. Decisions made on the FACTS of the matters. There was no EVIDENCE of collusion or obstruction.

Greg

 

[blastoff]

no, not really. nice delusion you got though.

Here you are trying to say Bar will be fed to alligators for telling fat Nadler to go pound a bagel, yet you can’t say what’s going to happen? Talk about “delusion”

uh, nooooooooooooooooo- did i ever say he was gonna be fed to gators? no, n i did not cause i do not know what will happen & neither do you. what i DID say, was there will be repercussions. what are they you ask? don't know- but we shall see. nadler is waiting till thurs, then it's on.

Fuck, not Nadler. Nothing will happen except some news blurbs.

me thinx otherwise...

Just don’t hold your breath waitin’

Disregard that! Hold it for as long as it takes, couple or three minutes ought to do it.

 

[playtime]

Nah; it's over. Decisions made on the FACTS of the matters. There was no EVIDENCE of collusion or obstruction.

Greg

collusion is not a legal term. conspiracy is & mueller said he could not bring charges because so much 'documentary evidence' was destroyed, people taking the 5th ( what did trump say about that? ) & he couldn't get donny in for a sit down interview. a charge of obstruction is a different story... he didn't charge trump w/ obstruction, because of DOJ policy. howeverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - congress can & mueller gave them the roadmap with 10 instances to investigate. AND he said so...

But at the end of his 448-page report, Mueller pointedly wrote, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?noredirect=on

 

[dannyboys]

barr doesn't get to dictate how nadler wants to conduct biz'nez.

But he just did.

do you think there won't be repercussions?

Probably not. Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress and he got a medal.

uh-huh.... when will you be bringing up obama & hillary?

Don't need to. The Inspector General is going to.

 

[toomuchtime_]

& nadler can slap a contempt of congress charge on him if he refuses the subpoena that will be delivered to biily boy.

Just as soon as Nadler gets a judge to hold Barr in contempt.

Contempt of Congress doesn't require a judge, just a majority in the House, which Democrats have.

It also does not have any consequences. Or did something happen to Holder when he was held in contempt?

Normally, a contempt of Congress charge results in a criminal referral to the Justice Department that may or may not be acted on by Justice, but there is something called inherent contempt in which the Congress arrests and imprisons an individual in the Capitol building until he either complies or the next election comes. This is rarely used anymore.

the last time that happened, was in the 1930s... if that should happen, then it would be fast tracked to the SC. i say bring it on.

Actually, Eric Holder was cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents relating to fast adn furious and it took nearly four years before the Supreme Court issued a decision. It is time to face up to the fact that the Democrats in the House are powerless in this situation.

 

[justoffal]

barr doesn't get to dictate how nadler wants to conduct biz'nez.

Nor does Nadler get to dictate to Barr..
The word is coequal.
Now let's cut to the chase. You cannot overturn the 2016 election.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Just as soon as Nadler gets a judge to hold Barr in contempt.

Contempt of Congress doesn't require a judge, just a majority in the House, which Democrats have.

It also does not have any consequences. Or did something happen to Holder when he was held in contempt?

Normally, a contempt of Congress charge results in a criminal referral to the Justice Department that may or may not be acted on by Justice, but there is something called inherent contempt in which the Congress arrests and imprisons an individual in the Capitol building until he either complies or the next election comes. This is rarely used anymore.

the last time that happened, was in the 1930s... if that should happen, then it would be fast tracked to the SC. i say bring it on.

Actually, Eric Holder was cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents relating to fast adn furious and it took nearly four years before the Supreme Court issued a decision. It is time to face up to the fact that the Democrats in the House are powerless in this situation.

Truth is much of that info is still unavailable to Congress. Why? Because of all three branches of government Congress is the ultimate sewer. That's why.

Jo

 

[MAGAman]

barr doesn't get to dictate how nadler wants to conduct biz'nez.

Barr doesn't have to participate in Nadlers Witch Hunt, either.

 

[Zorro!]

Just as soon as Nadler gets a judge to hold Barr in contempt.

Contempt of Congress doesn't require a judge, just a majority in the House, which Democrats have.

It also does not have any consequences. Or did something happen to Holder when he was held in contempt?

Normally, a contempt of Congress charge results in a criminal referral to the Justice Department that may or may not be acted on by Justice, but there is something called inherent contempt in which the Congress arrests and imprisons an individual in the Capitol building until he either complies or the next election comes. This is rarely used anymore.

the last time that happened, was in the 1930s... if that should happen, then it would be fast tracked to the SC. i say bring it on.

Actually, Eric Holder was cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents relating to fast adn furious and it took nearly four years before the Supreme Court issued a decision. It is time to face up to the fact that the Democrats in the House are powerless in this situation.

I think I've seen some Leftwing Clowns hinting that they would like to see Fat Jerry try to arrest Barr and drag him before his committee.

These folks have lost their minds.

 

[Zorro!]

& nadler can slap a contempt of congress charge on him if he refuses the subpoena that will be delivered to biily boy.

Just as soon as Nadler gets a judge to hold Barr in contempt.

Contempt of Congress doesn't require a judge, just a majority in the House, which Democrats have.

It also does not have any consequences. Or did something happen to Holder when he was held in contempt?

Normally, a contempt of Congress charge results in a criminal referral to the Justice Department that may or may not be acted on by Justice, but there is something called inherent contempt in which the Congress arrests and imprisons an individual in the Capitol building until he either complies or the next election comes. This is rarely used anymore.

the last time that happened, was in the 1930s... if that should happen, then it would be fast tracked to the SC. i say bring it on.

Yeah, and it also happened in the context of a Senate trial presided over by the Vice President, which isn't happening under Cocaine Mitch and VPOTUS.

It looks to me like these guys are so nuts, that they want Fat Jerry to try to ARREST Barr and drag him before this committee so he can be questioned, not by the Committee, but by Staff? Never in the 206 year history of the Judicial committee has the AG been grilled by committee Staff. Barr is right to tell Fat Jerry where he can stuff it. .

 

[Zorro!]

barr doesn't get to dictate how nadler wants to conduct biz'nez.

Fat Jerry is trying to pull a fast one.

In over 206 years of the House Judiciary Committee, staffers have never questioned a witness, let alone the US Attorney General, in an oversight hearing.

These clowns fool no one.

[...]Congress has a long history of using staff to question witnesses. During the Senate Watergate hearings ... White House employee Alexander Butterfield...

Yes during SENATE Hearings
And an IMPEACHMENT Hearing
And during questioning of an EMPLOYEE!

Not a HOUSE hearing, that is NOT an impeachment hearing, of a CABINET member.

If Fat Jerry hasn't seated his committee with members capable of questioning Barr about his redactions, that's Fat Jerry's problem, not Barr's.

 

[DGS49]

Who, exactly, is Fat Jerry performing for? He cannot "demand" that Barr show up; he cannot demand an unredacted copy of Mueller's tome; he can hold Barr in contempt, but such a gesture would be so impotent as to bring derision on Nadler himself.

So who does he think he is impressing with this nonsense?

As I find myself frequently wondering, Are Democrats really this stupid?

 

[Zorro!]

Who, exactly, is Fat Jerry performing for? He cannot "demand" that Barr show up; he cannot demand an unredacted copy of Mueller's tome; he can hold Barr in contempt, but such a gesture would be so impotent as to bring derision on Nadler himself.

So who does he think he is impressing with this nonsense?

As I find myself frequently wondering, Are Democrats really this stupid?

Trump's amazing job on the economy is driving them out of their minds. 3.2% GDP growth? They are ready to jump off a cliff. And looking ahead to 2020 when he could whip them 35 states to 15? To them American success is a nightmare.

Poor Fat Jerry can't believe they haven't driven him from office!

 

[toomuchtime_]

Who, exactly, is Fat Jerry performing for? He cannot "demand" that Barr show up; he cannot demand an unredacted copy of Mueller's tome; he can hold Barr in contempt, but such a gesture would be so impotent as to bring derision on Nadler himself.

So who does he think he is impressing with this nonsense?

As I find myself frequently wondering, Are Democrats really this stupid?

In fact, there are no grounds for citing Barr for contempt since he was never subpoenaed to appear. If Nadler does subpoena him, it will go to court and it will be years before a decision is handed down by the Supreme Court. The Democrats can continue to huff and puff, but the truth is they are powerless in this situation.

 

[playtime]

barr doesn't get to dictate how nadler wants to conduct biz'nez.

But he just did.

do you think there won't be repercussions?

Probably not. Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress and he got a medal.

uh-huh.... when will you be bringing up obama & hillary?

Don't need to. The Inspector General is going to.

BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[playtime]

barr doesn't get to dictate how nadler wants to conduct biz'nez.

Nor does Nadler get to dictate to Barr..
The word is coequal.
Now let's cut to the chase. You cannot overturn the 2016 election.

Jo

they are negotiating. that's what pols do... you just don't know it. but something will come down.

 

[playtime]

Contempt of Congress doesn't require a judge, just a majority in the House, which Democrats have.

It also does not have any consequences. Or did something happen to Holder when he was held in contempt?

Normally, a contempt of Congress charge results in a criminal referral to the Justice Department that may or may not be acted on by Justice, but there is something called inherent contempt in which the Congress arrests and imprisons an individual in the Capitol building until he either complies or the next election comes. This is rarely used anymore.

the last time that happened, was in the 1930s... if that should happen, then it would be fast tracked to the SC. i say bring it on.

Actually, Eric Holder was cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents relating to fast adn furious and it took nearly four years before the Supreme Court issued a decision. It is time to face up to the fact that the Democrats in the House are powerless in this situation.

I think I've seen some Leftwing Clowns hinting that they would like to see Fat Jerry try to arrest Barr and drag him before his committee.

These folks have lost their minds.

howeverrrrrrrrrrrrr the SC has clearified that congress has that right. will it happen? we shall see.... but the constitution is hanging on by a thread.