That would be the civilized thing to do, and they would still lose.Clown show: Dems threaten AG Barr with contempt over Mueller report they can already read
Clown show: Dems threaten AG Barr with contempt over Mueller report they can already read (Video)
5/6/19 ~ By Jon Dougherty
On Sunday, a top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee said that Attorney General William Barr was given a Monday morning deadline to produce the entire unredacted report from special counsel Robert Mueller, or face a charge of contempt of Congress. But once again, this is nothing more than a cheap political stunt by Democrats who have already been provided a far-less-redacted version of the report — that they refuse to review.
“The Attorney General also voluntarily released the Special Counsel’s confidential report with minimal redactions to Congress and the public, made an even-less redacted report available to Chairman Nadler and congressional leadership (which they have refused to review), and made himself available to the Committee by volunteering to testify this week,” spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said.
Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, in the letter to Nadler last week, added that the less-redacted version already available to key members “would permit review of 98.5 percent of the report, including 99.9 percent of Volume II, which discusses the investigation of the President’s actions.”
~~~~~~
A completely unredacted report would be illegal. Nadler and his gang are demanding A.G. Barr commit a Federal crime. It isn't going to happen.
Mr. Barr has already said that he will not be complying with Congress' request.
The Civilized thing to do would be for Congress to file a lawsuit.
Threatening to send a sergeant of arms out to arrest Barr is silly. Barr has legal reasons not to comply, if they want to contest it, that's why we have courts. And if the first court doesn't give the answer that's agreeable to both sides, that's what appellant courts are for.
But the truth is, regardless of what Barr does or doesn't do, the libs are just looking to make political hay. Trump knows that as well.
Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge and now director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, said Mr. Barr’s argument appears to be stronger than Mr. Holder‘s. For one, he said, the grand jury secrecy protection Mr. Barr cites is part of federal law, while Mr. Holder was trying to expand a presidential protection to cover lower-level Justice Department communications.
“Holder had not a leg to stand on, whereas Barr gave solid legal reasons for his decisions,” Mr. McConnell said.
Indeed, the federal appeals court in Washington issued a ruling last month that puts grand jury information beyond the reach of Congress in the normal course of oversight.
That's a major hurdle for any lawsuit.
“If this House goes that route, it’s by no means clear the court even has jurisdiction. But if the court finds jurisdiction, the idea that the court’s going to find Barr violated the law by not revealing grand jury information is preposterous,” Mr. McConnell said.
He viewed Democrats’ battle with Mr. Barr as an effort to undercut the attorney general’s credibility as he begins to probe deeper into the 2016 election and Clinton campaign and Obama administration decisions.
William Barr uses Eric Holder’s defense against Congress