"And we know that there is information that we need in order to fully investigate all of the redactions."Never - not once - during this long regurgitation of Democrat talking points did Greene ever challenge Deutch on the fact that he's asking AG Barr to break the law by revealing grand jury testimony. Only later in the interview when NPR's Congressional reporter Kelsey Snell was brought in for color commentary was this mentioned:
"Well, actually, this vote is necessary in order for us to get the full, unredacted Mueller report."
"We've tried from the moment the report came out to - since before it came out - to make clear that we deserve the full, unredacted report in order for us to do our job."
"What we do is - what we want is for the full report to be delivered."
SNELL: Well, we've already heard from the Justice Department that they believe that it isn't legal for Barr to comply with the request. They're saying that he has given them all that they can give them and that if they want more information, they - the Justice Department has offered a closed-door opportunity for Democrats to go and look at the unredacted portions. But, you know, Democrats say that's not enough. They want everything that they see to also be seen by the public.This isn't even up for debate as 1998 Jerrod Nadler knows but Deutch wasn't challenged on the law or Barr's offer to show a minimally-redacted version, with only the grand jury testimony blacked-out as required by law.
Biased or incompetent? You make the call.
7 comments:
You never tire of crowing about how the consequences of Obama's executive actions, or Democratic filibuster changes, shall come back to haunt Democrats. So how can you not enjoy the irony of the GOP's futile Hillary scavenger hunt forcing the DoJ's hand?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-01/democrats-demand-mueller-full-disclosure-citing-gop-s-precedent
Stalling? Delays? So much the better! There are still 50% who still think the Mueller report cleared Trump. With some more time and covering up and erosion - on into 2020, please! - we could get that down to the mid-to-high 30's.
Slight correction on the "he was exonerated" poll-- that's 50% of Fox News viewers.
https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/1125743631535693824/photo/1
Democrats fume over not getting documentation from Barr that it would be literally illegal for him to provide.
The commi says legality is no excuse for not providing it, because in the past Republicans successfully got investigative materials about Hillary's crimes, though they were provided "often over Democrats’ objections."
This is a mind whose rational faculties have been utterly destroyed by cognitive dissonance.
Nice bait and switch: Democrats are not seeking DOJ documents, they're trying to reveal grand jury testimony that is, by law, secret.
Would it help if I cite the law itself? https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6
How about a recent court ruling?
https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-dc-circuit-rules-grand-jury-secrecy-mckeever-v-barr
Still not good enough? How about Jerrold Nadler literally saying that of course you're not allowed to reveal grand jury testimony?
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/04/02/nadler-1998-course-cant-release-grand-jury-testimony-prosecutors-report/
If it looks like horseshit, and if it smells like horseshit, and if Republicans say it tastes like candy.... it's horseshit.
William Barr claims he redacted four categories of content from the report: grand jury material, classified intelligence, matters related to ongoing investigations, and information about "peripheral" third parties. While members of Congress cannot see grand jury material on demand, they have the long-established legal right to see the redacted content that falls under the other three categories, as well as all of the underlying evidence that accompanies the report’s claims. And that’s what the House subpoena asks for.
The sole snag is the grand jury material. Rep. Nadler has asked AG Barr to join Congress in petitioning a judge to allow them to view that material in a closed setting. It's an action that has happened many times before in many cases with many Attorneys General and many Congresses, and which breaks no law.
Since Republicans can't win this in court, they may as well try to win a news cycle.
Jim Jordan, Republican member of the Judiciary committee hit the nail on the head:
"I don’t think [holding Barr in contempt for ignoring a subpoena of the illegal grand jury material] is actually about getting information. I don’t think it’s about getting the unredacted Mueller report. I don’t think last week’s hearing was actually about having staff question the attorney general. I think it’s all about trying to destroy Bill Barr because Democrats are nervous he’s going to get to the bottom of everything. He’s going to find out how and why this investigation started in the first place.”
The worm has turned. Big time. Watch for the squealing of Democrats to become deafening. 2019 is so much fun, isn't it?
Nice try.
"I have also made available to a bipartisan group of leaders in Congress, including Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein, a minimally redacted version that includes everything other than the grand-jury material, which by law cannot be disclosed."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-william-barrs-prepared-senate-testimony-on-mueller-report
2019 is so much fun, isn't it?
Yes, it really is.
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/
But I don't blame you for trying to reclaim language, the way gay people did with the word "fag." It's a common self-care step that abused subgroups take, to regain some sense of agency and control.
Post a Comment