Nadler to Barr: Here’s my counteroffer — and a new contempt threat

[Fishking]

Here's one of many sources that can help reduce your ignorance on the subject.

Explainer: How powerful are Congress subpoenas, contempt citations? - Reuters

Your own link says they can't do it to expose wrongdoing or for political gain, per a previous SCOTUS decision. It specifically says it's not a law enforcement agency. It specifically states it has to further a legislative purpose. Want to try again?

 

[JasperL]

You likely won't receive an answer to that question from the left here. Well, maybe now you will, but expect more frappery and blow hard BS.

1) The members of Congress were scheduled to ask questions AND there would be a 30 minute block allocated to staff attorneys designated by the Democrats and GOP. So the question was a straw man.

2) The answer to why Democrats would want a subject matter expert to ask questions is pretty obvious. It's the same reason Wray wouldn't walk into a years long investigation and take the lead on questioning a witness, versus let the career people who were handling the case take the lead. The answer is obvious. A staff lawyer is far more likely to effectively question someone on the specifics. And now you know why Barr didn't want that to happen.

Surely you've seen some hearings before. The 5 or 7 minutes per member rules are actually terrible if what we're interested in is information because no one can delve into any details before their time runs out. It's worse when the witness decides to filibuster and run out the clock, which we saw quite a bit of from Barr.

So your question is, essentially, why do Democrats want to allocate a 30 minute block to someone who has a mastery of the facts to effectively ask questions of Barr?

 

[Helix]

let's hear the AG explain why he lied to congress.

 

[JasperL]

Your own link says they can't do it to expose wrongdoing or for political gain, per a previous SCOTUS decision. It specifically says it's not a law enforcement agency. It specifically states it has to further a legislative purpose. Want to try again?

I don't know what in the hell you read, but it wasn't the link I provided. Why are you gaslighting?

It can't do what to expose wrongdoing? Subpoena witnesses and then arrest them for refusing to comply? Yes, it can!

The Supreme Court said in 1821 that Congress has “inherent authority” to arrest and detain recalcitrant witnesses.

In 1927, the high court said the Senate acted lawfully in sending its deputy sergeant-at-arms to Ohio to arrest and detain the brother of the then-attorney general, who had refused to testify about a bribery scheme known as the Teapot Dome scandal.

 

[JasperL]

Why should it be a crime? It's ridiculous. At the very least it shouldn't be a felony.

Good gosh, this is what the right wing has descended to. In their service to the disgrace sitting in the WH, they have to maintain that lying to investigators is actually OK! Should be LEGAL!

It's pathetic to watch, seriously.

The problem is these days people are bombarded by propaganda by the media, 24/7. They've already made their minds up on this stuff. It's interesting that we see so many who are left leaning constantly complaining about various law enforcement agencies, to the point where they basically imply that police are randomly gunning down minorities for pleasure and yet they lick the boots of any authority doing w/e they want with people involved in this admin.

You asked, 'who gets to decide' whether a crime has been committed and I answered your question, which was only you pretending to be ignorant, because you knew the answer.

Now, after asserting the principle that lying to investigators should be legal, and therefore encouraged because if lying carries no penalty, then every defendant will lie like a dog at every opportunity, flood the zone with a sea of BS and know there is no downside, you whine about Democrats using a double standard. Wow.

Of course, it's possible to both recognize examples of injustice in our system, AND not maintain that every act by every LEO is a corrupt act. People of just average intelligence are perfectly capable of deciding cases based on the facts and circumstances of those individual cases, and not making sweeping generalizations across 100s of thousands of people involved in various parts of law enforcement.

 

[Fishking]

I don't know what in the hell you read, but it wasn't the link I provided. Why are you gaslighting?

It can't do what to expose wrongdoing? Subpoena witnesses and then arrest them for refusing to comply? Yes, it can!

I read the link you provided...you should try it.

 

[Fishking]

Good gosh, this is what the right wing has descended to. In their service to the disgrace sitting in the WH, they have to maintain that lying to investigators is actually OK! Should be LEGAL!

It's pathetic to watch, seriously.

More bootlicking please.

 

[JasperL]

Thinking isn't obstruction. You actually have to, you know, obstruct.

LOL - Trump to McGahn - write a false statement that directly contradicts your truthful testimony to FBI/SC, and put it in the file so that you will have evidence you perjured yourself!"

Why is Trump being criticized for thought crimes? :lamo

 

[JasperL]

I read the link you provided...you should try it.

Quote directly from it, then, because I read it and nothing like what you posted appears in it. I'm curious how you're reading the same words I am and coming up with stuff the words do not say. Should be fascinating.

 

[Fishking]

LOL - Trump to McGahn - write a false statement that directly contradicts your truthful testimony to FBI/SC, and put it in the file so that you will have evidence you perjured yourself!"

Why is Trump being criticized for thought crimes? :lamo

Before there's a crime....there's pre-crime!

 

[Fishking]

Quote directly from it, then, because I read it and nothing like what you posted appears in it. I'm curious how you're reading the same words I am and coming up with stuff the words do not say. Should be fascinating.

Apparently, you didn't read it.

"Congress’ power to issue subpoenas, while broad, is not unlimited. The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. A subpoena must potentially further some “legitimate legislative purpose,” the court has said. "

 

[JasperL]

More bootlicking please.

When Dear Leader and those around him are caught lying, the boot licking is by those supporting him deciding that lying is actually OK and should be both legal and therefore encouraged when dealing with LEOs!

 

[Fishking]

When Dear Leader and those around him are caught lying, the boot licking is by those supporting him deciding that lying is actually OK and should be both legal and therefore encouraged when dealing with LEOs!

Sorry, but I've thought lying being a felony ridiculous for a while. If that hurts your feelings...well...eat a cookie.

 

[Nickyjo]

There are 18 lawyers on the House Judiciary Committee and you don't understand my point?

What evil intent do you sense is at play here? It’s a non-issue. Not even a creative objection by Barr or whoever.

 

[bubbabgone]

Why are they so afraid to ask Barr questions themselves?

View attachment 67256170

Because their mouths are full of their feet?
It's a guess but my original guess had their mouths full of something even worse.

 

[Nickyjo]

The major point is that the Senators and Representatives are elected by the people - they are accountable for their actions and behaviors. Committee staff are not. A congressional hearing is the people's representatives conducting the people's business.

So you would pass a law or amendment to prohibit committee staff to ask questions? Don’t the people’s reps have the right to do this? I give mine permission. You can forbid yours. Non-issue. Not even a creative excuse. A toothache would be more convincing.

 

[JasperL]

Before there's a crime....there's pre-crime!

Suborning perjury by the WH Counsel is a good thing for the President to do! That's the appropriate ethical standard I think, don't you? Yes, you do, because you've spent the thread justifying it. Dear Leader can do no wrong. All else on the right wing now follows from that premise.

 

[JasperL]

Apparently, you didn't read it.

"Congress’ power to issue subpoenas, while broad, is not unlimited. The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. A subpoena must potentially further some “legitimate legislative purpose,” the court has said. "

OK, I did miss that, but the key phrase is "purely.....for political gain." If it applies to conspiracy and obstruction with Trump, that there is no "legitimate legislative purpose" in oversight over the executive branch, then how were the 715 hearings into Benghazi justified, or the 948 hearings about EMAILS!!! What legislative purpose existed with BUT HER EMAILS! or BENGHAZI that's not present with conspiracy with Russians or obstruction?

 

[JasperL]

Sorry, but I've thought lying being a felony ridiculous for a while. If that hurts your feelings...well...eat a cookie.

Right, because we should encourage lying to LEOs because we're a nation of laws, and if you can get away with breaking them by lying (which is just a form of obstruction, really) then all the better. If you don't get caught and convicted, it's therefore OK.

Is this some libertarian principle? How can this be defended as a principle? We have the right to say nothing, but I don't see how we should have the right to lie when we swear we are telling the truth. It undermines everything about the concept of 'rule of law.'

 

[Bullseye]

So you would pass a law or amendment to prohibit committee staff to ask questions? Don’t the people’s reps have the right to do this? I give mine permission. You can forbid yours. Non-issue. Not even a creative excuse. A toothache would be more convincing.

No, I would just expect the elected members to do the job the campaigned for - represent the concerns and interests of the people who elected them, and to take responsibility for their performance and behavior. And no I don't believe they have the right to delegate those duties to unaccountable staffers.

True be told, I think several of the Reps saw Barr's performance in the Senate hearings and said "crap, that guy will eat my lunch, let's throw staffers at him".

 

[humbolt]

1) The members of Congress were scheduled to ask questions AND there would be a 30 minute block allocated to staff attorneys designated by the Democrats and GOP. So the question was a straw man.

2) The answer to why Democrats would want a subject matter expert to ask questions is pretty obvious. It's the same reason Wray wouldn't walk into a years long investigation and take the lead on questioning a witness, versus let the career people who were handling the case take the lead. The answer is obvious. A staff lawyer is far more likely to effectively question someone on the specifics. And now you know why Barr didn't want that to happen.

Surely you've seen some hearings before. The 5 or 7 minutes per member rules are actually terrible if what we're interested in is information because no one can delve into any details before their time runs out. It's worse when the witness decides to filibuster and run out the clock, which we saw quite a bit of from Barr.

So your question is, essentially, why do Democrats want to allocate a 30 minute block to someone who has a mastery of the facts to effectively ask questions of Barr?

So, no answer. You could've said the democrats are incompetant rather than all that spin up there. Fess up - You're dizzy, right?

 

[JasperL]

So, no answer. You could've said the democrats are incompetant rather than all that spin up there. Fess up - You're dizzy, right?

No, there was an answer that you can't apparently address substantively.

There's nothing "incompetant" [sic] about deferring to subject matter experts. That's pretty stupid as a concept TBH. A given member of Congress could, for example, spend a week or two getting up to speed on the details of the investigation and tying the report into what the committees in Congress knew from the year+ long House investigations, etc., OR, "hire" someone who already has that base of knowledge and let them do the questioning. You'll have to explain to me how that's an "incompetent" course of action.

You can't of course - you're just doing the equivalent of "DEMOCRATS SUCK@!!!!" which is pretty lame. :roll:

 

[JasperL]

No, I would just expect the elected members to do the job the campaigned for - represent the concerns and interests of the people who elected them, and to take responsibility for their performance and behavior. And no I don't believe they have the right to delegate those duties to unaccountable staffers.

Why not? By having staff, they by definition delegate duties to them. And that's a good thing. It's no more illegitimate than POTUS hiring cabinet members and an entire executive branch and delegating nearly all the tasks under his purview to those staffers. In this case you'd have Congress delegating questions to staff, who would be questioning the AG, to whom POTUS had delegated his authority in this matter. Why is it OK for POTUS but not a House member?

True be told, I think several of the Reps saw Barr's performance in the Senate hearings and said "crap, that guy will eat my lunch, let's throw staffers at him".

No, the House agenda that allocated time to staff lawyers was out days before the Senate hearing.

 

[Bullseye]

Why not? By having staff, they by definition delegate duties to them. And that's a good thing.

Staff takes routine and mundane chores of the plate of their bosses so he/she can concentrate on the prime tasks of their jobs, e.g. voting, participating in committee meetings.

It's no more illegitimate than POTUS hiring cabinet members and an entire executive branch and delegating nearly all the tasks under his purview to those staffers. In this case you'd have Congress delegating questions to staff, who would be questioning the AG, to whom POTUS had delegated his authority in this matter. Why is it OK for POTUS but not a House member?

LOL, sorry, no. It's far from it. Cabinet departments are created by law with specific duties and responsibilities.

No, the House agenda that allocated time to staff lawyers was out days before the Senate hearing.

Why are you guys so afraid to have the elected Dems go face to face with Barr? Why does he scare them so ****less they have to bring in replacements? I mean, seriously, WTF is there to ask him about that isn't already public knowledge? You guys just keep hoping for the Hail Mary gotcha, but it just ain't there.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I mean, seriously, WTF is there to ask him about that isn't already public knowledge? You guys just keep hoping for the Hail Mary gotcha, but it just ain't there.

Why didn't Barr just show up then?

Personally, I think it's because Barr came damn close to crossing into the realm of legal perjury in the Senate hearing, and he's scared to go trying to carry Trump's water like that again.