WTF? Democrat House Judiciary Committee Takes First Step to Hold Bill Barr in Contempt of Congress

[jc456]

Trumpybear can only delay its release to the committees.

Looks like the DOJ is aiding the President in obstructing the House of Representatives ability to carry out it's constitutional responsibility. They need to see all the evidence, in un-redacted form, to decide whether or not to impeach Dirty Don.

What's he trying to hide?

can you please explain why the 2nd version without anywhere NEAR the redactions are simply not enough for you or the dems?

didn't think so.

Mueller's Summary is enough for me. The "Dirty Don" was warned about the Russian attempts and was asked to report any contact. He took the warnings and used them as an opportunity and continuously denied any contact until they couldn't anymore.

I don't think most Americans think that is okay or very patriotic of a man running for President.

But that's just me.

he was warned? post the sentence from Mueller's summary that makes that statement.

 

[Edgetho]

I didn't read this whole thread. Mostly because it's based on Fake News information.

So if this has already been said...... Tuf shit

But the House didn't find Barr in contempt yet to my knowledge.

Just the Judiciary Committee recommended it.

And what can you expect from those total scum. Half of them might be in prison this time next year. If Barr acts on Horowitz' IG report and traces all the leaks back to Schiff For Brains and Nadless; those are felonies.

And I do believe Barr will prosecute them.

Will Barr do his job or will he slink away like so many Republicans have in the past??

 

[iceberg]

Trumpybear can only delay its release to the committees.

Looks like the DOJ is aiding the President in obstructing the House of Representatives ability to carry out it's constitutional responsibility. They need to see all the evidence, in un-redacted form, to decide whether or not to impeach Dirty Don.

What's he trying to hide?

can you please explain why the 2nd version without anywhere NEAR the redactions are simply not enough for you or the dems?

didn't think so.

Mueller's Summary is enough for me. The "Dirty Don" was warned about the Russian attempts and was asked to report any contact. He took the warnings and used them as an opportunity and continuously denied any contact until they couldn't anymore.

I don't think most Americans think that is okay or very patriotic of a man running for President.

But that's just me.

he was warned? post the sentence from Mueller's summary that makes that statement.

we KNOW obama was warned.

we SAW how that turned out.

the rest is just spin.

 

[jc456]

Trumpybear can only delay its release to the committees.

Looks like the DOJ is aiding the President in obstructing the House of Representatives ability to carry out it's constitutional responsibility. They need to see all the evidence, in un-redacted form, to decide whether or not to impeach Dirty Don.

What's he trying to hide?

can you please explain why the 2nd version without anywhere NEAR the redactions are simply not enough for you or the dems?

didn't think so.

Mueller's Summary is enough for me. The "Dirty Don" was warned about the Russian attempts and was asked to report any contact. He took the warnings and used them as an opportunity and continuously denied any contact until they couldn't anymore.

I don't think most Americans think that is okay or very patriotic of a man running for President.

But that's just me.

he was warned? post the sentence from Mueller's summary that makes that statement.

we KNOW obama was warned.

we SAW how that turned out.

the rest is just spin.

but we do know that trump wasn't warned. It's called spying and why Barr said it. factually wrong as usual is a leftist blindboo. just always steps up to pronounce his stupid.

 

[jc456]

BlindBoo , well can congress convene a grand jury? you haven't answered, why?

 

[iceberg]

Trumpybear can only delay its release to the committees.

Looks like the DOJ is aiding the President in obstructing the House of Representatives ability to carry out it's constitutional responsibility. They need to see all the evidence, in un-redacted form, to decide whether or not to impeach Dirty Don.

What's he trying to hide?

can you please explain why the 2nd version without anywhere NEAR the redactions are simply not enough for you or the dems?

didn't think so.

Mueller's Summary is enough for me. The "Dirty Don" was warned about the Russian attempts and was asked to report any contact. He took the warnings and used them as an opportunity and continuously denied any contact until they couldn't anymore.

I don't think most Americans think that is okay or very patriotic of a man running for President.

But that's just me.

he was warned? post the sentence from Mueller's summary that makes that statement.

we KNOW obama was warned.

we SAW how that turned out.

the rest is just spin.

but we do know that trump wasn't warned. It's called spying and why Barr said it. factually wrong as usual is a leftist blindboo. just always steps up to pronounce his stupid.

the extremes on both left and right have re-defined terms to their liking. if they call it a "softer" word it changes what happened.

no. it does not. it simply leads to arguing over what is and is not spying. the problem is, if trump did the very same thing to whoever runs against him, the left would shat themselves and demand his head and find SOME sliver of "difference" in why they could but you can't.

 

[jc456]

can you please explain why the 2nd version without anywhere NEAR the redactions are simply not enough for you or the dems?

didn't think so.

Mueller's Summary is enough for me. The "Dirty Don" was warned about the Russian attempts and was asked to report any contact. He took the warnings and used them as an opportunity and continuously denied any contact until they couldn't anymore.

I don't think most Americans think that is okay or very patriotic of a man running for President.

But that's just me.

he was warned? post the sentence from Mueller's summary that makes that statement.

we KNOW obama was warned.

we SAW how that turned out.

the rest is just spin.

but we do know that trump wasn't warned. It's called spying and why Barr said it. factually wrong as usual is a leftist blindboo. just always steps up to pronounce his stupid.

the extremes on both left and right have re-defined terms to their liking. if they call it a "softer" word it changes what happened.

no. it does not. it simply leads to arguing over what is and is not spying. the problem is, if trump did the very same thing to whoever runs against him, the left would shat themselves and demand his head and find SOME sliver of "difference" in why they could but you can't.

can't argue that at all. I'm still not impressed with their condescension, they are just fking stupid. Box of rock stupid. perhaps an education would help them. A real one.

Our money has god on it, but our country wasn't founded by Judeo Christian ideas. dude, one can't make up the stupid. STUPID

 

[BlindBoo]

BlindBoo , well can congress convene a grand jury? you haven't answered, why?

Hahaha. Why does that matter? It makes no difference on whether or not they are allow to see Grand Jury information. That will be up to a judge.

 

[Flash]

Being "held in comtempt" by a bunch of dumbass hate filled Democrats is a badge of honor.

The stupid vote was along party lines meaning it was nothing more than filthy Democrats behaving badly, as usual.

 

[jc456]

BlindBoo , well can congress convene a grand jury? you haven't answered, why?

Hahaha. Why does that matter? It makes no difference on whether or not they are allow to see Grand Jury information. That will be up to a judge.

it matters to the authority to issue a subpoena and not complying. so, again, what is it the congress will do once their subpoena is ignored? tell me?

 

[BlindBoo]

BlindBoo , well can congress convene a grand jury? you haven't answered, why?

Hahaha. Why does that matter? It makes no difference on whether or not they are allow to see Grand Jury information. That will be up to a judge.

it matters to the authority to issue a subpoena and not complying. so, again, what is it the congress will do once their subpoena is ignored? tell me?

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ago.

Lindsey Graham in 1998: Ignoring Subpoenas Impeachable

Nixon's case it went all the way to the SC. He lost 9-0.

 

[jc456]

BlindBoo , well can congress convene a grand jury? you haven't answered, why?

Hahaha. Why does that matter? It makes no difference on whether or not they are allow to see Grand Jury information. That will be up to a judge.

it matters to the authority to issue a subpoena and not complying. so, again, what is it the congress will do once their subpoena is ignored? tell me?

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ago.

Lindsey Graham in 1998: Ignoring Subpoenas Impeachable

Nixon's case it went all the way to the SC. He lost 9-0.

yep impeachment. that's it. have to have justification/ evidence for it. just like you can't scream bomb on a plane. fk I hate stupid people like you.

 

[jc456]

BTW, Barr should indict every congress person who is behind the subpoena asking the AG to break the law. Conspiracy to force a citizen to commit a felony!!! Mr. Barr, have at it!

 

[WEATHER53]

Barr has the goods on the Hillary cheating scam and the resultant witch hunt scam and the only way to keep him quiet is to orchestrate a dismissal of him.

 

[BlindBoo]

BlindBoo , well can congress convene a grand jury? you haven't answered, why?

Hahaha. Why does that matter? It makes no difference on whether or not they are allow to see Grand Jury information. That will be up to a judge.

it matters to the authority to issue a subpoena and not complying. so, again, what is it the congress will do once their subpoena is ignored? tell me?

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ago.

Lindsey Graham in 1998: Ignoring Subpoenas Impeachable

Nixon's case it went all the way to the SC. He lost 9-0.

yep impeachment. that's it. have to have justification/ evidence for it. just like you can't scream bomb on a plane. fk I hate stupid people like you.

The way forward is in the courts, like in Nixon's case.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a completely ass-backward load of horseshit. I can't decide if you're really that fucking stupid, or just pathetically willing to look that stupid in service of your masters.

Hope they at least give you a Snausage, Fido.

Ok retard, come back when you can put togather a constructive response.

Okay, retard. Come back when you can post something that deserves a more "constructive" response.

Deserves? If you got nothing substantive to add to the conversation just shut the fuck up.

Hold your breath waiting until your impotent ass has the ability to make me do anything, Junkless. Not let you talk unopposed, and not treat your lies as serious, legitimate points worthy of debate.

If you're going to continue asserting talking points as fact without regard to whether they match the facts or even make any sense, then I'm going to continue pointing out that you're a mindless drone groveling for the pleasure of your political masters. And there's not a damned thing you can do to stop me. I guess you're welcome to run away and make it obvious to everyone that you can't handle dissent. After all, I doubt you have enough self-respect mustered to care about looking like a coward.

...and another content free post. You get off on this?

And another deflection. Call me when you man up and have something real to say.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Returning to the REAL world, where black is black and white is white and being a Republican isn't a capital crime:

The depictions of what Mueller did as correct, professional, and proper continue to be the exact opposite of the truth.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I agree with you that what the Democrats in the House are doing is purely political and has nothing at all to do with their legitimate duties as members of Congress. However, the reason the President can't be brought to trial is that there is no evidence he commited a crime. Since collusion is not a crime, at the times Trump is accused of trying to obstruct the investigation, Mueller was not conducting a criminal investigation, therefore interfering with Mueller investigation about non criminal matters could not be construed as obstruction of justice. Impeachment, which may happen, would be just a political gesture by the Democrats, nothing more.

Yes, investigating the president for a possible bill of impeachment is pure politics because that is what impeachment is, a political process to remove a government official from office, not a legal process. The House of Representative has the authority to investigate any government official, including the president to gather information for a Bill of Impeachment.

It's not pure politics, far from considering the substance of Trump's behavior in office, including many of the episodes documented in the special council's report.

What is the precedent for the Presidency of the United States of America going forward if Trump simply walks off such blatant obstruction of justice? Trump will come and go but the swampy new norms left behind will stink for generations.

When I say, it's pure politics I'm referring to the impeachment process. Impeachment is simply a way of removing a person who is unfit for office. It is a political process. Removal does not even require charges of criminal activity. Little deportation, it is not punishment. It is simply correction in status.

So you think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was just a suggestion from the founding fathers? Another example of what Democrats mean when they say the Constitution is a living document.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. You either do not understand impeachment or you do not understand my post.

Impeachment is a political process in the constitution for removing government officials. It was used in colonies to remove judges and other government officials. The reasons for removal was commonly referred to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

High Crimes and Misdemeanor covers a wide range of allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Chief Justice John Marshall had this to say about impeachment in a ruling in 1803. “The constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate".
The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? By Neil J. Kinkopf - The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

 

[jc456]

BlindBoo , well can congress convene a grand jury? you haven't answered, why?

Hahaha. Why does that matter? It makes no difference on whether or not they are allow to see Grand Jury information. That will be up to a judge.

it matters to the authority to issue a subpoena and not complying. so, again, what is it the congress will do once their subpoena is ignored? tell me?

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ago.

Lindsey Graham in 1998: Ignoring Subpoenas Impeachable

Nixon's case it went all the way to the SC. He lost 9-0.

yep impeachment. that's it. have to have justification/ evidence for it. just like you can't scream bomb on a plane. fk I hate stupid people like you.

The way forward is in the courts, like in Nixon's case.

the courts will tell them to go away, got to have something to argue. what is it they will argue? I'll wait.

 

[Muhammed]