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

[Flopper]

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

I found the following statement by John Marshal interesting because it supports the Senate rules on impeachment which are criticized because they don't offered the accused the same level of legal protection as in court of law.

"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.

The bar should be higher for government officials than ordinary citizens. This is why in the Senate trial the prosecution, the committee of managers do not need to establish guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. Rules of evidence do not preclude as much as in a case being tried in criminal court. Hearsay evidence may also be admissible and intent without actual action can be admissible.

Well, it's not surprising that impeachment doesn't offer the same level of legal protection as a court of law, since it's not a criminal prosecution. Looked at one way, it's more akin to your boss firing you.

Yes, that's a pretty good analogy. Just as an election is a political process so is impeachment.

I find it strange that today, articles of impeachment must include at least one or more violations of the law when it's clear that an official can be impeached without actually violating the law. IMHO, there are actions or inaction of a president that can be far more serious than a claim of obstruction of justice or lying to congress. In other countries where there is legal or constitution basis for removing a leader, the question of leadership, bad decisions, and catastrophic results seem to be at the top of the list of reasons for removal from office. In the US, the primary reason for removal from office is being caught in lie, something every president does with great frequency.

That is complete and utter bullshit.

"The primary reason for removal from office is being caught in lie" hahahaha

Seriously, you mentally ill leftists just make shit up and bloviate and think nobody notices. It's how I can tell that the only people you ever talk to or listen to are retards just like yourself.

I suggest you read some Articles of Impeachment.

 

[Oddball]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

It's OK to ignore something that is attempting to force you to break the law.

 

[Moonglow]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

It's OK to ignore something that is attempting to force you to break the law.

You can but it seems silly.

 

[Oddball]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

It's OK to ignore something that is attempting to force you to break the law.

You can but it seems silly.

OK...A cop comes up to you and tells you to sell some heroin that he has in his possession....Is ignoring that cop silly?

 

[kyzr]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

It's OK to ignore something that is attempting to force you to break the law.

You can but it seems silly.

You can't jail someone without paying lawyers first!! I thought you knew that much.
Besides, if Nancy sent the Sgt at Arms to arrest the AG, he'd come back with his gun up his ass, since the Secret Service is protecting AG Barr.

 

[Moonglow]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

It's OK to ignore something that is attempting to force you to break the law.

You can but it seems silly.

You can't jail someone without paying lawyers first!! I thought you knew that much.
Besides, if Nancy sent the Sgt at Arms to arrest the AG, he'd come back with his gun up his ass, since the Secret Service is protecting AG Barr.

What makes you think you need to pay a lawyer to have someone arrested?

 

[easyt65]

This threat to try to send United States Attorney General to jail could be considered, and in my opinion should be considered, an attempt to obstruct Justice, attempting to derail the US attorney general's and Department of Justice's investigations into fisa court abuse and other potential crimes committed by democrats.

 

[easyt65]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

Now? No. Rosenstein, Comey, and even Mueller ignored House Intel Committee Subpoenas when the GOP ran the House.

A law suit regarding the Obama DOJ's refusal to release subpoenaed Fast and Furious docunents was just recently settled. In that instance, Obama's DOJ NEVER turned over the subpoenaed documents....

 

[iceberg]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

ask holder. he set the standard.

sucks when it comes back at ya, doesn't it? this is why neither side should be above the law and i don't give a fuck the reason.

 

[Slade3200]

Proving how desperate they are to prevent the US AG from completing on-going investigations Into the Obama DOJ's & FBI's FISA Court Abuses, FBI / Democrat Leaking of classified, the faux Hillary Clinton investigation, and more, Democrats are now talking about wanting to attempt to have the US AG PROSECUTED for refusing to illegally release Grand Jury information in the Mueller Report that Mueller's team helped him redact.

Calls to jail Attorney General Barr grow from Democratic ranks

“We know how to arrest people around here,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., told Politico. “And if we need to arrest someone, the [House] sergeant-at-arms will know how to do it. I’m not afraid of that.”

Really?!

Despite the FBI publicly stating it had recovered more than 15,000 official subpoenaed documents Hillary Clinton attempted to destroy instead of turn into the FBI as she was legally required to do, despite the fact that Hillary and her team illegally destroyed classified government devices and withheld other devices' sim cards, despite the fact that Hillary attempted to wipe her subpoenaed private hard-drive instead of turn it over to the FBI -- all of which were criminal acts of Obstruction of Justice during the FBI's investigation of her, and despite then-FBI Director James Comey publicly declaring Hillary Clinton had broken laws (but was too stupid to know she was doing so), the Democrats proved they did not even know the definition of Obstruction of Justice let alone how to hold someone accountable for doing so.

After Special Counsel Mueller's report failed to deliver the 'Guilty' verdict against the President Democrats had hoped and facing overwhelming evidence of exposed Democrat crimes and on-going DOJ and US IG investigations into those crimes, the Democrats have become desperate to 'take down' the United States Attorney General who has vowed to investigate these crimes and hold the guilty accountable before he can actually do so.

Democrats continue to insinuate that US AG has completely mis-represented Mueller's report, despite the fact that Democrats have refused to even look at the approx. 98.9% redact-LESS report the US AG has made available to them. (The redactions that remain are the ones Mueller's own investigation team helped the US AG to make.)

"The Washington Post first reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller contacted Barr, both in a letter and in a phone call, to express concerns after Barr released his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings in March. Mueller pushed Barr to release the executive summaries written by the special counsel’s office. However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel that Barr’s summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had “misinterpreted” the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice."


When you cut through all the Democrat political theatrics about not being able to see approx. 1% of the Mueller Report still redacted by Mueller's own team IAW current law that prohibits Grand Jury Information being released - especially after they continue to refuse to make any effort to see the almost completely redacted version of the report, you get to the real reason Democrats are doing all of this:

Barr openly declared he believes the Democrats perpetrated FISA Court abuses, illegally spied on Trump and his team, and leaked classified information, and he is already conducting numerous investigations of these possible crimes.

This has put 'the fear of God' into the Democrats, and they MUST take Barr out before the US IG report on FISA Court Abuses or before Barr's DOJ complete their investigations into possible crimes.


Calls to jail Attorney General Barr grow from Democratic ranks


.

Sorry man but the desperation here is very apparent in your long rants!

Look at the headline and you see the BS oozing out. You refer to Dems like they are one person scared of going to jail. Why don’t you just be honest? Dems are pushing for info that Barr does not want them to have. Plain and simple. They aren’t scared of going to jail. You say shit like that and you discredit yourself. Grow up, do better

 

[iceberg]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

It's OK to ignore something that is attempting to force you to break the law.

You can but it seems silly.

OK...A cop comes up to you and tells you to sell some heroin that he has in his possession....Is ignoring that cop silly?

damn sure not selling his drugs for him.

 

[Moonglow]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

ask holder. he set the standard.

sucks when it comes back at ya, doesn't it? this is why neither side should be above the law and i don't give a fuck the reason.

SAme her because it only makes them look like they are not practicing equal protection.

 

[Moonglow]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

It's OK to ignore something that is attempting to force you to break the law.

You can but it seems silly.

OK...A cop comes up to you and tells you to sell some heroin that he has in his possession....Is ignoring that cop silly?

Depends how much heroin he has and what it's going for..

 

[iceberg]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

ask holder. he set the standard.

sucks when it comes back at ya, doesn't it? this is why neither side should be above the law and i don't give a fuck the reason.

SAme her because it only makes them look like they are not practicing equal protection.

well by this point each side has a laundry list of things the "OTHER" side has gotten away with, using this to do the "hold my beer" shit and kick out even more bullshit, blaming the other side for making them do it.

sooner or later we crash and burn, or get smart and stop it.

so far crash n burn way in the lead.

 

[Moonglow]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

ask holder. he set the standard.

sucks when it comes back at ya, doesn't it? this is why neither side should be above the law and i don't give a fuck the reason.

SAme her because it only makes them look like they are not practicing equal protection.

well by this point each side has a laundry list of things the "OTHER" side has gotten away with, using this to do the "hold my beer" shit and kick out even more bullshit, blaming the other side for making them do it.

sooner or later we crash and burn, or get smart and stop it.

so far crash n burn way in the lead.

And the natives are getting restless over it..

 

[Cecilie1200]

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

I found the following statement by John Marshal interesting because it supports the Senate rules on impeachment which are criticized because they don't offered the accused the same level of legal protection as in court of law.

"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.

The bar should be higher for government officials than ordinary citizens. This is why in the Senate trial the prosecution, the committee of managers do not need to establish guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. Rules of evidence do not preclude as much as in a case being tried in criminal court. Hearsay evidence may also be admissible and intent without actual action can be admissible.

Well, it's not surprising that impeachment doesn't offer the same level of legal protection as a court of law, since it's not a criminal prosecution. Looked at one way, it's more akin to your boss firing you.

Yes, that's a pretty good analogy. Just as an election is a political process so is impeachment.

I find it strange that today, articles of impeachment must include at least one or more violations of the law when it's clear that an official can be impeached without actually violating the law. IMHO, there are actions or inaction of a president that can be far more serious than a claim of obstruction of justice or lying to congress. In other countries where there is legal or constitution basis for removing a leader, the question of leadership, bad decisions, and catastrophic results seem to be at the top of the list of reasons for removal from office. In the US, the primary reason for removal from office is being caught in lie, something every president does with great frequency.

I think it's partly that our system has been remarkably stable, partly that people have become far too apathetic and cynical about politicians, and partly just that people are kinda ignorant about how things work. Look at all the people right here on this board who genuinely believe that a prosecutable crime is necessary for impeachment.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Bill says 'Bring it on'...

 

[kyzr]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?

It's OK to ignore something that is attempting to force you to break the law.

You can but it seems silly.

You can't jail someone without paying lawyers first!! I thought you knew that much.
Besides, if Nancy sent the Sgt at Arms to arrest the AG, he'd come back with his gun up his ass, since the Secret Service is protecting AG Barr.

What makes you think you need to pay a lawyer to have someone arrested?

Read the OP again. the dems want to throw Barr into their "jail" in the House without charges, arrest warrant, Miranda rights, a trial, Judges, appeals, etc.

 

[iceberg]

Proving how desperate they are to prevent the US AG from completing on-going investigations Into the Obama DOJ's & FBI's FISA Court Abuses, FBI / Democrat Leaking of classified, the faux Hillary Clinton investigation, and more, Democrats are now talking about wanting to attempt to have the US AG PROSECUTED for refusing to illegally release Grand Jury information in the Mueller Report that Mueller's team helped him redact.

Calls to jail Attorney General Barr grow from Democratic ranks

“We know how to arrest people around here,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., told Politico. “And if we need to arrest someone, the [House] sergeant-at-arms will know how to do it. I’m not afraid of that.”

Really?!

Despite the FBI publicly stating it had recovered more than 15,000 official subpoenaed documents Hillary Clinton attempted to destroy instead of turn into the FBI as she was legally required to do, despite the fact that Hillary and her team illegally destroyed classified government devices and withheld other devices' sim cards, despite the fact that Hillary attempted to wipe her subpoenaed private hard-drive instead of turn it over to the FBI -- all of which were criminal acts of Obstruction of Justice during the FBI's investigation of her, and despite then-FBI Director James Comey publicly declaring Hillary Clinton had broken laws (but was too stupid to know she was doing so), the Democrats proved they did not even know the definition of Obstruction of Justice let alone how to hold someone accountable for doing so.

After Special Counsel Mueller's report failed to deliver the 'Guilty' verdict against the President Democrats had hoped and facing overwhelming evidence of exposed Democrat crimes and on-going DOJ and US IG investigations into those crimes, the Democrats have become desperate to 'take down' the United States Attorney General who has vowed to investigate these crimes and hold the guilty accountable before he can actually do so.

Democrats continue to insinuate that US AG has completely mis-represented Mueller's report, despite the fact that Democrats have refused to even look at the approx. 98.9% redact-LESS report the US AG has made available to them. (The redactions that remain are the ones Mueller's own investigation team helped the US AG to make.)

"The Washington Post first reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller contacted Barr, both in a letter and in a phone call, to express concerns after Barr released his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings in March. Mueller pushed Barr to release the executive summaries written by the special counsel’s office. However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel that Barr’s summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had “misinterpreted” the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice."


When you cut through all the Democrat political theatrics about not being able to see approx. 1% of the Mueller Report still redacted by Mueller's own team IAW current law that prohibits Grand Jury Information being released - especially after they continue to refuse to make any effort to see the almost completely redacted version of the report, you get to the real reason Democrats are doing all of this:

Barr openly declared he believes the Democrats perpetrated FISA Court abuses, illegally spied on Trump and his team, and leaked classified information, and he is already conducting numerous investigations of these possible crimes.

This has put 'the fear of God' into the Democrats, and they MUST take Barr out before the US IG report on FISA Court Abuses or before Barr's DOJ complete their investigations into possible crimes.


Calls to jail Attorney General Barr grow from Democratic ranks


.

Sorry man but the desperation here is very apparent in your long rants!

Look at the headline and you see the BS oozing out. You refer to Dems like they are one person scared of going to jail. Why don’t you just be honest? Dems are pushing for info that Barr does not want them to have. Plain and simple. They aren’t scared of going to jail. You say shit like that and you discredit yourself. Grow up, do better

tried to talk to him about clickbait headlines yesterday but i gave up.

 

[Oddball]