RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Devastating: Liberal Law Professor Clinically Dismantles Democrats' - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Devastating: Liberal Law Professor Clinically Dismantles Democrats' Contempt Case Against Barr Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 50,819
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 10 May 2019 - 02:08 PM

Devastating: Liberal Law Professor Clinically Dismantles Democrats' Contempt Case Against Barr

Townhall
Guy Benson
Posted: May 09, 2019 1:05 PM

Excerpt:

Left-leaning law professor Jonathan Turley -- who has stood out in recent years as a rare legal analyst unwilling to allow his political views to cloud his constitutional judgments -- has written an absolutely devastating column addressing House Democrats' efforts to hold Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt of Congress. Anti-Trump partisans have compiled a list of grievances against Barr, many of them specious, but House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler has chosen to focus the contempt charge on the Attorney General's unwillingness to release a tiny redacted fraction of the Mueller report. Turley says this is "the weakest possible contempt claim," warning that pursuing it will damage the House, not the administration. Here's the core of his argument on the redactions-based contempt complaint:

The problem is that the contempt action against Barr is long on action and short on contempt. Indeed, with a superficial charge, the House could seriously undermine its credibility in the ongoing conflicts with the White House...As someone who has represented the House of Representatives, my concern is that this one violates a legal version of the Hippocratic oath to “first do no harm.” This could do great harm, not to Barr, but to the House. It is the weakest possible case to bring against the administration, and likely to be an example of a bad case making bad law for the House...Barr promised to release as much of the report as possible, and he has delivered. Indeed, he is not expressly given the authority to release the confidential report. Yet, he not only released it but declared executive privilege waived on its content. The key obstruction portion of the report is virtually unredacted. Just 8 percent of the public report was redacted, largely to remove material that could undermine ongoing investigations. The sealed version of the report given to Congress only had 2 percent redacted. Democrats are therefore seeking a contempt sanction on a report that is 98 percent disclosed and only lacks grand jury material.

Barr restricted access to the 98 percent disclosed report, as opposed to the 92 percent public report, due to the inclusion of evidence impacting ongoing prosecutions. He has offered to expand the number of members and staff to review that material but insists on it remaining protected. But this has nothing to do with the redactions. It is the 2 percent solution to a major political dilemma of the left. Faced with a report that rejected the collusion theories of their running narrative, Democrats want to focus on those 2 percent of redactions rather than over 400 pages of findings. So Congress now will ask a court to find civil contempt for Barr refusing to release grand jury information. The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a district court claim to have the “inherent supervisory authority” to disclose grand jury matters because of great public interest. To make matters worse, the Justice Department has now said the president has invoked executive privilege over the entire report, making this contempt claim even less likely to prevail over the long run.

Turley also recalls his own testimony before Congress during Barr's confirmation process, in which he stated that by asking Barr to preemptively pledge to release a completely unredacted version of the Mueller report, Democrats were literally asking the nominee to promise to violate the law: "As a witness, I testified that they were asking Barr to commit to a potential criminal act to secure his own confirmation. The report inevitably would contain some grand jury material, which under the law is information that cannot be publicly released without a court order. It is a crime to unveil such information." As he mentions in a bolded portion of the excerpt above, a powerful federal court recently fortified the precedent that secret grand jury records cannot be made public simply as a means of satisfying significant public interest. Absent following a process dictated by existing law, revealing such information is illegal. House Democrats are seeking to hold America's chief law enforcement officer in contempt of Congress for declining to commit a crime. Bold strategy.

*snip*

Full Commentary
0

#2 User is offline   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,905
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 10 May 2019 - 02:24 PM

Turley (like Dershowitz) is a true liberal. But they remain faithful to the law and the Constitution in their writings, placing their acceptance by the Left in great jeopardy.

Refreshing. . .

0

#3 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 56,140
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 10 May 2019 - 02:57 PM

View Postmjperry51, on 10 May 2019 - 02:24 PM, said:

Turley (like Dershowitz) is a true liberal. But they remain faithful to the law and the Constitution in their writings, placing their acceptance by the Left in great jeopardy.

Refreshing. . .


Exactly.

:2up:
0

#4 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,716
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 10 May 2019 - 04:36 PM

But...but, Schiff just KNOWS that there’s the grail buried in that 2% that will (this time, fer sure) be the end of Trump for all time, right?

Right?

Right?

Is this thing on?
0

#5 User is offline   NH Populist 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,169
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 10 May 2019 - 04:45 PM

Can anyone explain how the Left doesn't see how weird this all is?! They're now calling it a "Constitutional Crisis" and that Barr has lied to Congress. And if the Trump administration were prosecuted, they'd fill a jail! If these people aren't insane, then the rest of us must be...
0

#6 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,716
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 10 May 2019 - 04:55 PM

View PostNH Populist, on 10 May 2019 - 04:45 PM, said:

Can anyone explain how the Left doesn't see how weird this all is?! They're now calling it a "Constitutional Crisis" and that Barr has lied to Congress. And if the Trump administration were prosecuted, they'd fill a jail! If these people aren't insane, then the rest of us must be...

They have a narrative to follow. Facts be damned. I give you the “chambered round” as an example. Among many others.

“I know we didn’t catch him cheating, which means he cheated us from finding him cheating. Or something... Truuuuuummmmmppppp!!!!!”
0

#7 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,306
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 11 May 2019 - 10:58 PM

View Postmjperry51, on 10 May 2019 - 02:24 PM, said:

Turley (like Dershowitz) is a true liberal. But they remain faithful to the law and the Constitution in their writings, placing their acceptance by the Left in great jeopardy.

Refreshing. . .


It's remarkable to see people on either side of the aisle who are willing to stand on their principles and not allow their personal feelings to weaken those principles for expediency's sake.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users