This is from an interview today. He's a Republican Rep from TX. Is he telling the truth? Why or why not is what he is saying true?

BARTIROMO: So, what happened when Jerry Nadler, chairman of your committee, went for a contempt of Congress vote for William Barr? Can you tell us about what that day was?

RATCLIFFE: Well, Maria, there have been plenty of days I have been embarrassed to be a member of Congress, based on the conduct of some of its members, but none more so than this week.

And think about it. The once-esteemed House Judiciary Committee marked up a resolution to hold the attorney general of the United States in contempt for his refusal to commit a crime.

Bill Barr, who had no obligation to turn over a single word or comma of Bob Mueller's report, turned over as much as was permitted by law.

Are you now working propaganda for the Trump Crime Family?

I believe you and Ratcliffe are referring to the dishonest propaganda about it being illegal to release grand jury information.

Grand jury information was released to Congress in Watergate and Monical Lewinskygate because there are exceptions to the law. The dishonest propaganda you and Ratcliffe are peddling here ignores the exceptions to the law.

dajo9 said:

---

I believe you and Ratcliffe are referring to the dishonest propaganda about it being illegal to release grand jury information.

Grand jury information was released to Congress in Watergate and Monical Lewinskygate because there are exceptions to the law. The dishonest propaganda you and Ratcliffe are peddling here ignores the exceptions to the law.

---

The law changed after the Starr Report tarnished Bill. As a self-proclaimed political junkie, you have read the below, correct?

https://www.google.com/amp/time.com/5558083/mueller-report-release-starr/%3famp=true

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I believe you and Ratcliffe are referring to the dishonest propaganda about it being illegal to release grand jury information.

Grand jury information was released to Congress in Watergate and Monical Lewinskygate because there are exceptions to the law. The dishonest propaganda you and Ratcliffe are peddling here ignores the exceptions to the law.

---

The law changed after the Starr Report tarnished Bill. As a self-proclaimed political junkie, you have read the below, correct?

https://www.google.com/amp/time.com/5558083/mueller-report-release-starr/%3famp=true

---

The end of the Special Prosecutor law has nothing to do with the topic you brought up.

1. Congress has an oversight responsibility as mandated in the Constitution. If Congress wants the report Congress should get the report.

2. More specifically, what is at issue in what Ratcliffe brought up is the 1957 ruling in McKeever vs. Barr (no relation) saying that grand jury material was not to be released. However, there are exceptions, which is why grand jury materials were released in Watergate and Monica Lewinskygate.

It happened that the 1978 statute expired in 1999, just a year after the impeachment and so it followed that the procedures for a special prosecution were changed accordingly. In place of the old statute, the Department of Justice enacted internal regulations for a Special Counsel's work. Those regulations included giving the Attorney General more power to decide how much of the final report of the investigation would be released to the public, if anything. The section regarding the release of the Special Counsel report says, "At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel." Another section says the Attorney General "may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions."

Not included was a statute requiring Special Counsel investigations to be disclosed to Congress or the public. In a March 2019 memo summarizing the current regulations, the Congressional Research Service linked that omission, and the new "approach in limiting the release of the Special Counsel's report" to the "detail and scope" of the Starr report.

---

600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.
(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action
(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;
(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.
(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.

---

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)
generally provides that grand jury proceedings be kept secret, with a few exceptions allowing a judge to grant a court order to release them.
"In case someone shows me a provision in 6(e) that permits its release, Congress doesn't get 6(e)," Barr said.
A judge can disclose a grand jury matter to a government attorney for use in performing their duties, such as running an ongoing investigation, or to government personnel in order to enforce federal criminal laws.
A judge can also disclose grand jury information to federal, state or other officials when there is a threat from a hostile foreign power, terrorism or intelligence service in order to prevent or respond to the activities.

---

Barr is allowing the report to be viewed by representative of Congress but nobody has signed up to do so. Aren't there competing interests here? Isn't that a compromise?

Department of Justice internal regulations do not supercede Congress' Constitutional duties

Why is viewing the full, unredacted report not enough? How is demanding a full copy of the report not political?

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.

oski003 said:

---

Why is viewing the full, unredacted report not enough? How is demanding a full copy of the report not political?

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.

---

There are numerous criminal proceedings still ongoing as a result of the Mueller investigation, numerous other criminal proceedings from parties related to the Mueller investigation, and a foreign intelligence matter of still unknown veracity.

Congress has never had more reason to have access to ALL the information. Why is anything but that not a cover-up?

oski003 said:

---

Why is viewing the full, unredacted report not enough? How is demanding a full copy of the report not political?

---

I don't believe that viewing the unredacted report has been offered. Barr offered to let the gang of eight review a less redacted report (everything except grand jury).

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/439640-barr-to-allow-some-lawmakers-to-review-less-redacted-mueller-report

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, in the letter to Nadler on Wednesday, said the less-redacted version already available to key members "would permit review of 98.5 percent of the report, including 99.9 percent of Volume II, which discusses the investigation of the President's actions."

It's not their place to limit Congressional oversight and those percentages don't include the investigatory material like the grand jury testimony.

dajo9 said:

---

It's not their place to limit Congressional oversight and those percentages don't include the investigatory material like the grand jury testimony.

---

My understanding is that it was only available personally for review in camera by Schumer, Pelosi, Schiff, Warner, Nadler and a few staffers.

It was a fake olive branch.

While I don't agree with your interpretation of events, I think this is a good discussion. It appears that Congress technically has the power to subpoena the full report, assuming they are not doing this for political purposes. Do you think they will have an opportunity to interview Mueller to answer the questions they have?

I think a Mueller will exercise so much caution that he won't say anything other than what was publicly disclosed in the report. I would love to be wrong but I don't think I will be.

As for what Democrats want, it's of course largely political (like the emails and Benghazi) but it's also substantive and the wrongdoing will not stop as long as Trump remains in office. Hard to imagine how anyone can believe otherwise.

My favorite part of Trump controversies is when he is accused of doing something wrong he says (1) I didn't do it, (2) it's not wrong, I can do it, (3) Obama did something similar (which in reality is nowhere near as bad), (4) the media is biased for not going after Obama for doing something that was bad that Trump says is totally legal and totally cool for Trump to do.

Oski,
I hate to tell you, but you are missing the big picture, which is that trump is a scumbag a**hole loser.
For whatever reason, likely simply your historic Republican affiliation/identity, you've allowed yourself to bury the lead in favor of comparatively inconsequential technicalities.

Have fun with that. If you live long enough to see history properly, you'll realize how deluded you were. Unfortunately, your descendants will not miss the point. Grandpa was just another idiot.

i hope he gets voted out in the upcoming election. i dont think his administration needs to be undermined until then. im not as emo as you are.

dajo9 said:

---

It's not their place to limit Congressional oversight and those percentages don't include the investigatory material like the grand jury testimony.

---

The executive branch can claim executive privilege over the Congress for legitimate prosecturial purposes. U.S. vs. Nixon. So deletions about referrals of other matters which are being investigated which involve actual deliberations by prosecutors which were deleted by Barr, may (note the may, not will) be protected by the courts, who actually are the ones that limit congressional oversight. But these are very discrete instances

With respect to the blanket use of executive privilege by Trump, he is basically using the privilege to try and conceal guilt or wrong doing, and there is a long history of Presidential failure in this regard. Executive privilege was most famously asserted by Nixon during Watergate, when he sought to keep secret the tapes that had been made of conversations in the Oval Office. SCOTUS said no dice, while for the first tine recognizing the privilege does exist. Bill Clinton, during the investigation into his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and Obama also asserted the privilege during the investigation into the "Fast and Furious" program. Both lost the court cases with rulings built on the jurisprudence in the Nixon case, which basically said privilege is narrowly limited to national security and legal administration of law. Trump's blanket excessive privilege claim on essentially every subpoena issued by the House unlikely will be seen as meeting these narrow criteria. Unless SCOTUS decides to overrule the Nixon case, Ratcliffe simply is wrong, even with respect to grand jury stuff.

BTW several things said by non-lawyers I'm not following. First is somewhat Congress can't be motivated by politics in investigating a matter and asking for documents. When did that become a legal standard? Almost all investigations are political in nature.

There was some comments about Congress holding Barr in contempt. Won't happen. It is up to the Justice Department to determine when to prosecute the contempt request, and I wouldn't hold my breath. Democrats then will pass a separate resolution to authorize going to court with Barr and the Trump administration over the Mueller report, and getting the courts to decide their subpoena request. The courts then could compel the Trump administration to comply with the subpoenas, with more serious consequences for noncompliant officials. For instance, a judge could hold administration officials in contempt of court, rather than contempt of Congress. As a practical matter this may be a distinciton without a difference if it wasn't that the courts take so long, and this probably goes to SCOTUS. So from my perspective this is a delaying tactic by Trump.

There is something called the inherent contempt power which was last used before the Civil War to have the
Sergeant-at-Arms take sooner held in contempt into custody and brought before the House or Senate to testify. Given the lack of due process, I don't see the courts allowing this despite comments made by a few nuts that Congress should do this (I believe Pelosi has said no way).

oski003 said:

---

i hope he gets voted out in the upcoming election.

---

Thank you, oh thank you so very much!
What can I get you to drink? Have you tried any of the hors d'oeuvres?

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's not their place to limit Congressional oversight and those percentages don't include the investigatory material like the grand jury testimony.

---

Ratcliffe simply is wrong, even with respect to grand jury stuff.



There was some comments about Congress holding Barr in contempt. Won't happen. It is up to the Justice Department to determine when to prosecute the contempt request, and I wouldn't hold my breath.

---

Bolded to highlight for the cheap seats

In regards to the contempt issue - isn't Congress holding someone in contempt a different thing from that person being prosecuted. Congress could (and likely will) hold Barr in contempt and the DOJ will not follow up on a prosecution. Isn't that what happened with Holder.

dajo9 said:

---

It's not their place to limit Congressional oversight and those percentages don't include the investigatory material like the grand jury testimony.

---

This belief is opposite from the initial post, which thinks the congress should not be allow to ALL the information.

If we are to have 3 branches of government with checks and balances over one another, then it would seem to me that each branch would need to have access to ALL the information in order to do so.

Thus, I take the side of Dajo here!

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's not their place to limit Congressional oversight and those percentages don't include the investigatory material like the grand jury testimony.

---

Ratcliffe simply is wrong, even with respect to grand jury stuff.



There was some comments about Congress holding Barr in contempt. Won't happen. It is up to the Justice Department to determine when to prosecute the contempt request, and I wouldn't hold my breath.

---

Bolded to highlight for the cheap seats

In regards to the contempt issue - isn't Congress holding someone in contempt a different thing from that person being prosecuted. Congress could (and likely will) hold Barr in contempt and the DOJ will not follow up on a prosecution. Isn't that what happened with Holder.

---

In theory that is correct, Congress can symbolically hold someone in contempt, but never have the party prosecuted. In fact, that is exactly what happened with Holder.

But if the administration decides not to prosecute (the obvious result), the process is Congress goes to the courts for relief, which probably takes a long time. Hence the reference to a delay tactic.