If the material is redacted, how does Congress know which redacted materials relate to which grand jury testimony, and which judge should be contacted?
I thought the redaction was the reason to ask the AG for the materials. Because the AG knows what, exactly, is redacted. So Congress would require the AG to be an intermediary between Congress and the Court.
Regardless, this feels like a time-wasting maneuver. Why not cite Barr simply for his refusal to appear?
The arguments about executive privilege are another time-waster. Executive privilege is not something a candidate can assert, for example. And the purpose is not to allow the Executive Branch to investigate itself, with no oversight from Congress.
there is really only one grand jury that Mueller himself dealt with â the stuff he farmed out to other grand juries was not relevant to his investigation â and thus probably only marginally included in his report --if at all. (I mean, the Manafort stuff in Virginia was pretty much unrelated to Russia â it was mostly bank fraud and other financial crimes). So petitioning the DC grand jury would provide almost all of the grand jury stuff â and would provide precedent for any hearings that might be needed before other judges.
Not at all. Congress can ask the judge for ALL testimony and evidence presented to the Grand Jury. Once that access is granted, Congress could then go back to Barr, and THEN tell him to produce a version of the Mueller report without 'grand jury" redactions.
Barr could say to the judge that some of the grand jury info involves âongoing investigationsâ as well, but that probably wonât hold much water, given that its the committee that overseas the DoJ asking for the information AND the precendent that was set when the GOP congress demanded, and got, information on this very case despite âongoing investigationâ concerns.
Because Barrâs scheduled appearance before the house was voluntary, and not subpoenaed. Before citing Barr for contempt for non-appearance, therefore, a subpoena would have to be issued, and defied. And because Congress has no realistic mechanism besides a civil proceeding to enforce a subpoena, a contempt of congress citation is pretty much a waste of energy anyway.
when it comes to the Mueller report as such, âexecutive privilegeâ is colorable/plausible enough to get court hearings, etc. Thatâs because there is such a thing as âdeliberative privilegeâ, and the Mueller report is literally a âdeliberativeâ document that lays out the rationale for prosecutive decision making.
In other words, while the evidence concerning the campaign is not privileged, the argument that the report itself is privileged is worth court consideration at the very least.
But because that would have to be considered "new businessâ under Senate rules, and McConnell decides not just when ânew businessâ is considered, but what order each bit is ânew businessâ is considered, he probably has enough wiggle room to let the articles of impeachment sit on his desk indefinitely.
Khyber - my only admonition is a 2020 Impeachment after an LONG series of Judiciary hearings on the merits of the case brings the public along at the rate required, makes the 2020 election a referendum on Trumpâs corruption, and prevents the GOP Senate the time to acquit Trump and cover their own asses. A Labor Day 2020 floor vote on about 10 Articles of Impeachment seems about the prefect timeline to me.
If the House votes out the Articles too soon, McConnell will do everything he can to rush the trial in the Senate and protect the POTUS.
I am not wedded to any timing schedule. Imho, I think weâd get max bang for buck if we impeached him by Dec 2019 and get it out of the way before the first votes are cast in Iowa.
The role of the Chief Justice in an impeachment trial is not set in stone. The procedure has been invoked so infrequently that much remains uncertain. He may decide certain questions with the advice of Senate parliamentarians, but decisions he makes can likely be over-ruled by a vote of the Senate (and the margin required for such a vote is not certain, either).
In these circumstances, it is a fair bet that a vigilant schemer such as McConnell will not be completely side-lined during an impeachment trial.
I honestly think theyâre trying to make sure they have a good record when they get to the judge. One of the things that gets lost in the reference to the Holder contempt in the Fast and Furious case is that once it got to the Judge (Amy Berman Jackson), she found the Contempt citation to be premature because the contempt vote took place before the time the court had set for Holder to comply with the subpoena. And he complied with the court order, obviating the need for contempt to force compliance with Congressâs demands.
We know Mnuchin wonât comply, but Congress still has to make the record to present to the court for enforcement.
Not anymore than youâre saying The Whiner in the White House didnât obstruct justice, Doc.
There is such a thing as being too cautious. Many of Cummingsâ. Nadlerâs, Schiffâs. Pelosiâs, Watersâ and freshman democrats voters went for them, precisely because they would impeach Whiny. PRECISELY. Right now, they are looking like a repeat of the 2010 congress, which tried to work with the GOP Cocksuckers even after it became obvious that they did not want to work with them in any way, shape or form. They were voted out of office in droves and we were stuck with a do-nothing Congress for all of President Obamaâs terms. You run the chance of that happening a second time.
Due respect, but thatâs bullshit: I said nothing of the kind. Iâm not questioning whether heâs guilty (100 times over), Iâm suggesting that the existential threat to the Republicâthe greatest, in my estimation as a professional historian, since 1861âis such that we only get one shot. And it has to be (neener neener neener Secret Service) a killshot.
