āAdministration witnesses ā or any witnesses ā have to come in and be examined as the committee sees fit, not as they see fit,ā
Barrās spokesperson has informed the House heāll testify in any month having 29 days, and no other.
Look how regal Barr is! Has to be questioned in a comfortable way.
in any month having 29 days, and no other.
Ha! That would be February, every 4 years, my sisterās birthday.
(I think thatās right)
ETA: But Nadler is still going to subpoena Barr anyway, like he said yesterday, if Big Bad Barr doesnāt show, right?
But they havenāt subpoenaed Barr. I guess thatās the next step. Seems to me they are letting the witnesses call the shots by delaying issuing subpoenas and having to set multiple dates certain for hearings. Get the no-show in response to subpoena question into the courts now rather than letting it dawdle so that everyone loses interest. This is a major test of the balance of government envisioned by the Framers. Donāt let it get lost!
Yeah, Nadler will subpoena him in a week or two. Once the hearings are over heāll have time to give it more thought.
Would have been fun seeing Barr dragged out of his office by the Sergeant at Arms - but alas, he will probably get away with whatever
House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) will go ahead with a hearing scheduled for Thursday, even as the attendance of the primary witness ā Attorney General William Barr ā is in question.
Very nice, Iām sure, but, as everyone has known for a while, itās not the real question.
Optional alternate take:
If Barr doesnāt show, heās ceding the air time to Committee chair to characterize Barrās actions as Nadler sees fit. Thatās more time for more majority members to air awkward questions.
Because the article doesnāt do it, can we get some analysis going of exactly where it says in the Constitution and/or statutes why Barr must come before this committee?
Put another way, what would the argument be to SCOTUS if it were to go that far?
Letās get trenchant.
Barr could show up, belligerently refuse to answer selected questions or lines of questioning, and just dare Nadler and the Democrats to issue a subpoena or seek a court order to compel the testimony. It will be a standoff either way.
Thereās seems to be some deeply rooted world-view asymmetry at play here. The Dems apparently regard inviting someone to a hearing as a supreme act of aggression. They are threatening to threaten to issue a subpoena. The Republicans take tearing down the apparatus of government (incl āthe constitutionā) to be business as usual.
A cottage industry has sprung up around the phrase āthe Democrats should/need to/ought to/ā¦,ā reminiscent of
Obama days. My turn: the Dems badly need a perceived victory of some sort. The āhe who gets slappedā routine is not working.
Well, if Barr doesnāt show on Thursday, Nadler can have a public vote on issuing the subpoena.
The Department of Justice has warned the committee against lines of questioning based on the Mueller report in a public hearing
So having a Congressional hearing about a public report and you canāt ask questions about it?
Take him down, Jerry!
Congress appropriates money for DoJ. As a result, they have the right to look into how DoJ is spending the money. They also pass laws that are part of the US Code. So they have a right to look into how DoJ is enforcing those laws. Barr is the head of the DoJ, so yeah, heās on the spot.
All months have 29 days except February in non leap years.
Subpoena him and then toss him in jail if he doesnāt show.