House Democrats Vote To Violate The Law

[esmith]

Seem that the Democrats have voted to violate the law by issuing a subpoena for the full, unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller.
House Judiciary authorizes subpoena for full Mueller report

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...0/mueller-report-release-redactions-subpoenas

 

[fantome profane]

Seem that the Democrats have voted to violate the law by issuing a subpoena for the full, unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller.
House Judiciary authorizes subpoena for full Mueller report

House Judiciary committee authorizes subpoenas for full Mueller report

Just so you know, these are the guys who make the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just so you know, these are the guys who make the law.

Of course, to violate a current law (one not repealed) would pose a problem.
Moreover, some of the redaction is to protect privacy of peripheral individuals.
We already know that government doesn't respect our privacy all that much,
& this move would further degrade such protection.

 

[fantome profane]

Of course, to violate a current law (one not repealed) would pose a problem.
Moreover, some of the redaction is to protect privacy of peripheral individuals.
We already know that government doesn't respect our privacy all that much,
& this move would further degrade such protection.

This is now a matter for the court. If they approve the subpoena it is not against the law. As I pointed out recently to @esmith there is legal precedent for give this kind of information to Congress. (Watergate, Ken Starr),

 

[Father Heathen]

So what you're saying @esmith is that legislators breaking laws only becomes a concern when it's democrats?

 

[esmith]

Just so you know, these are the guys who make the law.

Then the House has to override the restriction of releasing grand jury testimony.

On a side note. After reading the below do you think this is nothing more that a political stunt.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...0/mueller-report-release-redactions-subpoenas
"Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) told Charlie Rose in 1998 that Starr’s report included grand jury testimony, which cannot be made public unless overridden by the House of Representatives. Nadler is also one of the leading proponents pushing for the full release of Mueller’s report, which likewise includes grand jury material."

Oh by the Jerrold Nadler is the current House Judiciary Chairman

 

[esmith]

This is now a matter for the court. If they approve the subpoena it is not against the law. As I pointed out recently to @esmith there is legal precedent for give this kind of information to Congress. (Watergate, Ken Starr),

Precedent is not law.
https://www.justsecurity.org/63470/...-it-means-to-withhold-grand-jury-information/

 

[fantome profane]

Then the House has to override the restriction of releasing grand jury testimony.

On a side note. After reading the below do you think this is nothing more that a political stunt.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...0/mueller-report-release-redactions-subpoenas
"Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) told Charlie Rose in 1998 that Starr’s report included grand jury testimony, which cannot be made public unless overridden by the House of Representatives. Nadler is also one of the leading proponents pushing for the full release of Mueller’s report, which likewise includes grand jury material."

Oh by the Jerrold Nadler is the current House Judiciary Chairman

There is a difference between releasing something to Congress and releasing it to to public. Congress routinely deals with confidential and classified information.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seem that the Democrats have voted to violate the law by issuing a subpoena for the full, unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller.
House Judiciary authorizes subpoena for full Mueller report

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...0/mueller-report-release-redactions-subpoenas

You appear to be making an unjustified assumption. Grand Jury testimony cannot be released to the public. The Congress does not exactly count as the public. Where are they specifically breaking the law in this demand?

 

[esmith]

So what you're saying @esmith is that legislators breaking laws only becomes a concern when it's democrats?

What gives you the right to accuse me of saying that. Tell you what, how about you keep your opinions of what I do or do not think to yourself, and I will refrain from getting dinged by the moderators.

 

[metis]

Depending on how it's handled, there may not be any legal violation.

Congress has the constitutional right of oversight of the Executive Branch, but an unredacted report would have to be handled with kid gloves, which can be done by having it sent to either the House Judiciary Committee or the House Intelligence Committee, either one's sessions being held in private. Previous sensitive intelligence reports were available for congressional scrutiny, including Whitewater, Watergate, and some of the Benghazi hearings, so there is ample precedent for this approach.

And also just a reminder that Trump said he wanted it all to come out as well as every single representative in the House including the Pubs. Even now Trump could issue an order for full public release of the report if he wanted to, which would then be legal without question.

It is clear, however, that both the Trump camp and also many of the Republicans don't want it entirely released, and I do believe most here well know why that's likely to be the case. There's a reason why Trump and the Senate Republicans wanted Barr in as AG. But by trying to stonewall it, this may very well drag all this out until next year and keeping this all in the spotlight. Most Americans when polled want it released to the public, not just Congress, and I don't think responsible people will be satisfied if the Pubs stonewall its release after some bipartisan redaction. It's like "What are you hiding and why are you hiding something we paid for?".

Seems to me that a true conservative would want this released to Congress (unredacted) and to the public (redacted), especially since we paid for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What gives you the right to accuse me of saying that. Tell you what, how about you keep your opinions of what I do or do not think to yourself, and I will refrain from getting dinged by the moderators.

Your complaint may be valid. Once again I repeat that releasing the information to Congress. something that Trump supported at the start of the investigation, is not releasing it to the public.

Why Trump suddenly says public should see Mueller's report - CNNPolitics

Suddenly he does not want it even released to congress.

 

[esmith]

You appear to be making an unjustified assumption. Grand Jury testimony cannot be released to the public. The Congress does not exactly count as the public. Where are they specifically breaking the law in this demand?

Rule 6. The Grand Jury

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rule 6. The Grand Jury

An article that you probably did not understand is not good enough.

Once again the Congress is not the public. The law as I understand it bans release to the public. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rule 6. The Grand Jury

I do believe that you should read this section of the article, it begins:

"(3) Exceptions."

 

[fantome profane]

I have to say I find it tragic the way people are defending secrecy with so much passion.

 

[Polymath257]

The relevant law says that some things cannot be made public. That does NOT mean that Congress can't see them. And they do have subpoena power, so calling this a vote to violate the law seems a bit over-dramatic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have to say I find it tragic the way people are defending secrecy with so much passion.

I am very confused. The report after all totally exonerated Trump. Shouldn't his supporters be clamoring that it be released not only to Congress which can see it, but to everyone? Granted certain parts of it may have to be redacted for the general public, but even of that with perhaps specific names removed we could still get the gist of it. Trump supporters should be in the lead to demand that this report by released. The perceived innocence on the CinC may rely on it.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is now a matter for the court. If they approve the subpoena it is not against the law.

If the law violated is still in place, then it would be illegal,
& such a conflict would be a matter for courts.

As I pointed out recently to @esmith there is legal precedent for give this kind of information to Congress. (Watergate, Ken Starr),

I didn't see a link to this precedent for unredacted release of such info.

 

[Altfish]

I am very confused. The report after all totally exonerated Trump. Shouldn't his supporters be clamoring that it be released not only to Congress which can see it, but to everyone? Granted certain parts of it may have to be redacted for the general public, but even of that with perhaps specific names removed we could still get the gist of it. Trump supporters should be in the lead to demand that this report by released. The perceived innocence on the CinC may rely on it.

This ... as Trump and his acolytes have been shouting from the roof tops, "He's done nothing wrong and this proves it"
So why the resistance to publication?