House Democrats Vote To Violate The Law

[Subduction Zone]

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

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

@esmith provided a link. Scan down to the section that lists "Exceptions" I do believe that the Congress, but not he public, would be in the exceptions In other words the Congress would not be breaking the law with such a subpoena.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Wait a second . . . Are you implying that Trump was less than honest in that claim?

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

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.

Trump has won with Barr's summary.
But releasing voluminous report info offers his opposition the opportunity
to make what political hay they can from every detail. There's no way this
would improve Trump's position, so his allies won't be urging release.

 

[Altfish]

Wait a second . . . Are you implying that Trump was less than honest in that claim?

Oh no ... err maybe ... err yes

 

[Revoltingest]

@esmith provided a link. Scan down to the section that lists "Exceptions" I do believe that the Congress, but not he public, would be in the exceptions In other words the Congress would not be breaking the law with such a subpoena.

From the 2nd link....
A nonbinding resolution that recently passed the House of Representatives unanimously doesn’t call for a full unredacted public release, but it does ask for two things:

• The public release of the Mueller report, “except to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law”
• “The full release to Congress of any report”

If non-binding, then this offers the opportunity to avoid any legal violations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trump has won with Barr's summary.
But releasing voluminous info offers his opposition the opportunity
to make what they can from every detail. There's no way this
would improve Trump's position, so his allies won't be urging release.

Barr's summary is not worth too much in this discussion. After all he is Trump's employee, put there specifically because his predecessor proved to be too honest in this matter by rightfully removing himself as a controlling agent. Jeff Sessions knew that he was too close to this and kept his hands off the investigation. As a result of his integrity Trump removed him. At best Barr's summary only shows that there was no collusion. Trump's guilt on other matters is far from settled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the 2nd link....
A nonbinding resolution that recently passed the House of Representatives unanimously doesn’t call for a full unredacted public release, but it does ask for two things:

• The public release of the Mueller report, “except to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law”
• “The full release to Congress of any report”

If non-binding, then this offers the opportunity to avoid any legal violations.

That was the resolution that all members, both Republicans and Democrats voted yes on. Please note that it does not ask for a public release, that would be against the law:

"
(1) calls for the public release of any report, including findings, Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General, except to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law; and

(2) calls for the full release to Congress of any report, including findings, Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General."

Demanding that the full report be released to the Congress only does not appear to break that law. After all they would be the one's trying and convicting the President. That makes them agents of the government responsible for the enforcement of the law, that is covered by the Exceptions.

 

[esmith]

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

"(3) Exceptions."

Do you see Congress listed under those exceptions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you see Congress listed under those exceptions?

Yes. I can make a clear argument for one of them. Do you not see it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Barr's summary is not worth too much in this discussion.

Au contraire, bruderherz.....Barr's summary is significant because it's a victory for Trump.
You broached the issue that his "supporters should be clamoring for" releasing the report.
I addressed why they wouldn't be "clamoring", ie, that it would only provide ammunition
to his opposition.

 

[Revoltingest]

Barr's summary is not worth too much in this discussion.

Au contraire, bruderherz.....Barr's summary is significant because it's a victory for Trump.
You broached the issue that his "supporters should be clamoring for" releasing the report.
I addressed why they wouldn't be "clamoring", ie, that it would only provide ammunition
to his opposition.

 

[Revoltingest]

That was the resolution that all members, both Republicans and Democrats voted yes on. Please note that it does not ask for a public release, that would be against the law:

"
(1) calls for the public release of any report, including findings, Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General, except to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law; and

(2) calls for the full release to Congress of any report, including findings, Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General."

Demanding that the full report be released to the Congress only does not appear to break that law. After all they would be the one's trying and convicting the President. That makes them agents of the government responsible for the enforcement of the law, that is covered by the Exceptions.

We shall see what they demand, & what the law allows them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Au contraire, bruderherz.....Barr's summary is significant because it's a victory for Trump.
You broached the issue that his "supporters should be clamoring for" releasing the report.
I addressed why they wouldn't be "clamoring", ie, that it would only provide ammunition
to his opposition.

Wait a second, you can't have it both ways here. If there is fear of what would happen then Barr's summary is not worth the paper that it was written on.

 

[esmith]

Yes. I can make a clear argument for one of them. Do you not see it?

As per the current laws regarding grand jury testimony? If so, then make your case.

From :Explainer: Can Democratic subpoenas force the release of Mueller's Trump-Russia report? | Reuters

"A 1974 court decision involving Republican President Richard Nixon gives Democrats strong ammunition to argue that they are entitled to any grand jury information redacted by Barr. Leon Jaworski, a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal, produced a report that relied on evidence from grand jury proceedings.

H.R. Haldeman, who had served Nixon as White House chief of staff, sought to block that information from Congress, citing the same grand jury secrecy provision mentioned by Barr. The dispute ended up before a panel of federal appeals court judges in Washington, which ruled 5-1 against Haldeman. The court said Congress clearly needed the material to conduct an effective impeachment investigation, and noted that the Democratic-led House Judiciary committee had taken “elaborate precautions to insure against unnecessary and inappropriate disclosure of these materials.” The committee approved articles of impeachment against Nixon as Congress began the process of trying to remove him from office. Nixon resigned before the full House could vote on impeachment."

They will still have to go to court if the Attorney General says no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As per the current laws regarding grand jury testimony? If so, then make your case.

This part of the exceptions appears to include Congress since they are the ones that would "arraign" which is what an impeachment is, and try Trump:

(ii) any government personnel—including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign government—that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law; or

 

[Revoltingest]

Wait a second, you can't have it both ways here. If there is fear of what would happen then Barr's summary is not worth the paper that it was written on.

Have what both ways?
Even if Barr's summary is complete & accurate, there would be a gold mine of information
in the report for Trump's opposition. Something benign can be spun for political purpose.
So it's a mistake to believe that his allies would "clamor" for the report's release. There's
no way that would serve their purpose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if Barr's summary is complete & accurate, there would be a gold mine of information in the report for Trump's opposition. Something benign can be spun for political purpose.

That may be true. Of course the problem is the President's claims of "complete exoneration". The info would appear to only apply to Trump. Which would mean that it is not complete exoneration. Perhaps Trump should tweak his claim.

 

[Father Heathen]

What gives you the right to accuse me of saying that.

The fact that it's an observation and that this is a debate forum gives me the right.

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.

Nope. I'll continue to call out two-faced hypocrisy when I see it.

 

[esmith]

This part of the exceptions appears to include Congress since they are the ones that would "arraign" which is what an impeachment is, and try Trump:

(ii) any government personnel—including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign government—that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law; or

Uh, see the highlighted section above>

 

[Revoltingest]

That may be true. Of course the problem is the President's claims of "complete exoneration".

But that's not a problem.
The summary pretty much justifies his claim.
Releasing the report won't improve upon that.

You claim that his supporters should be "clamoring" for its release.
I pointed out the downside of that as the explanation for why they
aren't clamoring for it. You gots nuthin to support your argument.