House votes to hold US attorney general in contempt over Mueller subpoena

[Dan From Smithville]

One of them is correct?
I'd think that blind faith in or blind opposition to him would both be failed perspectives.

I do not know the predictive power, but I would say from casual observation, that the more insults one relies on over reasoning and evidence, the more likely they are to be a "blind faith" follower. This seems to be related to the inclusion of emotional responses, logical fallacies and sweeping declarations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The last one I went to was at a bar.
So I guess beer.

Beer is good. Along with barbeque and bacon, it makes up the three B's. It is the cold, refreshing B of the trio.

 

[Revoltingest]

Beer is good. Along with barbeque and bacon, it makes up the three B's. It is the cold, refreshing B of the trio.

That meeting was over 3 decades ago.
I don't know who meets where these days.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That meeting was over 3 decades ago.
I don't know who meets where these days.

That is too bad. Free food has often--always--worked to get me to a meeting.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is too bad. Free food has often--always--worked to get me to a meeting.

Free?
Hah!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Free?
Hah!

Free in the sense of no extra charge and not necessarily without cost that is already figured in when deciding to participate. An incentive then.

 

[Revoltingest]

Free in the sense of no extra charge and not necessarily without cost that is already figured in when deciding to participate. An incentive then.

It's rather libertarian to pay one's own bar tab.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's rather libertarian to pay one's own bar tab.

I gathered you meant that, but I did say affinity.

Are you familiar with the works of H. Beam Piper? This has nothing to do with tabs and free stuff. Just something that occurred to me a while back and I had forgotten to ask. His characters were the self-reliant type.

 

[Revoltingest]

I gathered you meant that, but I did say affinity.

Are you familiar with the works of H. Beam Piper? This has nothing to do with tabs and free stuff. Just something that occurred to me a while back and I had forgotten to ask. His characters were the self-reliant type.

Never heard of the guy.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I have noted the similarity in the behavior of polar opposites for years. One, maybe two, remind me of opinions. However, in regards to Trump, I am going to subjectively favor those that are on the correct side.

Last Fall, my wife's niece, her husband, her mother, and her step-father gathered at my niece and nephew-in-law's house after dinner, and the mother brought up a recent Trump story. [Although the step-father had initially voted for Trump, he had soured on him.) I excused myself from the discussion about the story because, I explained I was still annoyed over his meddling in the matter of football players who kneel rather than stand during the standard playing of the national anthem before a game begins.

To my slight surprise, the step-father opined that he thought they should stand. Silly me, I pointed out (a) that football is a fairly "recent" phenomenon and neither a federally- nor ecclesisastically mandated event; (b) that singing the national anthem before a game was not a revelation from God, but is a custom introduced several years after football became popular here in the U.S.; (c) that fans of either side often occupied themselves at refreshment stands or in restrooms, or coming in or going out of a stadium ... within earshot of the music; and (d) that I am not a sports fan of any sort. Ergo, I thought Trump's meddling did not contribute anything constructive to the "national" dispute over the matter.

The father-in-law then proceeded to repeat his opinion, with no interesting or relevant explanations added.

I then pointed out that he had just restated almost exactly the same thing that he had said previously, to which he replied: "I have a right to my opinion."
I assured him that I agreed that he had a right to his opinion, just as much I had to mine, and now that he and I had stated our two, insuperably irreconcilable opinions, there was no reason to repeat them. To which he replied: I just think players should stand during the playing of the national anthem.

With some stress but considerable self-restraint, I pointed out that he had now expressed the same opinion, virtually unchanged, and that mystified me. Did he think that I had or would change my opinion, if he repeated his often enough? I then said that I strongly suspected that when someone repeats the same opinion, slightly changed or virtually unchanged, I conclude that they are not really arguing, they're just metaphorically, intentionally urinating on the other person's foot.

He looked at me and smiled at me, but before he could restate his opinion once more, my niece jumped up and stood between us, and I said no more. She later told me that she had intervened because she thought I was going to hit him. I assured her that I wasn't.

The evening finally ended without further altercation and shortly thereafter, following some reflection, I stopped talking with him.

My involvement in this thread today has been intentional just to see how long a certain person would continue exchanging squirts with me. It was an interesting and amusing experience, but it won't happen again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Never heard of the guy.

Old school science fiction author of the 50's and 60's. He had libertarian values that are reflected in the characters he created. I do not know you, but the way you post and sometimes what you post, reminded me of some of those same characters. Among the more science-oriented authors of his time, he is unusual in being self-educated rather than trained in science or engineering like Asimov or Heinlein.

 

[Revoltingest]

Old school science fiction author of the 50's and 60's. He had libertarian values that are reflected in the characters he created. I do not know you, but the way you post and sometimes what you post, reminded me of some of those same characters. Among the more science-oriented authors of his time, he is unusual in being self-educated rather than trained in science or engineering like Asimov or Heinlein.

Sounds a bit like Steve Ditko.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Last Fall, my wife's niece, her husband, her mother, and her step-father gathered at my niece and nephew-in-law's house after dinner, and the mother brought up a recent Trump story. [Although the step-father had initially voted for Trump, he had soured on him.) I excused myself from the discussion about the story because, I explained I was still annoyed over his meddling in the matter of football players who kneel rather than stand during the standard playing of the national anthem before a game begins.

To my slight surprise, the step-father opined that he thought they should stand. Silly me, I pointed out (a) that football is a fairly "recent" phenomenon and neither a federally- nor ecclesisastically mandated event; (b) that singing the national anthem before a game was not a revelation from God, but is a custom introduced several years after football became popular here in the U.S.; (c) that fans of either side often occupied themselves at refreshment stands or in restrooms, or coming in or going out of a stadium ... within earshot of the music; and (d) that I am not a sports fan of any sort. Ergo, I thought Trump's meddling did not contribute anything constructive to the "national" dispute over the matter.

The father-in-law then proceeded to repeat his opinion, with no interesting or relevant explanations added.

I then pointed out that he had just restated almost exactly the same thing that he had said previously, to which he replied: "I have a right to my opinion."
I assured him that I agreed that he had a right to his opinion, just as much I had to mine, and now that he and I had stated our two, insuperably irreconcilable opinions, there was no reason to repeat them. To which he replied: I just think players should stand during the playing of the national anthem.

With some stress but considerable self-restraint, I pointed out that he had now expressed the same opinion, virtually unchanged, and that mystified me. Did he think that I had or would change my opinion, if he repeated his often enough? I then said that I strongly suspected that when someone repeats the same opinion, slightly changed or virtually unchanged, I conclude that they are not really arguing, they're just metaphorically, intentionally urinating on the other person's foot.

He looked at me and smiled at me, but before he could restate his opinion once more, my niece jumped up and stood between us, and I said no more. She later told me that she had intervened because she thought I was going to hit him. I assured her that I wasn't.

The evening finally ended without further altercation and shortly thereafter, following some reflection, I stopped talking with him.

My involvement in this thread today has been intentional just to see how long a certain person would continue exchanging squirts with me. It was an interesting and amusing experience, but it won't happen again.

That is interesting. I have been field testing some ideas and did just the same thing the other day to see how long I could keep someone going. I do not know how generally predictive my observations will be in the long run, but in that case, they were uncanny.

I have been having informal, near-topic discussions within some of the threads about the concepts, appearances and conditions equated with "blind support" and "blind opposition" for a few days now and it has been very fruitful. It has been pointed out to me, quite rightly, that some of issues on one side stem from the different values that people look for in a leader. Personal character versus political policy. An atheist could govern as morally as a Christian for instance. Or a womanizer could be an effective president even if you found his behavior appalling. Just as a righteous person could be a poor leader and still have a praise-worthy character.

My interest in this stems from a number of reasons, but one is knowing who to respond to and who just to read and move on from. From that point and other points of discussion have lead me to consider that both support and opposition, no matter how strongly expressed, is on a continuum and that the blind may be difficult to separate from the informed

I have worked in science using what are called indicators. There are indicator species, for instance, whose presence or absence might be used to determine the presence or absence of some condition that is of actual interest, but more difficult to determine and quantify. I have been taking that approach to see if there is any expressed character in a post that would be an indicator of the condition I am interested in. I have a limited pool of observations, but so far, it looks like I may have something.

While, I know it is not your main point, during the stand/kneel debate, I wondered if not standing for the national anthem might be one of the simplest demonstrations of liberty and, by that turn, patriotism expressed in recent years. What is more American than thumbing your nose at expected tradition and authority?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sounds a bit like Steve Ditko.

I am very familiar with his work--a fan since I was four or five--but I had to look up his history. Another interesting story from a generation that we may never see the like of again.

 

[metis]

Again your mistaken. Barr cannot release grand jury testimony. It is illegal.

It can be released and discussed in a House or Senate committee in closed session, so again you spout "alternative facts".

 

[Enoch07]

It can be released and discussed in a House or Senate committee in closed session, so again you spout "alternative facts".

No sweetheart, you are spewing alternative facts because your facts are not law whereas mine are.

156. Disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury to Department of Justice attorneys and Assistant United States Attorneys

An exceprt: Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) does not authorize disclosure to attorneys for other Federal government agencies. SeeUnited States v. Bates, 627 F.2d 349, 351 (D.C.Cir. 1980). Nor is disclosure permitted under this section to attorneys for States or local governments. In re Holovachka, 317 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1963); Corona Construction Co. v. Ampress Brick Co., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 598 (N.D.Ill. 1974).

And another excerpt which outlines why it is against the law for A.G. Barr to unredact grand jury info for Congress or anyone else for that matter.

Here: The unauthorized disclosure of grand jury information can also be punished under other criminal statutes as well as pursuant to a district court's contempt powers. If an individual discloses grand jury material with the intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation, he or she may be prosecuted for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503. SeeUnited States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 675-679 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 (1986); United States v. Howard, 569 F.2d 1331, 1334-1335 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834 (1978). In addition, an individual who improperly disseminates grand jury materials may be prosecuted for the theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d at 679-682; United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 (1971); see also United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71-72 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 (1979) (theft of information from DEA computers); United States v. DiGilio, 538 F.2d 972, 976-981 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038 (1977) (theft of grand jury information from FBI files). Compare United States v. Collins, 56 F.3d 1416, 1419-1420 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 737 (1996) (§ 641 applies to intangible property) with United States v. Tobias, 836 F.2d 449, 450-452 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991 (1988) (§ 641 does not apply to intangible property).

So you might want to check law before you start spouting about who's using alternative facts. It is the Dems and the liberal media fake news, who are the manufacturers of "alt facts". As the Mueller report clearly shows.

 

[metis]

No sweetheart, you are spewing alternative facts because your facts are not law whereas mine are.

156. Disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury to Department of Justice attorneys and Assistant United States Attorneys

An exceprt: Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) does not authorize disclosure to attorneys for other Federal government agencies. SeeUnited States v. Bates, 627 F.2d 349, 351 (D.C.Cir. 1980). Nor is disclosure permitted under this section to attorneys for States or local governments. In re Holovachka, 317 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1963); Corona Construction Co. v. Ampress Brick Co., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 598 (N.D.Ill. 1974).

And another excerpt which outlines why it is against the law for A.G. Barr to unredact grand jury info for Congress or anyone else for that matter.

Here: The unauthorized disclosure of grand jury information can also be punished under other criminal statutes as well as pursuant to a district court's contempt powers. If an individual discloses grand jury material with the intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation, he or she may be prosecuted for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503. SeeUnited States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 675-679 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 (1986); United States v. Howard, 569 F.2d 1331, 1334-1335 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834 (1978). In addition, an individual who improperly disseminates grand jury materials may be prosecuted for the theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d at 679-682; United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 (1971); see also United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71-72 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 (1979) (theft of information from DEA computers); United States v. DiGilio, 538 F.2d 972, 976-981 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038 (1977) (theft of grand jury information from FBI files). Compare United States v. Collins, 56 F.3d 1416, 1419-1420 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 737 (1996) (§ 641 applies to intangible property) with United States v. Tobias, 836 F.2d 449, 450-452 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991 (1988) (§ 641 does not apply to intangible property).

So you might want to check law before you start spouting about who's using alternative facts. It is the Dems and the liberal media fake news, who are the manufacturers of "alt facts". As the Mueller report clearly shows.

You know, your name-calling is so utterly childish as any responsible parent will tell their children not to stoop to that level because it is immoral. Your arrogant and demeaning behavior here actually undercuts what you actually post as the vast majority of people here don't want to be personally attacked or to personally attack others.

To the above, what that refers to is public disclosure, not closed Congressional hearings. This Article I right that Congress has was challenged by the Nixon administration during the Watergate fiasco, and it went to the SCOTUS which rendered an 8-0 opinion (one justice recused himself) in favor of Congress having that right to subpoena testimony and documents and even recordings, even if the source is from a grand jury. Nixon, therefore, had to release his tapes, and I think we all know what happened next even if you don't.

Anyhow, I've got better things to do and nicer people to discuss things with, so go right ahead and post whatever you want but I will not waste my time reading it. However, I guess you can still go ahead and do that if you feel the urge to pleasure yourself.

fini

 

[Enoch07]

To the above, what that refers to is public disclosure, not closed Congressional hearings.

Wrong read the law. It is specifically for grand jury info.

Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) does not authorize disclosure to attorneys for other Federal government agencies.

If you don't want me to be rude to you how about you not egotistical claim that I am offering alt facts, when it is you that is doing it. I am citing law, not media get over it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The former Democratic President abused his power to help his fellow Democratic Presidtial campaign nominee (Hillary) by spying on her competition (Trump) illegally. Then because they lost the election, and not able to cover it up, tried to use the sitting President as a patsy to cover their own conspiracy and the breaking of many civil rights. Further made worse by Congress for instructing A.G. Barr to commit a felony by releasing unredacted grand jury testimony, then threatening him with contempt for refusing to break the law, which is obstruction of justice.

I don't believe you, but I wouldn't mind if you were correct. I support any effort by the Democrats to diminish the influence of Trump and the Republican party. This is cultural cold war. The rules of engagement have been set by the Republicans, and it's high time the Democrats answered in kind.

Holder held in contempt

Sometimes, one's contempt is difficult to hide. Did you ever see My Little Chickadee starring Mae West? There is a scene in the movie in which Ms. West has approached the judge in a courtroom scene, and makes a snide remark under her breath. The judge angrily asks (paraphrasing), “Mrs. West! Are you trying to show contempt for this court?” to which she replied, “No, your honor. I’m doing my damnedest to conceal it.”

That's pretty much where I am as well with regard to Trump and the Republican party - contempt.

You can ignore it but it won't stop the ongoing investigation

Correct. The House Democrats seem poised to drag Trump through the mud for the rest of this term in office. Trump's legacy will be these never-ending investigations, and probably an impeachment.

I already linked a video with Senators discussing this topic from the Mueller report. You still chose to ignore it, again that is on you.

Orphan links are frequently ignored. I don't want to watch an entire video to see a single sentence spoken that you claim was uttered. Claim rejected.

At no point in that video does Jim Jordan quote the Mueller Report. Thank you very much for wasting 5 minutes of my time.

This is one good reason to ignore orphan links, that is, links provided not in support of an argument, but in lieu of one.

Big and longtime fan of Freaks. I just quoted that line to my wife this week, and she is as familiar with it as I am.

Congressional Access to Classified National Security Information - Center for American Progress

Orphan link. Not opened. Not interested. If you can't be bothered to make the argument yourself, why should others seek out that which you won't provide yourself?

I've lost count of how many times in the past I read and responded to such a link to the one posting it only to discover that whoever left the orphan link didn't actually read it himself, or read it but misunderstood it and now can't rebut the rebuttal to the piece, or the paragraphs I responded to on RF weren't the part of interest to the link poster.

I suggest that if you want to make a point, make your own arguments, and support them with links if necessary, or expect your orphan links to be ignored.

I'm not yo momma. If you want to be spoon fed seek her out.

No evidence? Claim rejected.

I'm not interested in researching your unsupported claims for you. As Hitchens stated, that which is claimed without support can be disregarded without rebuttal or evidence.

I have been field testing some ideas and did just the same thing the other day to see how long I could keep someone going.

I call that "tapping the glass," as with somebody observing the behavior of fish in an aquarium. It's one of the great benefits of this activity.

 

[Enoch07]

As Hitchens stated, that which is claimed without support can be disregarded without rebuttal or evidence.

It doesn't matter as far as reality is concerned though.

You can deny what I say here because I didn't cite evidence. But it doesn't change the fact of what's happening in the real world.