Rep. Jordan: "Bill Barr is following the law." ......

[MisterVeritis]

[/I][/COLOR]
And Congress has oversight powers. If you don't know that, you know nothing about how the government operates.

No oversight is involved in harassing the President and his family.
First, I am fascinated that you side with Congressional tyranny. Your position is unamerican.

It's not my position. It's the position of the US Supreme Court.

You err.

And it's the position that you're defending when it's Republicans investigating Democrats. I'm consistent, you're not.

Once again, you err.
The Supremes often get things wrong. You will note the government argued the subpoenas were essential to legislating.

Wrong or right, broad Congressional oversight powers are the law of the land. You're just wrong.

Once again you err.

Even the Trump administration isn't making any of the claims you are. They're just trying to claim Executive Privilege. What does that tell you?

It tells me Executive privilege is a great tool for combatting tyranny. The next election will help as well.

Don't worry. A Democrat will be in the White House soon enough, so you can flip back to loving Congressional oversight powers.

I love Congressional oversight. This is not congressional oversight. It is tyrannical harassment.

A wise person will plan for six more good Trump years.

[MMC]

No oversight is involved in harassing the President and his family.
First, I am fascinated that you side with Congressional tyranny. Your position is unamerican.

You err.


Once again, you err.
The Supremes often get things wrong. You will note the government argued the subpoenas were essential to legislating.

Once again you err.

It tells me Executive privilege is a great tool for combatting tyranny. The next election will help as well.


I love Congressional oversight. This is not congressional oversight. It is tyrannical harassment.

A wise person will plan for six more good Trump years.

Which counts that one out.

[Peter1469]

As Congress isn't asking to make Grand Jury info public, none of that is relevant. I do congratulate you, though, on the creativity of your attempt to deflect.

So, is it that you don't read your sources, or is it that you have no idea of what the discussion is about? The topic under discussion is releasing the grand jury info to the House Committee, not to the public. Your links don't address that issue.

Again, no law bars Barr from releasing grand jury info to a House committee, hence he is in contempt for not doing so, and hence you are defending lawbreaking.

It's a consistency thing. Liberals consistently follow the law, conservatives consistently don't.

Incorrect.

[MMC]

Incorrect.

Not surprising, huh.

[mamooth]

Being y'all have shifted from "debate mode" to "butthurt mode", my mission here is clearly accomplished.

[MisterVeritis]

Being y'all have shifted from "debate mode" to "butthurt mode", my mission here is clearly accomplished.

I don't like you but your sense of humor is fantastic.

[Tahuyaman]

As Congress isn't asking to make Grand Jury info public, ...

Yes they are. They are demanding that Barr ignores the law they supported and created in the wake of the Starr investigation

[Tahuyaman]

Being y'all have shifted from "debate mode" to "butthurt mode", my mission here is clearly accomplished.

I don't know what mode you are currently in, but I know it's not "smart mode". It's also not rule of law mode.

[MMC]

Ahahahaha….take that Nadler.



DOJ: No, Nadler, Former White House Counsel Is Not Legally Required to Testify For Your Mueller Do-Over....


"The House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena to try and force Mr. McGahn to testify again. The Department of Justice has provided a legal opinion stating that, based on long-standing, bipartisan, and Constitutional precedent, the former Counsel to the President cannot be forced to give such testimony, and Mr. McGahn has been directed to act accordingly," she continued. "This action has been taken in order to ensure that future Presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the Office of the Presidency."


Shortly before the White House announcement, the Department of Justice issued a 15-page memo explaining the legal precedent for why the Trump administration is capable of keeping McGahn from testifying.


"We provide the same answer that the Department of Justice has repeatedly provided for nearly five decades: Congress may not constitutionally compel the President's senior advisors to testify about their official duties. This testimonial immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and derives from the President's independence from Congress," the memo states, citing actions by former Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno and others. "The immunity of the President's immediate advisors from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to the former White House Counsel. Accordingly, Mr. McGahn is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President.".....snip~

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-redo-n2546609

[Peter1469]

Ahahahaha….take that Nadler.



DOJ: No, Nadler, Former White House Counsel Is Not Legally Required to Testify For Your Mueller Do-Over....


"The House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena to try and force Mr. McGahn to testify again. The Department of Justice has provided a legal opinion stating that, based on long-standing, bipartisan, and Constitutional precedent, the former Counsel to the President cannot be forced to give such testimony, and Mr. McGahn has been directed to act accordingly," she continued. "This action has been taken in order to ensure that future Presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the Office of the Presidency."


Shortly before the White House announcement, the Department of Justice issued a 15-page memo explaining the legal precedent for why the Trump administration is capable of keeping McGahn from testifying.


"We provide the same answer that the Department of Justice has repeatedly provided for nearly five decades: Congress may not constitutionally compel the President's senior advisors to testify about their official duties. This testimonial immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and derives from the President's independence from Congress," the memo states, citing actions by former Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno and others. "The immunity of the President's immediate advisors from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to the former White House Counsel. Accordingly, Mr. McGahn is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President.".....snip~

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-redo-n2546609

Even if he decided to testify, he is still bound by attorney-client confidentiality.