Not one second of that piece was devoted to discussing Congress’s request for redacted information.
I have no problem in principle with Twatter/Facegram/Instabook banning whoever they want, because to your point, they are still private entities, but the problem is they aren't consistent. They don't even follow their own terms of service. That most of the bans are only one one side of the ideological spectrum makes this even more suspect.
If they want to be left wing sites... fine, let them be left wing sites... just have the courage to outright SAY so.
But no, they can't. Because like mainstream media, they want to pretend they're unbiased, centrist organizations, which is complete bullshit. And when they do ban people on the left, they (or other media, see WaPo or NY Times) try and pass it off as someone from the right (Louis Farrakhan).
To those of you who hate Trump with every fiber of your body what has he legitimately done that has personally affected you or someone you know. I see that most of his strongest critics on this site live on the other side of the world. Is he going around in the middle of the night personally burning down villages??
Russia supports KJU, Trump opposes him. Russia supports Maduro, Trump opposes him. Trump opposes Russia's Nord Stream 2. Honestly, idk if Trump has done anything at all that fits Putin's interests.
I wasn’t accusing you of being a so called expert. That particular vitriol was directed towards the “judge.” I then took that opportunity to editorialize about so called experts in general.I have never claimed to be an expert, I am just watching the show unravel. We seem to see it from completely different angles.
Correct, but my point was that unless you know of documentation that supplements/contradicts what I posted, it remains against the law for the AG to provide grand jury material to congress under any circumstance.The legal interpretation you posted seems to be about disclosing information to the president, the NSC, and other lawyers that are working on a case that is related to the investigation. Those are all far different than Congress.
I’ll have to look at this more when I have some time tonight. I’ll get back to you.Once again, from what I have read and watched, Congress got info from the grand jury on approval from the judge that was in charge of it. A similar thing happened during the Clinton investigation. The last happened after the interpretation you posted.
Any links to these videos?During the Barr contempt hearing, there was several republicans that brought up the 6e clause. There was one democrat that read the section that appears to allow the disclosure of the restricted info to Coongress too.
He is not acting as Trump’s attorney by accurately summarizing Mueller’s findings, or lack thereof (according to no less than Mueller himself).Even if Barr felt he could not disclose all the info congress wanted, he should have shown up to say so. Instead he is acting as if he is Trump's attorney. That is not the AG's job.
Fine. Too bad he applied it incorrectly.The Napoliano video was posted because he includes a definition of Obstruction.
Why was a prosecutor brought in to question a witness at the Kavanaugh hearings?
Sorry, what?I watched the Barr hearing live and have not seen the portion of it I mentioned.
They also have an expectation to go about their business with integrity... something that Nadler and his camp are sorely lacking, as per what I outlined in my previous post.The Senate and House have different jobs in their oversight rolls. They both have a right to question the same witness.
The AG can go to the judge at the head of the grand jury to okay the release of some, or all of the info. There is even a president for this, Waregate. The only block to this is Barr.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/us/politics/trump-democrats.html“The thing that’s unusual is the blanket refusal,” Professor Yoo said. “It would be extraordinary if the president actually were to try to stop all congressional testimony on subpoenaed issues. That would actually be unprecedented if it were a complete ban.”
“He’s treating Congress like they’re the Chinese or a local labor union working on a Trump building,” he said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/442816-senate-democrats-ask-graham-to-bring-mueller-to-testifySenate Democrats ask Graham to bring Mueller to testify
Democrats are seeking to increase pressure on Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to call special counsel Robert Mueller to testify, sharing 60 questions they think Mueller could help answer.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary panel, led other Democrats on the committee in sending Graham a letter Wednesday saying they thought the panel would "benefit greatly" from having Mueller testify.
In 2017 the US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world. China and India had the largest increases. Maybe you should direct your climate change anger at those two instead.
I'd love to hear how Trump is a "whipping boy" for Xi.