So, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., Chair of the House
Judiciary Committee thinks we have entered into a Constitutional crisis because
Attorney General William Barr has refused to turn over a completely un-redacted
copy of Special Counsel Bob Mueller’s report.
Barr has, however, provided a copy for key members of
Congress that is almost un-redacted. Out of the well-over 400 pages in the
report only two entire lines of text are redacted, and seven lines are
partially redacted. This version of the report is far better than the heavily
redacted version previously made available, but only three members of Congress
have chosen to review it, and – surprise, surprise, surprise – none of the
three is a Democrat.
And, the redactions that remain are still in place because
of a federal circuit court ruling to the effect that grand jury materials
cannot be made public. The reason is that making public grand jury testimony
about people who were investigated but not indicted would potentially unfairly
harm those whose names appeared, even though they were not indicted for any
criminal wrongdoing.
But that’s not a good enough reason for Nadler and his
Democrat comrades.
It appears, therefore, that if there is unconstitutional
behavior, it is the behavior of Nadler himself, who is attempting to punish the
AG for refusing to break the law just to help Nadler and the Democrats create
another smoke screen. He led the Judiciary Committee in holding Barr in
contempt of Congress, although the entire body of the House has not yet voted
to do so.
The following explanation appeared in National Review last month. “At issue was this question: Does a
federal court have the authority to order disclosure of grand-jury materials if
the judge decides that the interests of justice warrant doing so; or is the
judge limited to the exceptions to grand-jury secrecy that are spelled out in
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? The D.C.
Circuit’s McKeever ruling holds that the text of Rule 6(e) controls.
Consequently, judges have no authority to authorize disclosure outside the
rule.” And if a judge may not do so, obviously the AG may not.
Surely Nadler, who is rumored to be a lawyer and is chair of
the Judiciary Committee, knows that Barr cannot release a clean report. And
wouldn’t he, and several more of his Democrat fellow travelers, benefit from
the lightly redacted version that Barr provided. One would certainly think so.
All of these shenanigans are a strong indication that this
entire episode is just more political swampiness by a desperate Democrat
faction in Congress.
After all, Barr said in testimony before the Committee that
he intends to look into several of the irregularities by the FBI and DOJ, and
if Nadler himself is not at risk, quite a few public servants who share the
anti-Trump obsession surely are.
Law professor Jonathan Turley, described by Townhall.com as
“left-leaning,” has a reputation for ignoring political considerations when
addressing constitutional issues.
About the topic of Barr’s refusal to respond to the
subpoena, Turley said, “The problem is that the contempt action against Barr is
long on action and short on contempt. Indeed, with a superficial charge, the
House could seriously undermine its credibility in the ongoing conflicts with
the White House.”
He went on to say, “As someone who has represented the House
of Representatives, my concern is that this one violates a legal version of the
Hippocratic oath to ‘first do no harm.’ This could do great harm, not to Barr,
but to the House. It is the weakest possible case to bring against the
administration, and likely to be an example of a bad case making bad law for
the House ... Barr promised to release as much of the report as possible, and
he has delivered.”
Nadler and his fellow OCD-plagued anti-Trumpers are
uninterested in what destruction they may impose on the country in their
frenzied efforts to harm Donald Trump.
“The end justifies the means” is the current ruling motto of
Democrats, and some misguided Republicans. “Trump must be defeated, removed
from office, even prosecuted” seems to be the operative theme. It doesn’t
matter whose life is unfairly ruined, or how many people they trash in the
process.
Being morally upstanding and behaving with integrity are
lost virtues among Congressional Democrats, as they climb lower and lower in
their efforts to remove Trump from office.
While the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was going on in
strict secrecy, at the end of the proceedings a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia
asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a
monarchy?" Franklin responded immediately, "A republic, if you can
keep it."
We must give Congressional Democrats their due for being
transparent: They are clearly showing, for all to see, that they care little
for the law or for honorable behavior. Nothing is as important than doing in
Donald Trump, and it seems nothing will be allowed to stand in their way. And
the republic that Franklin celebrated and warned about is under attack from
within.
No comments:
Post a Comment