The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Barr faces contempt vote

by Harvest Prude
Posted 5/07/19, 11:01 am

WASHINGTON—The House Judiciary Committee will vote Wednesday on whether to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for not releasing special counsel Robert Mueller’s full, unredacted investigative report and underlying evidence. The Justice Department and Judiciary Committee staff plan to meet Tuesday to try to find a “mutually acceptable” solution.

Barr missed a Monday deadline to hand over an unredacted version of the report. He previously sent a version with only grand jury testimony redacted for senior lawmakers to read. Democrats refused to review the document, arguing that other lawmakers should have access to the report and that it should contain no redactions.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., issued the formal contempt notice Monday. Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the panel, criticized the move, arguing Democrats had launched a “war” against Barr for following the law by refusing to release grand jury material. “Instead of introducing legislation allowing the attorney general to provide Congress grand jury material, Democrats move to hold him in contempt,” he tweeted.

Barr also missed an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, following a contentious, five-hour Senate hearing the day before. The attorney general objected to plans to have committee lawyers question him instead of lawmakers.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Harvest Prude

Harvest is a reporter for WORLD based in Washington, D.C.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  •  austinbeartux's picture
    Posted: Tue, 05/07/2019 01:05 pm

    From the Republican's perspective, the Executive Branch's perspective, and the Justice Department's perspective, when the Democrats get to a point of being so unhinged, so deranged, so unreasonable and inappropriate, there's only one thing left to do.  Ignore them.  Let them take this matter to the Supreme Court, and let it scold and shame them for their behavior.  I'm fairly confident the Supreme Court will side with the Executive Branch.

    Posted: Tue, 05/07/2019 03:44 pm

    I hope so.

    Those NUTS need to do what they were chosen for. Unless their constituents told them they wanted Trump impeached. "I'll vote for you if you get Trump out."

    Posted: Tue, 05/07/2019 03:42 pm

    They are REALLY going TOO FAR!!!

    Posted: Tue, 05/07/2019 03:46 pm

    Those DC swamp monsters must have some big stuff to hide. They need to keep Trump busy. And he just keeps on doing what the people voted for him to do. Keep on keeping on, Trump! 2020!

  •  Xion's picture
    Posted: Tue, 05/07/2019 10:11 pm

    Eric Holder called himself Obama's wingman and took pride in refusing to cooperate with Congress.  Bill Barr is held in contempt for refusing to break the law.  Holder was lauded as a hero.  Barr is smeared as a lying scoundrel even though legally he didn't have to release anything.  I used to marvel at how primitive and malicious biblical rulers could be, but it turns out modern society is more primitive than they were.

  • OldMike
    Posted: Wed, 05/08/2019 03:39 am

    The senior Dems have REFUSED to read the version of the Mueller report Atty. Gen. Barr provided, that only has grand jury testimony redacted.  WHY? 

    Because they know the report has nothing they can convict President Trump on. But as long as they HAVE NOT READ IT, they can continue to allege it contains plenty to indict the President. So to keep from actually reading it, they use the excuse, “There are redactions. Barr didn’t obey us and give us the full unredacted report.”  

    Maybe Barr should call their bluff and give it to them unredacted, then see if they find some other excuse to refuse to read it. Of course, then they would charge Barr for breaking the laws about releasing confidential information. 

    The Democrats today remind me of the mobs that continually opposed Paul—stirring up people “of the baser sort,” making wild accusations, even having Paul or his supporters arrested. 

    We have seen that there are nations, in the Middle East for instance, that just seem to be unsuited to democracy. Are we reaching that point?  Are we becoming too undisciplined, too ignorant, too unwilling to weigh evidence on both sides of an issue, too prone to resort to name calling instead of reasoned debate, to be capable any longer of governing ourselves?