Famous lawyer warns Dems to NOT continue their battle with Barr

3

Jonathan Turley is a constitutional expert, a law professor at George Washington University, and he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to discuss executive privilege and congressional oversight. Turley took the opportunity to warn the Democrats they are “heading into a world of hurt” in their battle with Attorney General William Barr.

It doesn’t take a genius or a constitutional expert to know that the Democrats invented a case and are trying to harm Attorney General Barr for not breaking the law.

How could the congressional Democrats be so foolish as to proceed? They are lawyers and know better. It seems they are so full of anti-Republicanism that they can’t see reason. What they are doing is insane!

“You are heading into a world of hurt if you go to the D.C. Circuit,” Turley said, warning that it is “not a hospitable place.”

“I’d encourage you not to,” he added.

DEMOCRATS ARE ON A FOOL’S ERRAND

Democrats have not examined the documents Barr made available, they claim they want the two percent he can’t give them because they are secret grand jury testimony, protected under the law.

It would be illegal for Barr to release the documents according to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

“There’s no question that he cannot release this Rule 6(e) information,” Turley wrote in a recent op-ed, arguing that Barr’s position is  “unassailable.”

Nadler claimed Barr’s refusal to hand over the unredacted report and other underlying documents amounted to a “constitutional crisis.”

“We’ve talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. We are now in it,” Nadler said after the contempt vote against Barr.

TURLEY WARNED THEM, IT’S ALL HE CAN DO

Turley warned lawmakers to be very careful if they pursue witness testimony in an effort to get at some of the documents they demanded from the Mueller report. The President has the right to executive privilege.

“I strongly encourage you not to make that argument in federal court,” he said about challenging Trump on the executive privilege.

He knows it might harm them and he is a Democrat with their best interests at heart.

HERE’S A LAUGH FOR YOU!

Barr isn’t taking it badly. When he saw Speaker Pelosi at the Hill, he asked her if she brought her handcuffs, free beacon reported.

According to multiple reporters, Barr approached Pelosi following the National Peace Officers Memorial Service in Washington, shook her hand, and asked, “Madam Speaker, did you bring your handcuffs?” Pelosi smiled and said the House Sergeant at Arms was present if an arrest was necessary, to which Barr laughed and walked away.

It’s impossible to embarrass that woman.

  • Nadler and the rest, As attorneys, should realize the ambiguity of unresolved issues in the courts allow the possibility of negotiations. Once the courts “determine” and “resolve” certain issues there are no longer questions for either side to hassle over. It will be set in stone, so to speak. For instance, if the courts decide to give broad executive privilege, then in any further situations the Congress will be left powerless. As it stands today, both sides have to be cautious on those matters. No one knows today how SCOTUS will decide in the future, and, in many cases it depends on the events of the time. If the case comes up at a time where Congress is broadly overreaching, the Court may decide to “limit” Congress. It would take a substantial occurrence for the Court to then reverse itself. Nadler, and other Committee Chairman may rue the day they went down this road.

  • I should also add that AG Barr, as Nadler himself said, was reluctant to negotiate at all, until later, when he Did begin to. This is why the ambiguity, in the lack of any legal deference, presupposes negotiations. In the final analysis the issue at hand are these Committees want such broad powers of investigation that it is likely SCOTUS would want to limit such powers. It could result in such limitations that would inhibit times where they surely need it. But by then it would be too late.