HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » An impeachment inquiry IS... » Reply #13

Response to watoos (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 11, 2019, 12:38 PM

13. This is not a constitutional issue - it's a matter of statutory interpretation



Barr doesn't have the authority to release the material to anyone unless a court orders him to, so his supposed "agreement" doesn't mean a thing.

Your belief that an impeachment hearing is so important that it lead a court to do something it otherwise wouldn't do also doesn't mean much in this context, because it's just a supposition on your part not based on the law or precedent.
Moreover, while the law has made a distinction between judicial proceedings (which includes an impeachment) and regular oversight hearings, it does NOT make a distinction between the proceedings for which Nadler is seeking the material and judicial proceedings for this purpose. In fact, the law does just the opposite: it puts them in the exact same category.

The law permits a judge to release grand jury materials preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding. The statute is written to mean that a hearing preliminary to impeachment - which is what Nadler's seeking the materials for - is given the same weight and importance under the law as impeachment. The law makes no distinction between the two types of proceedings.

In the few instances that it's come up, an impeachment proceeding carried more weight than a standard oversight hearing. But as far as I can find, no court has ever held that an impeachment proceeding carries greater weight than a proceeding preliminary to impeachment. And both "common sense" and basic established statutory interpretation leads to the conclusion that the fact that the statute's drafters included the two types of proceedings in the same clause without in any way differentiating between the two or prioritizing one over the other means that they are to be treated equivalently for the purpose of this exception.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
EffieBlack Jun 11 OP
wryter2000 Jun 11 #1
Me. Jun 11 #2
EffieBlack Jun 11 #3
StarfishSaver Jun 11 #4
stopdiggin Jun 11 #5
Trumpocalypse Jun 11 #6
watoos Jun 11 #7
StarfishSaver Jun 11 #8
watoos Jun 11 #10
LineLineLineLineReply This is not a constitutional issue - it's a matter of statutory interpretation
StarfishSaver Jun 11 #13
watoos Jun 11 #14
StarfishSaver Jun 11 #16
EffieBlack Jun 11 #17
StarfishSaver Jun 11 #20
Nuggets Jun 12 #27
StarfishSaver Jun 12 #31
EffieBlack Jun 11 #9
watoos Jun 11 #12
EffieBlack Jun 11 #15
brer cat Jun 11 #11
mcar Jun 11 #18
StarfishSaver Jun 11 #19
FBaggins Jun 12 #21
StarfishSaver Jun 12 #22
FBaggins Jun 12 #23
StarfishSaver Jun 12 #24
EffieBlack Jun 12 #25
emmaverybo Jun 12 #30
StarfishSaver Jun 12 #32
BeyondGeography Jun 12 #26
StarfishSaver Jun 12 #29
emmaverybo Jun 12 #28
EffieBlack Jun 13 #33
Please login to view edit histories.