,
7 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD: Thoughts on Chairman Nadler’s letter today to AG Barr:
1. Written in anticipation of litigation, it is, in effect, the House’s complaint. Sets out, in full, House’s case for delivery of unredacted report. Primary intended audience is judiciary; also written for history.
1. Written in anticipation of litigation, it is, in effect, the House’s complaint. Sets out, in full, House’s case for delivery of unredacted report. Primary intended audience is judiciary; also written for history.
2. Nadler deftly pins onus for conflict on Barr, chronicling Barr’s failure to engage w/ HCJ on resolving legal issues he claims prevent delivery of full report. Shows HCJ open to reason and Barr as an unforthcoming stonewaller. Ergo, judicial intervention necessary.
3. Nadler believes DOJ cooperation is needed in seeking court approval for release of ‘grand jury materials’ (definition of which is not simple, btw). Calls for House to act independently of DOJ in seeking judicial approval likely to be disappointed.
4. Nadler signals concern, possibly based on private convos w/ Barr, that Barr may “interfere w/ SC Mueller testifying b4 the … Committee.” Any such attempt wd trigger a subpoena for Mueller’s testimony, entailing further litigation/delay. [Delay may be part of Barr’s purpose.]
5. Nadler indicates Committee’s intention is to summon Mueller *after* Committee digests full report. Calls for Mueller’s immediate testimony, prior to delivery of full report, therefore likely to be disappointed.
6. Nadler cites bipartisan 420-0 House vote in favor of full disclosure to buttress assertion that the “American people” demand release of full report. House Minority Leader McCarthy made a serious tactical error in allowing R MOC’s to vote in favor.
7. Likewise, Trump’s own call for full release comes back to haunt him in this letter.
