(05-08-2019, 04:27 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:

(05-08-2019, 04:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: I think you are wrong regarding Congress having any right to see an unredacted report.  Congressional oversight is always supposed to be general questions that help them revise statutes that will affect many cases.  Judges are the ones who are supposed to have access to more specific information about one case.
I think the House judiciary committee had the right to compel Barr to testify and answer questions from anyone they designate.  Barr could have cited statutes that prevent him from answering, but he needed to show up and speak. 
I also think Barr intentionally deceived Congress and the public. But that's not why they are about to hold Barr in contempt.  
Congress has grounds to hold Barr in contempt or impeach him, but they're citing different grounds for some reason.

Why would the Attorney General take questions from the staff of congressional members?

Because it is his job to answer questions presented to him by the judiciary committee of either house of Congress. just as Congress is entitled to hire a lawyer to present these questions, Barr was entitled to have another lawyer assist him answering the questions.
The Democrats were trying to insist that they could have a hired gun question him , but that Barr could not have a hired gun assist in answering.
This may have been a negotiating tactic.  A compromise should have been reached and a meeting should have taken place where both sides should have had their hired guns available.
All that said, Senate Democrats already got a fair shot at Barr, and it revealed little of value.  It is not likely that whatever lawyer the Democrats in the house intended to hire would have broken any new ground.

---