Judge says Justice Department must give House evidence from Mueller grand jury, citing ‘potentially

[moe]

Judge says Justice Department must give House evidence from Mueller grand jury, citing ‘potentially impeachable conduct’ by Trump

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/jud...eller-material-citing-impeachment-chance.html

 

[TarHeelEer]

From lawfairblog, no less

 

[WVU82_rivals]

Send it to SCOTUS...

There's precedent to overturn it...

lol...

 

[Soaring Eagle 74]

Judge says Justice Department must give House evidence from Mueller grand jury, citing ‘potentially impeachable conduct’ by Trump

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/jud...eller-material-citing-impeachment-chance.html

Republicans and Trump supporters are celebrating, because, you know, they’re all about transparency.

 

[The Dunedein]

For those interested in a knowledgeable discussion of many issues bouncing around the Off-Topic board:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019gj0048-46
[Warning - it’s a long (70+ pages) opinion.]

One example, as to the complaints about the so-called lack of a vote to start the inquiry, the judge notes:

"Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,"

The appellate process on this will be very interesting.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[bamaEER]

Republicans and Trump supporters are celebrating, because, you know, they’re all about transparency.

Ya gotta laugh when Biff and his tards want transparency.

 

[atlkvb]

Judge says Justice Department must give House evidence from Mueller grand jury, citing ‘potentially impeachable conduct’ by Trump

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/jud...eller-material-citing-impeachment-chance.html

Poor moe...still can't say "no collusion" "no obstruction"

 

[atlkvb]

Ya gotta laugh when Biff and his tards want transparency.

What "evidence" was witheld from Mueller? How many times did Trump invoke "executive privilege" or refuse to give Mueller whatever he needed?



"no collusion" "no obstruction". You can't change those facts.

 

[wvu2007]

Ya gotta laugh when Biff and his tards want transparency.

 

[Gunny46]

For those interested in a knowledgeable discussion of many issues bouncing around the Off-Topic board:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019gj0048-46
[Warning - it’s a long (70+ pages) opinion.]

One example, as to the complaints about the so-called lack of a vote to start the inquiry, the judge notes:

"Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,"

The appellate process on this will be very interesting.

It doesn't discuss the pipe dream of getting enough Republlicans in the Senate to convict without causing massive civil unrest. It also doesn't explain how devastating the upcoming I.G. report and criminal investigation being conducted by John Durham will be to the Democrats. Maybe best for our country to settle it at the polls.

 

[atlkvb]

It doesn't discuss the pipe dream of getting enough Republlicans in the Senate to convict without causing massive civil unrest. It also doesn't explain how devastating the upcoming I.G. report and criminal investigation being conducted by John Durham will be to the Democrats. Maybe best for our country to settle it at the polls.

Dems don't want it "settled" at the polls 'cause they know they'll lose. What are they offering voters except a bunch a free stuff we can't afford?

 

[Mntneer]

Ya gotta laugh when Biff and his tards want transparency.

Yeah, I mean wanting and promising transparency... that's not something the left has ever asked for is it.

 

[atlkvb]

For those interested in a knowledgeable discussion of many issues bouncing around the Off-Topic board:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019gj0048-46
[Warning - it’s a long (70+ pages) opinion.]

One example, as to the complaints about the so-called lack of a vote to start the inquiry, the judge notes:

"Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,"

The appellate process on this will be very interesting.

I thought "due process" was a part of our basic system of Justice? The right to face your accusers? The right to legal representation? The right to present your case? Compare the way Schiff is treating Trump and Republicans to the way Newt and the Boyz treated Clinton's legal team and the Democrats during his "inquiry".

There is no comparison.



excerpt:
While the Constitution clearly gives the House the power to begin impeachment proceedings, it does not give the speaker the privilege of declaring them all by herself. Precedent is on the White House’s side here. Most recently, the full House voted to open impeachment inquiries against Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon — and in so doing set clear rules that gave presidential defenders full rights to participate, including the right to subpoena witnesses.

full article:
https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/why-cant-dems-treat-trump-as-fairly-as-republicans-did-bill-clinton/

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

"no collusion" "no obstruction". You can't change those facts.

Except it’s not true. You obviously never read the report.

 

[atlkvb]

Judge says Justice Department must give House evidence from Mueller grand jury, citing ‘potentially impeachable conduct’ by Trump

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/jud...eller-material-citing-impeachment-chance.html

Hey moe...what are House Democrats going to prosecute Trump on that Mueller overlooked? Wasn't the whole idea behind his two year investigation to nail Trump with something he could be impeached on?

I know you're desperate, but why be stupid about it?

 

[atlkvb]

Except it’s not true. You obviously never read the report.

Yes I did...so did this guy....

I read it too...the collusion YOU promised countryroads never happened. Neither did any 'obstruction'.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[atlkvb]

Except it’s not true. You obviously never read the report.

Can you tell me if Mueller was "obstructed" while conducting a criminal investigation or a counterespionage operation?

I'll bet you can't...(or won't) [eyeroll]

 

[atlkvb]

Lisa Boothe

✔@LisaMarieBoothe

Perhaps the Ukraine controversy was intentionally contrived by the Left in anticipation of bombs that are about to drop with the IG report & Durham’s investigation..

This!...Just like the Mueller investigation was a smokescreen to hide Hillary's e-mail scam and try to smear Trump with the "collusion" she was involved in, this Ukraine scheme was cooked up with full awareness of both the DOJ's now criminal investigation as well as the IG's FISA investigation.

Criminals all around...about to get busted.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1187882460010278912.html

Isn’t that special. Howell not only oversaw Mueller’s Grand Jury proceedings she’s old buddies with Weissmann, now miraculously she’s the one making bizarre statements about impeachment and of course today’s ruling.

 

[dave]

ITT you have fuking idiots arguing that not releasing federally protected grand jury proceedings is a cover up. Think about that.

 

[The Dunedein]

I thought "due process" was a part of our basic system of Justice? The right to face your accusers? The right to legal representation? The right to present your case?

There is no comparison.

Air, i agree with you. There is no comparison. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. The involved House Committees (consisting of both Republicans and Democrats) are investigating and gathering facts. What they are doing is not a trial. The House will not make a finding of guilt or innocence. If articles of impeachment are passed in the House, that essentially means they believe there is sufficient evidence to send it on to the Senate, where there will then be a trial, presided over by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, at which both sides will get their day in court. That’s the way the U.S. Constitution says it is to be done. The witnesses who have testified to the House Committees will testify live before the Senate and be subject to cross-examination.

I wonder, if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds today’s ruling, will Trump’s Department of Justice (i.e., Barr) comply with the court order to release the grand jury testimony?

 

[tjebarr]

You are a big crybaby

 

[atlkvb]

Air, i agree with you. There is no comparison. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. The involved House Committees (consisting of both Republicans and Democrats) are investigating and gathering facts. What they are doing is not a trial. The House will not make a finding of guilt or innocence. If articles of impeachment are passed in the House, that essentially means they believe there is sufficient evidence to send it on to the Senate, where there will then be a trial, presided over by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, at which both sides will get their day in court. That’s the way the U.S. Constitution says it is to be done. The witnesses who have testified to the House Committees will testify live before the Senate and be subject to cross-examination.

I wonder, if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds today’s ruling, will Trump’s Department of Justice (i.e., Barr) comply with the court order to release the grand jury testimony?

As an attorney you're talking about court procedures. Impeachment is a quasi-court proceeding, however in order for it to be considered viable it also must be sold politically. Part of that political process is holding all House members accountable for their votes, as well as giving all sides input both during inquiry as well as on the full House floor considering all articles voted out of committee.

If you read and review how House Republicans and Democrats handled the inquiries into both Nixon and Clinton, and compare them to the way these current House Democrats are handling this process, there is no comparison. It's not even close.

Democrats have no hope of selling their impeachment process politically going about it systematically excluding House members or the President's legal counsel from this inquiry process. Right now they are doing both, and sewing the seeds of their own defeat if they are bold enough to pass impeachment articles out of committee.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Air, i agree with you. There is no comparison. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. The involved House Committees (consisting of both Republicans and Democrats) are investigating and gathering facts. What they are doing is not a trial. The House will not make a finding of guilt or innocence. If articles of impeachment are passed in the House, that essentially means they believe there is sufficient evidence to send it on to the Senate, where there will then be a trial, presided over by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, at which both sides will get their day in court. That’s the way the U.S. Constitution says it is to be done. The witnesses who have testified to the House Committees will testify live before the Senate and be subject to cross-examination.

I wonder, if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds today’s ruling, will Trump’s Department of Justice (i.e., Barr) comply with the court order to release the grand jury testimony?

If SCOTUS does? Yes, I imagine they will. I don’t think SCOTUS will uphold the ruling though.

 

[dave]

If SCOTUS does? Yes, I imagine they will. I don’t think SCOTUS will uphold the ruling though.

It wont make it to SCOTUS. DC court of appeals will strike it. It is a ridiculous partisan ruling made by a judge who is Weismans girl.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

As an attorney you're talking about court procedures. Impeachment is a quasi-court proceeding, however in order for it to be considered viable it also must be sold politically. Part of that political process is holding all House members accountable for their votes, as well as giving all sides input both during inquiry as well as on the full House floor considering all articles voted out of committee.

If you read and review how House Republicans and Democrats handled the inquiries into both Nixon and Clinton, and compare them to the way these current House Democrats are handling this process, there is no comparison. It's not even close.

Democrats have no hope of selling their impeachment process politically going about it systematically excluding House members or the President's legal counsel from this inquiry process. Right now they are doing both, and sewing the seeds of their own defeat if they are bold enough to pass impeachment articles out of committee.

Why do you always argue with people who know what they are talking about and you have no clue?

There is something wrong with you.

 

[atlkvb]

Why do you always argue with people who know what they are talking about and you have no clue?

There is something wrong with you.

What is wrong with what I said? Why do YOU always avoid questions from me you don't like the answers to?

Can you explain what witnesses or testimony Schiff's intel committee has allowed Republicans to introduce into his so called "inquiry" of Trump's possible criminal activity that's impeachable?

I know you have the answer, but you'll never tell me.

Why not?

 

[wvu2007]

Why do you always argue with people who know what they are talking about and you have no clue?

There is something wrong with you.

Oh the irony.

 

[dave]

Why do you always argue with people who know what they are talking about and you have no clue?

There is something wrong with you.

This question from you is just comical. You are the least self aware human being on earth.

 

[dave]

Why do you always argue with people who know what they are talking about and you have no clue?

There is something wrong with you.

I can promise you that the dunedin would fight like hell if a client of his was going to be named in unsealed grand jury testimony in which no charges had been brought if it was obvious that the unchallenged testimony would adversly affect his client.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Why do YOU always avoid questions from me?

Because every time someone attempts to explain something to you that you have no clue about, you retort with something completely wrong and illogical - exactly like in this thread with Dunedein. You will continue to go through life ignorant if you won’t listen to people trying to explain things to you, who know what they are talking about. That is exactly why I seldom have interaction with you. I believe in letting people like you remain ignorant.

 

[Gunny46]

Because every time someone attempts to explain something to you that you have no clue about, you retort with something completely wrong and illogical - exactly like in this thread with Dunedein. You will continue to go through life ignorant if you won’t listen to people trying to explain things to you, who know what they are talking about. That is exactly why I seldom have interaction with you. I believe in letting people like you remain ignorant.

Brennan does he plead the 5th or not ?

 

[atlkvb]

Because every time someone attempts to explain something to you that you have no clue about, you retort with something completely wrong and illogical - exactly like in this thread with Dunedein. You will continue to go through life ignorant if you won’t listen to people trying to explain things to you, who know what they are talking about. That is exactly why I seldom have interaction with you. I believe in letting people like you remain ignorant.

Why can't you just simply and directly answer the simple direct question I asked you in post #32? If you don't know the answer, just say "I don't know atl"

Instead you come off like you do know the answer, but I'm too stupid to understand it. Well then, why don't you inform me?

Seems to me the only one who is stupid is the one who has no answers?

Don't lecture me, or argue with me. If I'm wrong about Schiff point out where? If I'm correct (he has NOT allowed Republicans to introduce witnesses) admit it.

What's your next response to this post?

 

[atlkvb]

@countryroads89

Can you explain what witnesses or testimony Schiff's intel committee has allowed Republicans to introduce into his so called "inquiry" of Trump's possible criminal activity that's impeachable?

If that's a "dumb" question, why can't you answer it?

 

[dave]

Because every time someone attempts to explain something to you that you have no clue about, you retort with something completely wrong and illogical - exactly like in this thread with Dunedein. You will continue to go through life ignorant if you won’t listen to people trying to explain things to you, who know what they are talking about. That is exactly why I seldom have interaction with you. I believe in letting people like you remain ignorant.

You cant answer the question. Deflect deflect deflect. Little dumb cuntry.