Special Counsel Mueller Impanels Washington Grand Jury in Russia Probe

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Well good.

I hope the truth wins and justice prevails.

We all hope that, but given the parties involved ... I don't think anyone has much faith.

We can only do the right thing.

Jayne: Shepherd Book used to tell me, "If you can't do somethin' smart... do somethin' right."
-Serenity

a reply to: bknapple32

Fox News Corp distanced themselves from the claim.
Sean Hannity did not retract his story or change his position and he spoke about that fact.

a reply to: redtic

Maybe on Kellyann's butt?

originally posted by: redtic
The cognitive dissonance is strong in this thread. Reminds me of this:

Someone needs to replace that coffee with a nothingburger

originally posted by: TacSite18

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Don't research it...just believe....LOL

OR better yet, jsut say it is a fact, and when someone calls you on it, never respond.

Even when they keep asking you for your "facts"

Just never respond.

Ok....so you're saying Lynch and Clinton never met on the tarmac, Comey didn't say he gave his leaked memos to a reporter, Lynch didn't direct Comey to call an investigation something else, Rice didn't unmask 100's without cause and McCabe's wife didn't get a massive donation when this all kicked off?

Guessing you also believe that Hillary Clinton, acting SOS who made training videos about national security protocols and knew from 30 years in government that all government communications are to be saved, just forgot all of this and erased it?

Then, I am supposed to believe that Trump has some deal with Russians? Based on a unverified dossier given to them by a company who's people have ties to the Clintons since the 70's? And after all the Russian hoopla with Hillary during her SOS tenure?

I mean seriously....I have multiple threads on these things with hard evidence and court cases and documents etc....yet you seem to just want to sit here an recite MSN?

Anywho...your post history tells me all I need....no real depth, just copy paste regurgitation of whatever fits your internal narrative...echo chamber much?

When did I say any of these things that your are saying?

This post appears to be the most obvious deflections I have seen today.

That is saying a lot.

How does any of this last post have anything to do with the OP?

Start another one of the tiresome threads on these topics if you like. This OP is about breaking news into the Mueller investigation of Russia interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, and any ties to the Trump campaign.

Your last post is so off topic, and such poorly done deflection, in an attempt to drag the OP off of the breaking story, that I am surprised a mod has not deleted it yet.

Oh, and this is the last time I will bring it up, because it is obvious you don't want to discuss it, but where are those "facts?"

You asked for facts based off of the post I said all of this in.

We're you looking for facts on something else? If for this thread then feel free to post those you have. I am happy to shoot them down.

As far as your earlier claim to have shown I don't give facts and research in my threads....here...i will invite you personally to this one to refute anything you feel like.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Be my guest and use that massive arsenal of facts and mental prowess to break it all down for me please.

While you're at it, feel free to start another thread with as much evidence and facts for me to break down about Trump....looking forward to it!

a reply to: shooterbrody

I do not think a sitting president can be indicted

Don't be so doubtful.

Newly Disclosed Clinton-era Memo Says Presidents Can Be Indicted

Although nothing in the Constitution or federal law explicitly says presidents are immune from indictment while they remain in office, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has asserted that they are. A newly disclosed legal memo from the office of Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Clinton, challenges that analysis. The National Archives made the memo public in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The New York Times.

I haven't read the entirety of this thread to see if this has been posted, so if it has, apologies.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Don't want to get off topic, but I was a reserve cop for about a year in a small town in Montana. We never saw a DA for traffic tickets.

I now work for the federal government, and believe me we do issue criminal complaints directly to the courts with no DA or prosecutor involved.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: bknapple32

Fox News Corp distanced themselves from the claim.
Sean Hannity did not retract his story or change his position and he spoke about that fact.

For the last time. Fox News Corp RETRACTED THE STORY. What hannity does on his radio program is up to him. And if hes dumb enough to keep spouting the story on fox itself, im sure that will come to an end with a firing.

If Mueller has convened a grand jury this soon it means he knows he has nothing. He is going through the motions. Nothing will be found because he is realizing it is all total BS. He wants to get done with this and move on.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Well good.
I hope the truth wins and justice prevails.

That's what it's all about, isn't it? You've got all kinds of folks saying that Trump's gonna swing, an equal number betting their first born that he is clean as a whistle...and it's wishful thinking on both counts. I only hope the system is still capable of playing out as it should.
Meanwhile...corn futures continue to soar!

a reply to: RazorV66

Of course there was going to be a Grand Jury impaneled ....why would anyone think there wouldn't be?

you must be new here.

originally posted by: Outlier13
If Mueller has convened a grand jury this soon it means he knows he has nothing. He is going through the motions. Nothing will be found because he is realizing it is all total BS. He wants to get done with this and move on.

Anything to help ya sleep at night I suppose. Back on planet Earth, this has gone to grand jury a couple weeks ago, and probably because there is *something*

originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: RazorV66

Late to the party? That quote is about 11 pages back. You might want to read the whole thread so you are up to speed.

I did read the entire thread before I replied.
I figured the 1st dumb comment was as good as any to reply to.

originally posted by: audubon
Well, impanelling a Grand Jury is one thing, getting a conviction afterwards is quite another.

But anyway, hopefully this will bring to a head the current brouhaha and things might calm down a bit (for better or worse).

You might want to looked up the stats on that. Federal grand juries have about a 95% indictment rate.

a reply to: FredT

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure - Rule 6. The Grand Jury

(2) Secrecy.

(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).

(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:

(i) a grand juror;

(ii) an interpreter;

(iii) a court reporter;

(iv) an operator of a recording device;

(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;

(vi) an attorney for the government; or

(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).

(7) Contempt. A knowing violation of Rule 6, or of any guidelines jointly issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence under Rule 6, may be punished as a contempt of court.

saying a grand jury is impaneled is fine. Saying what it was for, who its against and what they are looking at is secret.

originally posted by: Outlier13
If Mueller has convened a grand jury this soon it means he knows he has nothing. He is going through the motions. Nothing will be found because he is realizing it is all total BS. He wants to get done with this and move on.

I'd agree with that except for the fact he has hired a team of over a dozen lawyers to help him.

Either he has nothing, and he's digging, or he has A LOT and needs help sorting through it all bigly.

a reply to: Xcathdra

For speeding? What the heck are you on about. I personally cited people. If they were from out of town or state, you brought them to the JP's house. The JP would try and usually fine them. Case closed. No DA, no one else.

You don't like the law, go pund sand.

a reply to: Liquesence

Again a memo written by a law professor is not law. hell its not even a dicta.

People also forget that Mueller is obligated Constitutionally (5th amendment) to empanel the GJ and that was going to be the inevitable result of this investigation.

originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: Xcathdra
Don't want to get off topic, but I was a reserve cop for about a year in a small town in Montana. We never saw a DA for traffic tickets.

I now work for the federal government, and believe me we do issue criminal complaints directly to the courts with no DA or prosecutor involved.

Bozeman?

Lived there back when speeding tickets (during winter) were a $5 on spot fine for waste of natural resources and they had a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit.