Judge says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ChefFox

Oh impeachment could happen in the timeframe they set.
That just takes the house to do their part and they seem to be moving along at decent rate now.
But, I am assuming you mean the senate side of the equation.

And I see that as less impossible than I did before the Ukraine story broke and his decision to pull out of syria.
I also get the idea that maybe the republicans are being surprised by some of his actions as well as some of the facts that are being dug up. If it gets to the point where they know the dems can convince the public in general and they will suffer more if they dont remove him they will move rather quickly so they can have a viable candidate on the ballot.

Umm Actually...If they do this then about HALF of the democrats running for the presidential nomination will have to stop campaigning,because by law they have to focus on the impeachment.

a reply to: yuppa

That's in the Senate I believe.

ETA: Well, duh, that's what you were saying LOL.

Sanders, Harris, Warren, etc.

a reply to: yuppa

By the constitution, if they believe trump has committed an impeachable offense, it's thier constitutional duty to impeach? So they wont be campaigning as much, those impeachment hearings will be bringing thier faces into americans homes every night as the impeachment is covered by every news outlet. Besides, the selection will be whittled down a bit, some of those senators might not be in the running.
The risk the republicans have is that trump manages to slow down the process just enough to eliminate them being able to offer an alternative candidate only to have him blown out of the water before election night.
I would prefer that we take the quickest route possible since it would be a rather boring election without our republican friends playing their part.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa

That's in the Senate I believe.

ETA: Well, duh, that's what you were saying LOL.

Sanders, Harris, Warren, etc.

If (when) impeachment gets to the Senate, they (the Republican majority) will want to push it through as quickly as possible.

So, even if their senatorial duties, as required by the proceedings, pull the Democratic front runners off the campaign trail temporarily, it is likely to be a short absence.

On the other hand, removing the front runners from the campaign spotlight, even for a brief period, could give the “second string” candidates, like Yang, a new shot at the top slot.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Turns out, with one or two big exceptions, I like Gorsuch. I think he may be the next Chief Justice.

I may regret saying this - but I have a feeling that Gorsuch might be a sleeper. But, maybe not in the way that some (some) right leaners were counting on

I really hope I'm not proven wrong

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Gryphon66

Turns out, with one or two big exceptions, I like Gorsuch. I think he may be the next Chief Justice.

I may regret saying this - but I have a feeling that Gorsuch might be a sleeper. But, maybe not in the way that some (some) right leaners were counting on

I really hope I'm not proven wrong

None of us are fortune-tellers. I'm really happy if Gorsuch is the kind of libertarian that felt more comfortable with Republicans than Democrats. We will see, I guess.

a reply to: dawnstar

Senate wont hear the case though,and will dismiss it 1st day actually.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar

Senate wont hear the case though,and will dismiss it 1st day actually.

I'm not sure they can do that. Even McConnell has Constitutional limits.

The Chief Justice will preside you may recall.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar

Senate wont hear the case though,and will dismiss it 1st day actually.

McConnell says it depends on what the House sends over, and when it arrives. He can make it quick, or drag it out.

I'm hoping we get the chance to see Sanders/Warren/Harris/Spartacus knocked out of the Presidential race, due to not being able to campaign. (A Senate impeachment trial requires all Senators to be present every day, unless they're near death.)

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar

Senate wont hear the case though,and will dismiss it 1st day actually.

McConnell says it depends on what the House sends over, and when it arrives. He can make it quick, or drag it out.

I'm hoping we get the chance to see Sanders/Warren/Harris/Spartacus knocked out of the Presidential race, due to not being able to campaign. (A Senate impeachment trial requires all Senators to be present every day, unless they're near death.)

Right, because with all the concerns about COnstitutional powers, Trump supporters are fine with one man controlling the US Senate.

McConnell will not be in charge, by design, when the trial starts. That design is the actual COnstitution you may have heard of.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: dragonridr

A growing number of Democrats suspect that Mueller and Barr were working together (30 year friendship) to insulate President Trump. That's why they want to see the thousands of pages of Grand Jury testimony. They think some damning facts against President Trump were intentionally ignored.

I'll ask, do you have a source for that claim, or is it your opinion?

Here's my opinion: Bob Mueller has been downright blatant (for him) that the only reason that Trump wasn't indicted is because DOJ rules wouldn't let him be indicted.

He handed the House the impeachment on a silver platter and I think it's almost dinner time.

He literally did no such thing.

Drunk Nancy has moved onto Ukraine, a direct enemy of Russia.

So which is it? Yall ran with Trump is a Russian puppet. Now Trump works for Ukraine?

You people need to make up your mind....

Lolz🤪

a reply to: Scepticaldem

See Volume II.

Notice that you're posting in a thread that is literally about the Democrats winning in court to have access to the unrestricted Mueller Report info.

"Us people" already have; perhaps "you people" need to read the topic.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Here's my opinion: Bob Mueller has been downright blatant (for him) that the only reason that Trump wasn't indicted is because DOJ rules wouldn't let him be indicted.

Nope

The former FBI director had said in his report he never reached a decision on whether Trump could or should be charged with obstruction because of the OLC guidance.

In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to "correct the record" on his exchange with Lieu.

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

NBC

a reply to: Fallingdown

Fascinating. If you watched your video you literally heard Bob Mueller say with his own voice that they couldn't make a determination to indict because of DOJ rules ... and you still say "Nope."

That's a level of denial I can't help you with. They couldn't move to indictment because they couldn't move to the determination of a crime because DOJ rules do not allow it.

Mueller was clear particularly in Volume II of the Report that there were multiple occasions in which the President very likely committed obstruction, and even though it causes Trump acolytes heads to explode, that's why he repeatedly states that their findings did not exonerate the President.

He wasn't exonerated because they were not allowed to make the determination! How much more plainly can this be said?

a reply to: Gryphon66

At the 22 second mark .

We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's almost like you've never heard of an appeal. After the appeals court rules, the next SCOTUS session isn't until feb-march. That's a long wait for old schiffty. By then he might be indicted. And when the SCOTUS hears it they're likely to say; it's a political issue, we can't rule one way or another, which will allow the stonewalling to continue. Trump has given them an easy way to get the docs/testimony they want, vote. Why won't they?

ETA: One other thing, doesn't the request for this grand jury material predate the "impeachment" garbage? If so this is simply a leftist judge playing activist. They're impeaching trump over a phone call, not over mueller.

a reply to: Gryphon66

But how do you square his determination that trump committed no criminal conspiracy crime in vol 1, with his inability to even determine whether obstruction was committed or not? Mueller's team wanted their cake and to eat it too.

See, if he can't make a determination because DOJ rules, what's the point of the investigation? Of course he could make a determination, whether he could charge or not. He could say yeah, I think he committed this crime or no I don't think he did. But he didn't want that. He knew the evidence wasn't strong enough so the best he could do is innuendo his way through it and hope for a political impeachment.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Mueller later clarified that is not true and he misspoke. They absolutely were allowed to make the determination.

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

www.nbcnews.com...

They absolutely could have made a determination. Mueller seemed to want to give answers that muddied the water. It would have been very easy for him to end the confusion, he chose not to. He chose to keep saying things that left confusion. Mueller clearly stated though that they WOULD not reach a conclusion, not that they could not.

In simultaneous response to several posts: we all see what Mueller said, and we all know what the context was, and if after that we disagree about what it means, so be it. There's no reason to debate semantics.

The Mueller special investigation did not make a determination is where several posters want to start. Let's do that.

The Mueller team did not make a determination BECAUSE DOJ policy does not allow for the indictment of a sitting President.

Is that phrasing acceptable? Let's assume so.

Not making a determination doesn't mean or imply COULDN'T make a determination, and Mueller is quite clear both in the Report and in subsequent testimony that the limitations imposed by DOJ did affect the outcome of the Report.

And if anyone wants to split hairs over that, go on.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

But how do you square his determination that trump committed no criminal conspiracy crime in vol 1, with his inability to even determine whether obstruction was committed or not? Mueller's team wanted their cake and to eat it too.

See, if he can't make a determination because DOJ rules, what's the point of the investigation? Of course he could make a determination, whether he could charge or not. He could say yeah, I think he committed this crime or no I don't think he did. But he didn't want that. He knew the evidence wasn't strong enough so the best he could do is innuendo his way through it and hope for a political impeachment.

The crime of obstructing justice is a crime in and of itself. If the investigation of criminal conspiracy resulted in no indictment (which also doesn't necessarily exonerate the subject) but the investigation itself was tampered with (as this one was) by the President, then whatever the status of other crimes, the crime of OBSTRUCTION was committed.

And in this case, it was committed in clear view of the public on multiple occasions.