It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC

page: 14
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

But that's not the question I asked. Despite your shaky understanding of obstruction, the question was:

If he was able to draw a conclusion on one part, why was he not able to on the other part? Especially when his excuse was that the DoJ guidelines made it impossible for him to draw a conclusion either way (even though they didn't)? Why could he draw a conclusion once but not the second time?

EDIT: responding to your other post, mueller would not have been in charge of indicting the president. He was to make a recommendation to the AG. Also on multiple occasions mueller has stated that the DoJ policy did not affect his inability to make a determination on OOJ.
edit on 28-10-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
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.


Never heard of an appeal? That must be why I've referred multiple times to the DC Court of Appeals eh?

What is Rep. Schiff going to be indicted for in this scenario again? Being a Democrat? PFfft.

Right, you can predict what the Supreme Court will say given the opportunity to make a landmark decision between the other two branches ... LOL. Yeah, I'm sure Roberts will give that a pass, eh?

Again, you may want to consult the actual thread topic here ... the House Democrats just officially and sucessfully brought the Mueller Report AND grand jury testimony into the impeachment.

Not only is Mueller on the table, it's the centerpiece. LOL.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

But that's not the question I asked. Despite your shaky understanding of obstruction, the question was:

If he was able to draw a conclusion on one part, why was he not able to on the other part? Especially when his excuse was that the DoJ guidelines made it impossible for him to draw a conclusion either way (even though they didn't)? Why could he draw a conclusion once but not the second time?

EDIT: responding to your other post, mueller would not have been in charge of indicting the president. He was to make a recommendation to the AG. Also on multiple occasions mueller has stated that the DoJ policy did not affect his inability to make a determination on OOJ.


I gave the correct interpretation of obsruction and you parroted the White House ... and my understanding is "shaky"?

I take it this is your rephrasing of your previous argument? Fine.

A minute ago, Mueller was purposely vague, and now, you have him making a clear conclusion once but not twice.

You really need to work on your story, even with stealth edits.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

They successfully did nothing. This will be appealed, they will get nothing and when it gets to SCOTUS they will rule like they always have on impeachment, that it's not the judiciaries responsibility. There are precedents. Look em up. But by the time it even gets to SCOTUS it will be election time and it'll be a tough go for the dems to be impeaching the president for nothing while half of their allies are being indicted. They'll probably lose the house then this whole sham is over.

Schiff will be indicted for leaking and conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I didn't parrot anything. I never said what obstruction was. Mueller was vague to give dems fodder. He was later concise because he was forced to be. The dems simply refuse to listen to his concise statement in order to prop up his vagueness that they need for fodder, much like your entire argument and thread here.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 07:15 AM
link   
duplicate
edit on 28-10-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

They successfully did nothing. This will be appealed, they will get nothing and when it gets to SCOTUS they will rule like they always have on impeachment, that it's not the judiciaries responsibility. There are precedents. Look em up. But by the time it even gets to SCOTUS it will be election time and it'll be a tough go for the dems to be impeaching the president for nothing while half of their allies are being indicted. They'll probably lose the house then this whole sham is over.

Schiff will be indicted for leaking and conspiracy.


They will get nothing? On what basis could you possibly draw that absurd conclusion? The judge who OVERSAW THE MUELLER GRAND JURY has made a determination of public need for the GRAND JURY information. You really need to review the talking points before you start these things ... because the White House has been arguing for "greater transparency" and now you think SCOTUS is going to rule to hide the material from the public in what will be the biggest jurisdictional case since Marbury v. Madison?

LOL. Sure. That makes sense. You're obviously an expert in the matter, LOL.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



On what basis could you possibly draw that absurd conclusion?


Appeals. I know, I've only told you three times, but let me say it again: appeals.

Sure, I could be wrong about what SCOTUS says, but I doubt it. They can't win with a ruling here and they have no constitutional authority over impeachment. SCOTUS loves to punt on any polarizing issue they can. They can and this is ultra polarizing.
edit on 28-10-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Appeal in the DC Appeals Circuit we've been discussing the entire thread?

Thank God you're here.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Umm... excuse me..
But maybe you should do a little research into the Nixon impeachment and come back and tell us how the Nixon tapes were obtained by congress??
edit on 28-10-2019 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Dfairlite

Umm... excuse me..
But maybe you should do a little research into the Nixon impeachment and come back and tell us how the Nixon tapes were obtained by congress??


Right on target as usual Dawnstar. You are referencing United States v. Nixon I believe which was a landmark case regarding "executive priviledge" and its abuse and it clearly established that the Executive doesn't "trump" the Judiciary. I suppose the next one will establish the same measure in regard to the Legislative Branch as co-equal.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol.. they are appealing this decision by the way. As if anyone had any doubts on that one. So onward to the jilted nominee I guess.
Still say that all this delay isnt doing anyone any good. It's just carrying further into the election cycle and I wouldn't count on the dems waiting till after the election.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar



Lol.. they are appealing this decision by the way.

would you expect them not to?
if overturned will it not be appealed from the other side?
this has one landing spot.
they may as well fast track it now.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
funny you mention that event.
the full house voted to authorize that event.....
this one has not



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
funny you mention that event.
the full house voted to authorize that event.....
this one has not



You do realize that Nixon wasn't actually impeached, right?

So much for the comparison. Try Clinton.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
you do realize how the event started?
or perhaps you actually do not?
no worries
the courts know



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The post I was replying to seems to be implying that the supreme court "rule like they always have on impeachment, that it's not the judiciary's responsibilty"
That there are precedents..

You care to explain to me what he meant? Because if he meant that they wouldn't want to rule on weather or not this is a real impeachment inquiry, then the nixon case, however that inquiry started is precedence since the court would not want to rule on the legitimacy of either one. The house is calling it an impeachment inquiry. It is up to the house how they determine that, the court ain't getting into it, they will just take the houses word for it. And the nixon case is precedence that yes, there are times when executive priviledge and grand jury secrecy can and should take a back seat when the information being sought has a good chance of being helpful.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar
The house voted to move forward with the nixon inquiry prior to the court ruling, did it not?
The house also voted to move forward with the clinton inquiry, did it not?

What is so different this time?
Do you honestly think past precedent wont matter with the courts?



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
funny you mention that event.
the full house voted to authorize that event.....
this one has not



You do realize that Nixon wasn't actually impeached, right?

So much for the comparison. Try Clinton.


You do realize there is an election in about a year, right?

I see on another thread we are talking about "fixing" the electoral college.....

Just incase this farce doesnt go your way?

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   
DOJ has appealed.

Boom!

abcnews.go.com...



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join