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: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: Gryphon66

I was under the impression that grand jury testimony is non disclose under law.



I guess we will see how much of that is contained in the redacted areas of the Mueller Report.




posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Liked the point the Judge made in favor of releasing the information; that


Congress need not redo the nearly two years of effort spent on the Special Counsel's investigation, nor risk being misled by witnesses, who may have provided information.

(Emphasis mine)

The noose tightens!

ETA:

And to think, None of this would have been possible

If the Republicans had not changed the rules regarding impeachment procedures back in the nineties!
edit on 25-10-2019 by Bhadhidar because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-10-2019 by Bhadhidar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Gryphon66





How do you folks see this progressing?


On up to the Supreme court.


That would be amazing wouldn't it? On what basis, and do you think SCOTUS would bother to hear an appeal?


Amazing? The whole thing does seem to be amazing. Why do you think the SCOTUS would not want to get in on the political action? They would be idiots not to want to hear it and put a stop to it either way.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
Liked the point the Judge made in favor of releasing the information; that


Congress need not redo the nearly two years of effort spent on the Special Counsel's investigation, nor risk being misled by witnesses, who may have provided information.

(Emphasis mine)

The noose tightens!


I haven't been exactly coy about my lack of respect for Democratic leadership when they apparently passed on starting Impeachment at the time the Mueller Report was released.

Opinions vary, perhaps they were just giving the Adminstration more rope? Thanks for your post.
edit on 25-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Gryphon66





How do you folks see this progressing?


On up to the Supreme court.


That would be amazing wouldn't it? On what basis, and do you think SCOTUS would bother to hear an appeal?


Amazing? The whole thing does seem to be amazing. Why do you think the SCOTUS would not want to get in on the political action? They would be idiots not to want to hear it and put a stop to it either way.


Surely you're not suggesting that SCOTUS would make a political ruling are you?

Remember, the high Court is supposed to be unbiased.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

so this is an official impeachment inquiry without a vote of the house? Damn, I'm starting to feel kind of bad for the next president. it seems the is how our government runs now. I hope they get everything they want from the GJ papers. They have to convince the GOP that Trump must go, or all this is "political dinner theater".



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Even one the Lawfare architects of the coup and author of the first published use of “insurance policy” to take out Trump, warns trump-haters not get their hopes up. He knows this decision will not stand.




Benjamin Wittes @benjaminwittes
Don't get too excited, folks, about Chief Judge Howell's opinion on grand jury information and the Mueller report. There's this thing, you see, called the DC Circuit Court of Appeals...

mobile.twitter.com...




posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Gryphon66

so this is an official impeachment inquiry without a vote of the house? Damn, I'm starting to feel kind of bad for the next president. it seems the is how our government runs now. I hope they get everything they want from the GJ papers. They have to convince the GOP that Trump must go, or all this is "political dinner theater".


I'll have to refer you to the many threads debating the status of the impeachment inquiry, but, Judge Howell did refer to it today as valid and based this order on that. So it's part of the legal record now, at any rate.

I'm with you on the apparent futility of any effort regardless of any evidence in a Senate trial. Another nail in the coffin of the great two-party system though, huh?

Thanks for your psot Dude.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You only replied to the obvious and you have seen it dozens of times in the last 3 years. Of course we know how she will vote. Be honest with yourself. You appoint judges who align with you just like Trump is doing now with the SCOTUS and Federal Judges.

How about my other question? I have said since the beginning if there really was something Trump would never had made it to election day.

Millions and 1000's of man hours and 3 years later there is still nothing....not one thing.

Because if there was, a judge like the one who ruled here would make sure something happened.....



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
Liked the point the Judge made in favor of releasing the information; that


Congress need not redo the nearly two years of effort spent on the Special Counsel's investigation, nor risk being misled by witnesses, who may have provided information.

(Emphasis mine)

The noose tightens!


I haven't been exactly coy about my lack of respect for Democratic leadership when they apparently passed on starting Impeachment at the time the Mueller Report was released.

Opinions vary, perhaps they were just giving the Adminstration more rope? Thanks for your post.



It is far too early to say for certain, and I wouldn’t want to be called out for possibly gloating, but...

What we may be seeing in action is a Masterclass demonstration of what Trump’s supporters call

4D Chess.

Except, that it is Trump, himself, that has engineered his own eventual defeat.

Never send a “businessman” to do a politician’s job!



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: matafuchs

LOL. I know that's the interpretation that White House talking points suggest.

Obama appointee or not, Judge Howell is a US Federal Judge in the Washington District Court.

We will get a chance to see what the Mueller Report evidence provides to an legally acknowledged impeachment proceeding.

(PS, in the real world, you don't get to ignore Federal Judges because of BS partisan politics.)




they best hurry, would be a shame if this was fruit from a posined tree right??

Glad to see you like the Courts and the Law

this will be remembered in the very near future

most like the Police, your words (again) will be held against you

Hope they do not embarass you (again)



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

That's a great point. I think I remember something a couple of years ago about a judge on the DC Appeals Circuit ... what was his name again ... dang it ... OH YEAH.

Merrick Garland, Chief United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.. yeah, that was the name.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Partisan or not, for the moment, the US Judicial System is still the Third Branch of Government.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Gryphon66





How do you folks see this progressing?


On up to the Supreme court.


That would be amazing wouldn't it? On what basis, and do you think SCOTUS would bother to hear an appeal?


Amazing? The whole thing does seem to be amazing. Why do you think the SCOTUS would not want to get in on the political action? They would be idiots not to want to hear it and put a stop to it either way.


Surely you're not suggesting that SCOTUS would make a political ruling are you?

Remember, the high Court is supposed to be unbiased.


Isn't that what we all want?



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Judge calls Trump impeachment probe legal, says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC


Things just got real ... or did they?


Dam; they really have, maybe Trump won't be president next year ... maybe.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You should probably change your headline to "Obama-appointed chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rules that AG should break the law"

She is on record as stating that a border wall is racist, FFS.

She’s the judge who reportedly approved of Special Investigator Robert Mueller’s request for a grand jury to question Trump officials.

Just.... LOL

Let's see what a real judge who has a higher standing then she does thinks about it.




posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati


If I "like the courts and the law" ... (1) what does that mean and (2) why does it matter here?

A court of law at least in theory requires evidence, proof, etc, to that extent, I like it more than partisan table tennis via the corporate media.

I'm pretty hard to embarrass, Dig, and I'm not sure how that's on topic here either. Thanks for posting.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Gryphon66

You should probably change your headline to "Obama-appointed chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rules that AG should break the law"

She is on record as stating that a border wall is racist, FFS.

She’s the judge who reportedly approved of Special Investigator Robert Mueller’s request for a grand jury to question Trump officials.

Just.... LOL

Let's see what a real judge who has a higher standing then she does thinks about it.



The title is as required by T&C Lumi.

I know a lot of you adhere to the WH talking points on the Mueller Report pretty heavily, but that's neither here nor there, Judge Howell is still a US Court Judge, and we haven't quite gotten to the point where the Exectuive Branch can ignore that.

(Although, I'm sure some would love to see that.) Thanks for posting Luminari.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein

An unbiased Judciary system? Sure.

A Legislative system that is working for the people instead of their political careers? Sure.

An Executive that actually enforces the laws? Absolutely.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Gryphon66

You should probably change your headline to "Obama-appointed chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rules that AG should break the law"

She is on record as stating that a border wall is racist, FFS.

She’s the judge who reportedly approved of Special Investigator Robert Mueller’s request for a grand jury to question Trump officials.

Just.... LOL

Let's see what a real judge who has a higher standing then she does thinks about it.



The title is as required by T&C Lumi.

I know a lot of you adhere to the WH talking points on the Mueller Report pretty heavily, but that's neither here nor there, Judge Howell is still a US Court Judge, and we haven't quite gotten to the point where the Exectuive Branch can ignore that.

(Although, I'm sure some would love to see that.) Thanks for posting Luminari.


Actually, we are getting quite close to the point where the SCOTUS is going to have to rule on whether lower court judges have any legal standing when it comes to Executive actions and actions of the Executive branch.

Clarence Thomas hinted on this recently.

This would be the perfect case for it, since the judge is effectively telling the AG to break the law for political purposes.

Let's hope this is the case.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join