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: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.


Well then, we agree. Let it go to the Supreme Court.




posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   
This will work against the House witch hunt committees because the timing of the release and the contents will be to Trump's advantage as it always is 😎



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   


Under U.S. law, grand jury testimony generally must be kept secret. But if a grand jury matter involves “grave hostile acts of a foreign power” or other intelligence information, the information can be shared with appropriate government officials. The law also lets a judge release grand jury information when strong public interest is at stake.


Reuters



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.


Let me get this straight then...

You're quite OK with Trump asking the Ukraine to check out corruption by US officials.

You know, an executive that enforces the law.




posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I see it being appealed and moving up to the SC.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think they might feel it's too important of a case not to take it up just so the two sides can say that the legal options ran thier course.

Another interesting point about the decision..
This is the second appeals court that casted a doubt about the policy that a president cant be indicted while in office. Basically what he did was remind everyone that the policy was never challenged in court.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

And remember

Facebook bots = grave hostile acts of a foreign power.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Not really on topic here, but sure, I want our President to honor his Oath and uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws.

I'm on record saying that the edited transcript doesn't prove Trump broke the law due to the wide latitude the President has in dealing with foreign powers.

The Mueller Report is a different matter.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: Gryphon66

And remember

Facebook bots = grave hostile acts of a foreign power.


Does that meet the legal criteria, do you think?

Perhaps we will see.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

I see it being appealed and moving up to the SC.


I'm with you OR ... but probably first to the Court of Appeals, then to SCOTUS.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think they might feel it's too important of a case not to take it up just so the two sides can say that the legal options ran thier course.

Another interesting point about the decision..
This is the second appeals court that casted a doubt about the policy that a president cant be indicted while in office. Basically what he did was remind everyone that the policy was never challenged in court.


Exactly, although the White House talking points try to do anything to avoid that. This decision, whether it stands or not, brings the matters into the Courts rather than under the thumb of the AG.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: Gryphon66

And remember

Facebook bots = grave hostile acts of a foreign power.


Does that meet the legal criteria, do you think?

Perhaps we will see.


There are witches casting spells against the president and clergymen casting their evil back to hell .... so sure anything is possible right now; Facebook advertisements really could be seen as a grave hostile acts of a foreign power.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

I see it being appealed and moving up to the SC.


Did this impeachment-favoring judge order the Grand Jury materials turned over to Schiff by October 30th? That's what I heard. If so, not much time.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: Gryphon66

And remember

Facebook bots = grave hostile acts of a foreign power.


Does that meet the legal criteria, do you think?

Perhaps we will see.


There are witches casting spells against the president and clergymen casting their evil back to hell .... so sure anything is possible right now; Facebook advertisements really could be seen as a grave hostile acts of a foreign power.


You think the Courts would consider the Forces of the Underworld as hostile to Trump or allied?



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

I see it being appealed and moving up to the SC.


Did this impeachment-favoring judge order the Grand Jury materials turned over to Schiff by October 30th? That's what I heard. If so, not much time.


That is what the article indicates CWM. Well, except the part that Judge Howell "favors impeachment" of course.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

I see it being appealed and moving up to the SC.


I'm with you OR ... but probably first to the Court of Appeals, then to SCOTUS.

That's how I see it. Honestly the SC should save everyone time and just take it, but I doubt that happens.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It seems the Underworld is against Trump and the forces of Heaven are protecting him in this case.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The Judiciary is pretty picky about the whole precedent and order thing.

If this does get to SCOTUS, I would say the decision would be one of the most monumental in American history, as it would basically be adjudicating the Balance of Powers that the courts have LOOOONG avoided between the Legislative and the Executive.



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

originally posted by: Lumenari

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.


That would actually be terrible, if the lower courts cant take cases about the executive branch then the supreme court would be bogged down taking every case. It would break the system.



posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

It seems the Underworld is against Trump and the forces of Heaven are protecting him in this case.


Depends on the mythology one believes in I would guess, and the politics.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join