It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 06:02 PM
a reply to: Irishhaf

I've started referring to the two-party system as the double-headed snake.

I always fall back to my sincerely held belief that all politicians at any level are psychopathic.

Who else would want to control what other people do?

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 06:12 PM
a reply to: nonnez

I have never voted for a D or R, ever, in my life. Both parties disgust me for the most part.

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 06:26 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Because they didn’t have a vote. The inquiry is just an investigation at this point . SCOTUS will have to make a decision if trumps constitutional rights are in effect.

The judge just might’ve stuck the Democrats in a corner . If SCOTUS decides he has them before impeachment he’ll be entitled to testimony and evidence through discovery .

The dems would have to take a vote to make it official to avoid that .

I only read the first page and don’t know if anybody realized this.

But not only is she a Obama appointee. She was also the federal judge who over saw the grand jury for the Mueller probe .

Sounds like conflict me .
edit on 25-10-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 06:57 PM
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah, I am a moderate. I have voted both ways TBH but I am a little lost by the games played on each side recently. I really hope our leaders can figure out how to work together for the good of the people and the USA.

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 07:33 PM
Please. Please. Just get your articles of impeachment in order and send it on to the senate. Then prepare yourselves for a giant disappointment.

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 07:59 PM
You can find polarized judges, you can find corrupt judges too. Just because it is a federal judge does not mean the judge is bipartisan and if they are not neutral, they should not be getting involved. Barr is just following up on a complaint by the president and he is doing things correctly. The way the democrats are bending all the rules and regulations governing impeachment, their tactic is not really legal. They have a right to try to impeach if they follow the rules but alas, they must be relatives of Hillary who never followed rules.

I had to edit to add, if a Judge starts pushing misapplied judgements in the political bias landscape, that judge should be removed from their judicial position. They are supposed to be neutral and just properly judge whether rules and laws have been followed correctly. This applies to both sides of the coin.
edit on 25-10-2019 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 08:06 PM
a reply to: Fallingdown

Did Democrats choose this judge? Sure sounds like it.

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 08:22 PM
a reply to: carewemust

If they did it’s going to go over like a fart in a space suit .

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 08:25 PM
The Judge is partisan and thus their ruling null and void.

The hudge argues that the House has never needed a vote for an impeachment inquiry, yet doesn't cite the what or need.

Secondly, she also argues that the grand jury information may have material needed by the Judiciary and transparency is needed.

If transparency was an issue, the false impeachment inquiry wouldn't be behind closed doors and in secret by one partisan side, regardless of the argument.

Furthermore, the Judge is ruling beyond her scope as Grand Jury information, by Law, is kepted secret.

It is because of that fact alone that this will be appealed and sent up to the Supreme Court, no federal judge has that power, if Congress didn't in the first place, what hope does a smaller authority have? None.

This is an example of abuse, but Obama appointed judges are simply activist, we can't trust anything Obama put into positions, he was the era of the non critically thinking progs, all about the feels.

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 08:39 PM
a reply to: Arnie123

Then let's start by getting some transparency into the inquiry.

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 10:13 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: matafuchs

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

Holy cow. Or, as you say, LOL. Do you actually think federal judges are NOT all about partisan politics? How did they get their positions? Take the blinders off.

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 10:38 PM
Since Trump's lawyers are going to argue a president can not even be investigated, I see this being passed over by the SC.

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 10:50 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

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

And capable of doing absolutely zilch in impeachments
Except what the Democrats mandate for the talking heads to say,

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 11:06 PM

originally posted by: IcanXplain
Since Trump's lawyers are going to argue a president can not even be investigated, I see this being passed over by the SC.

I find your clairvoyance impressive. To know an argument to be presented prior to it being so.
Especially as simple arguments have been made to make this ruling questionable without the statement " a president can not even be investigated."

Never mind that Lumenari already provided a court case to show the opposite.

Forgive my inquisitive mind: Are you part of his defense team or are you making opinions based on what you feel?

I am confident you can explain.
edit on 25-10-2019 by randomtangentsrme because: I am confident they can explain.

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 11:23 PM

Judge Howell gave the Justice Department until next Wednesday (10.30.2019) to send to the Judiciary Committee the material sought, which is information collected by the grand jury that is referenced in or underlying the Mueller Report.

The Justice Department told CNBC that it is reviewing the ruling. The department is almost certain to appeal Howell’s decision.

How is it possible for the Department of Justice to appeal, and get a decision, before Wednesday?

Who/What does the Department of Justice send their appeal request to?

IMO, Judge Beryl Howell issued this order with only a 3-day window to appeal (This Coming Mon/Tues/Wed), to help Dims hurry up with impeachment, and to prevent an appeal to be filed/decided-upon before the Wednesday deadline.

But I'm not an attorney, so there may be a way for the DOJ to "fast track" their request to a higher authority in time?

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 11:32 PM
a reply to: carewemust

I'm no lawyer. But there are stays, holds, and other motions that can be utilized to extend the time (I think).
The DOJ has lawyers and Judges on payroll. I expect they are ready for many contingencies.

posted on Oct, 25 2019 @ 11:58 PM
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Yes, you are correct. I know about the tools, but I was wondering what kind of judge is higher up the ladder than the one who told the DOJ to release these materials? And will that superior judge be able to render a "stay" before 11:59pm ET, on 10/30/2019?

posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 05:33 AM
a reply to: Fallingdown

This is still the investigative phase. The judge ruled that its perfectly legal to investigate without a vote.
Suppose they dont come up with anything. ( lol fat chance of that...) suppose they decide never to vote on it and just let it go? (another fat chance)
There are laws on the books about investigating, and there are laws on the books about trials. You are confusing the trial rights with the investigative phase and they do not have to tell the suspect anything.
The SCOTUS is not going to suddenly say that any suspect is entitled to know what the police are investigating. I can see a lot of criminals getting away with a lot of bad stuff if they all get that heads up.
This is all about the president wanting to know what they have just like he did with the Mueller investigation.

posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 06:23 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

These court decisions are edging closer and closer to answering that question about indicting a sitting president too.
That has not been put before a judge yet. Right now it is just a vague rule within the DOJ with no legal precedent.
The supreme court does not re write the constitution. They uphold it.
Unless you see a new amendment coming from this. That would be interesting.

posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 06:31 AM

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you really think those who are doing this have not seen anything from the un-redacted Mueller findings? Those same findings were used to show there was nothing that had occurred because if something did their would have been an indictment.

This is just something else provided by an Obama appointee to keep the news cycle away from the new IG report and keep 'impeachment' not alive but a talking point.

What the Mueller report concluded is that the transgressions of donald trump were best served by the constitutional process of impeachment rather than in a court of law. Nothing more or less than that. It certainly was not a get out of jail free card or an exoneration of his behavior during the campaign and during the Mueller investigation itself.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in