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: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do not think that releasing the grand jury information will automatically mean that we get to see it.
That information is still classified.




posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Can you quote the report where it recommended impeachment?



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66



Did Mueller say there was obstruction of justice when he closed his case? I don’t recall that he did.


You honestly don't recall that he did? He laid out at a minimum ten instances where he definitely obstructed justice.
Clearly.
Remember the whole you can't indict a sitting president thing? That's the only reason he was not indicted. Not because they didn't have the evidence to charge him. Clearly they do.
Now Obstruction Of Justice.... is an impeachable offense. Which is exactly what Mueller outlined in the conclusion of his investigation and subsequent report and why this judge is demanding the grand jury testimony. The blocking of that evidence itself is holding up the justice process.
This is all a direct result of Robert Mueller's work.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You read it didnt you? You have a copy in your cloud dont you?
If not how serious are you about gathering the facts?



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

They will probably appeal and a stay will be given while the case works it's way up the chain, hopefully at an expedited rate.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You read it didnt you? You have a copy in your cloud dont you?
If not how serious are you about gathering the facts?

I am serious enough to ask you to show me. Why can't you show me? Quote the report where it recommended impeachment.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

At this point the continuing claims that impeachment is unconstitutional are simply laughable. There's enough hard data on this site alone, from the Constitution itself, to the Rules of the House (including Jefferson's Manual) to official publications from the Library of Congress to now a Federal judge's ruling to show conclusively that the House is completely in line with the Constitutional process.

So, in the words of Mick Mulvaney, Trump supporters are just going to have to get over it I think, and I don't mean that in a rude sense at all. It's time to stop living in a media-induced bubble and come back to the real world.

There's no requirement for "a vote" to hold these investigations particularly in this case as there was a referral from an Independent Counsel based on a whistleblower report. Sorry folks, that's Federal law. When House Committees have completed their review of the charges (including the Republican members of the Committees who are being allowed to particpate), a formal resolution will be taken (according to the Democratic leadership probably mid-November) and the formal process so many have been demanding will begin. If it follows the historical path, the resolution will be referred to the Judiciary Committee, formalities will be satisfied, information from the investigation revealed, the Resolution will come back from the Committee to the floor and then if a majority of the House so votes, Articles of Impeachment will be approved and sent to the Senate for trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding.

Sorry, that's just the facts. Who appointed what Federal judge may matter in the minds of ardent supporters, but, just think that through ... if the party of the President appointing makes a difference, there's two members of SCOTUS that are necessarily untustworthy and biased to review anything regarding President Trump and would need to recuse. That would bring the likely vote total to 4-3 against the President in SCOTUS, right?

Perhaps we should all be more careful about wishing for the Judiciary to become as basely partisan as the other two Branches.

edit on 26-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling and Format



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do not think that releasing the grand jury information will automatically mean that we get to see it.
That information is still classified.


It only matters that the House Committees get to see the redacted material. Barr redacted it for a reason.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   
People need to stop thinking that this IG report holds anything damaging. Rumor has it that it does not refer anyone for criminal charges or indictments. At the most it's a few days of bad PR for the former Obama administration that people will soon forget. Plus the Dems in Washington have created a nice shield with this impeachment bull so that if Trumps administration tries to seize on any of the information on the IG report they will say that once again he is using the office of the Presidency to go after his political enemies. Expect Hillary, and Mooch Obama to enter the race so they can hide behind it.
edit on 26-10-2019 by vanguard72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Red herring. The question is not whether what they are doing is Constitutional, it is what powers of impeachment are they granted doing it the way they are doing it.

A question I have I was not able to find an answer to, are Republicans being allowed to subpoena witnesses, and if not why not?



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sillyolme

Can you quote the report where it recommended impeachment?


The Mueller Report doesn't recommend impeachment. That would be inappropriate. What it does do is very carefully lay out the facts that there were ten occasions where a court (or an impeachment investigation) might find obstruction of justice on the part of President Trump if DOJ policy didn't demand that a President cannot be indicted.

Now the House will soon to all the information that justified that scenario in the presentation of the Report.

I guess we will see what we see.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: vanguard72

If they are not find anything damaging why are they upgrading it to a criminal investigation? Does that not require something damaging being found?



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You read it didnt you? You have a copy in your cloud dont you?
If not how serious are you about gathering the facts?

I am serious enough to ask you to show me. Why can't you show me? Quote the report where it recommended impeachment.


That's the line they all go to on NBC and CNN when asked as well. They dont have an answer, but they all say "I read the report, have you?" and then they leave it at that for some reason.....

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

Red herring. The question is not whether what they are doing is Constitutional, it is what powers of impeachment are they granted doing it the way they are doing it.

A question I have I was not able to find an answer to, are Republicans being allowed to subpoena witnesses, and if not why not?


Red herring right back at you. The statements railing that what the House is doing is unconstitutional have rung out continually and did so in the post I responded to unsurprisingly. Perhaps you haven't made the charges that its unconsitutional, but those charges certainly have been made.

The sole power of Impeachment belongs to the House. The House sets its own Rules at the beginning of every Session. The facts regarding this matter have been repeatedly shown, and now, a Federal Judge has weighed in.

I can speak specifically about the Republican members of the Intelligence Committee that are not able to issue subpoenas at this point due to the changes to the Committee Rules made around 2015, giving the Chair the power to issue subpoenas or the majority (which of course is always designed to be the Majority party). The Minority Members are allowed to question witnesses however.
edit on 26-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling and Format



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Of course it doesn't. Had Silly actually quoted it saying that I would of course had interest in it, but I already knew it did not say what she claimed it said.

Trump being President and not allowed to be indicted had nothing to do with it though, and that was plainly stated. The wording would have been identical had Trump not been President. They found 10 areas where they decided to not do their job and let someone else decide. Had they found actual evidence of a crime it would have been stated.

If the probe comes back and finds the Russia probe was indeed a witch hunt as I believe it was, then I actually could not care less about Trump 'obstructing' a fake investigation, and everyone involved in pushing it should be charged with abuse of power and other crimes.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I am going from memory here but basically it said that Congress could apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt behavior. The laws which allow for the constitutional process of impeachment. Balance of powers etc... and that no person was above the law.
Its in there and I can, if you insist, copy and paste the relevant information from the report because I do have a copy of it in my computer.

Its so funny how quickly you all forgot the part about indicting a sitting president and went right to " he couldnt charge him with anything therefore he is innocent"
Read the report and I would also recommend reading the judges findings from the OP. Including the very interesting footnotes.
edit on 10262019 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

Red herring. The question is not whether what they are doing is Constitutional, it is what powers of impeachment are they granted doing it the way they are doing it.

A question I have I was not able to find an answer to, are Republicans being allowed to subpoena witnesses, and if not why not?


Red herring right back at you. The statements railing that what the House is doing is unconstitutional have rung out continually and did so in the post I responded to unsurprisingly. Perhaps you haven't made the charges that its unconsitutional, but those charges certainly have been made.

Oh I agree, people are saying it, they are wrong. The red herring is not you, it's them. It's a false argument that is taking away from discussion on arguments that matter.

The House can impeach, they can hold an inquiry, they can do what they are doing. They may be asking for more than they are entitled to though at this stage. Taking a vote would allow them to get those extra powers, but as I understand it the minority members would gain subpoena powers, which is why the Democrats won't do it.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Stop going from memory and quote where it recommends impeachment. Let me save you time, it's not there.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't agree with your claim that they "didn't do their job" because Mueller was limited in what he could do by Rosenstein's appointment letter.

Further, in regard to obstruction as the Report clearly states:



Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.


Mueller Report Vol. II

I know heads will explode over the "exonderation" quote, but it is what it is.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Apologies. I did TOTALLY misread your statement. I should have known you would be more accurate than it seemed.

My bad, I'm going for coffee, LOL.




top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join