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: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Okay darling, its early and I really didnt want to have to do so much legalese reading before 9Am but here your are.
From page 8

The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction
laws to the President ' s corrupt exercise of the powers of office
accords with our constitutional
system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law. .
CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him.




posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

And that is where I have a problem. The starting point is Trump is innocent. You don't need to prove he is, he already is. You need to prove he is not, and they could not do that. That is the standard that should be applied to EVERY American. Imagine if you get charged for killing a little girl, and you get investigated, and the police come out publicly saying they found no evidence you did it, BUT they can't prove you didn't so ....
No, that's wrong. The investigation is over, if there is no evidence there is no evidence. If there was more to investigate they should not have ended their investigation, they did though, which means there is nothing left to investigate.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

It's fine! I can see how you could easily read it how you did.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You didnt save me any time you stamped your feet until you got your way. LOL so I gave you the quote from page 8 of the report. What time did I save?
You should read the whole report. Do you want me to link if for you?



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I am looking, I do not see any recommendations there. Keep looking I guess?


originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You didnt save me any time you stamped your feet until you got your way. LOL so I gave you the quote from page 8 of the report. What time did I save?
You should read the whole report. Do you want me to link if for you?

That quote does not recommend anything. Like I said, keep looking for that recommendation.
edit on 26-10-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 08:09 AM
link   
If this gets appealed, who does the case go to next?
I only ask because my brain is telling me that it goes to Obama's nominee, you know, the one the grim reaper refused to bring up in the senate for consideration?

If this is the case, this might find itself in the supreme court next.. since there seems to be alot of liberals even that think he will be inclined to rule against trump. Karma is such a bitch after all. I think that judge, sortry its early in the morning and I just cant get my brain to wake up, will probably be close to begging to take this case off his hands.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I can't imagine it not getting to the SC. That's why earlier I said they should just take it up rather than wait.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: vanguard72
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.


Perhaps basing opinions on "rumor" isn't the best choice, aside from that, are you sure you're posting in the correct thread? This is about Judge Howell's decision to allow the House to see the unredacted Mueller Report.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

It would indeed go to the DC Court of Appeals where Judge Merrick Garland is the Chief Judge.


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



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol.. then it should bypass and go straight to the supreme court, just to preserve what little illusion that might exist that the actual law and fair application of the law will rule.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

That section of Volume II, from pg. 7 - 8, is why I have said several times that Mueller handed the House the impeachment case on a silver platter. Not bad for so early, Silly.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

well it was just annouced on FOXNEWS that Durham CONFIRMS it's a criminal investigation..

so we will see whom is more dirty huh??

the IG report will be pretty bad as well..



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol.. then it should bypass and go straight to the supreme court, just to preserve what little illusion that might exist that the actual law and fair application of the law will rule.


I understand but that's just not the way the law works. Further, when we start questioning a court's legitimacy due to who appointed the judges, even if it does get to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch and Kavannagh should recuse themselves, right, becasue they'd be compromised as Trump appointees?

Ghandi said it best: "eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind."



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why thank you sir.

Did you read the judge's ruling? She gives a summary of what the Mueller report laid out and there are some interesting footnotes included in the text.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Gryphon66

well it was just annouced on FOXNEWS that Durham CONFIRMS it's a criminal investigation..

so we will see whom is more dirty huh??

the IG report will be pretty bad as well..


I'll be glad to see so many points of conspiracy fodder put to rest (I hope.)

Some ardent Trump supporters absolutely deserve the results.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

Its a show. That is all it is.
A distraction from his imminent impeachment.
If we could bet I'd put money on there never being any charges brought against any of them while this so called investigation dominates his tweets for the next thirteen months. Its pathetic.
He never learned that you cant fight city hall and he still isnt learning it.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

show or not it's still true

and if it's shown Mueller lied (Mifsud)

then the report would become "fruit from a tainted tree"

then it could not be used in court.

So it would not be prudent to try impeachment on such information

It would however insure Trump re-election.

I guess that is what the Democrats want.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Mr. Trump is presumed innocent in a court of law, technically. Many of the things that he could be impeached for he did in open view in front of the eyes of the American public in my opinion.

I disagree that the Mueller Report COULD NOT I would agree that it DID NOT because of the stated restrictions from DOJ policy.

Again, the claim that the Report states that there was "no evidence" for Trump obstructing justice is just not factual. If it is, please show me where it says it.

It is my position, particularly when one reads from pages 7-9 of Volume II, that Mueller was basically telling Congress that while there was nothing he could do, or that DOJ would do, that the Congress SHOULD do. I can go into detail regarding the support for that belief if you'd like, but if you've read that section and disagree ... well, there wouldn't be any real point in that, obviously.

Thank you for your undestanding of my previous mistake; very gracious.

edit on 26-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why thank you sir.

Did you read the judge's ruling? She gives a summary of what the Mueller report laid out and there are some interesting footnotes included in the text.


You're welcome Silly.


I browsed the actual ruling. I'll go back and look at it. Howell should know not only what the Mueller Report laid out but what it couldn't, and that's the basis for her finding that the material is vital to the public trust.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I seriously hope the Democrats use the Mueller report for impeachment

that would be so awesome

you are serious right??



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
I seriously hope the Democrats use the Mueller report for impeachment

that would be so awesome

you are serious right??


Very serious if you're addressing me.

I hope so too.




top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join