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.

 

The supreme court blocks release of the grand jury portion of Mueller report .

page: 1
22
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on May, 20 2020 @ 05:25 PM
link   
The supreme court temporarily blocked the release of documents from the Mueller investigation the Democrats had requested.

The order with no dissenting opinions gave the house until June 1 to produce evidence of urgency in the matter.

Here’s something interesting from the lower courts ruling.

A little off-topic but.

This is the one part of this ongoing case that really stands out to me.

The Court of Appeals in the district of Columbia ruled that...,,,


That disclosure was authorized by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the panel ruled, which contain an exception to grand jury secrecy rules for materials to be used “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”


The issue of whether the impeachment process is political or judicial came up repeatedly during the last Impeachment . If it’s a political process per Nixon versus the US it is not eligible for judicial review.

But.....


The panel was divided on other issues in the case, but it agreed that an impeachment trial was a “judicial proceeding” for purposes of the rule.


Which would make the impeachment process in this case eligible for judicial review.

Bottom line is the house has to prove by June why release of these documents needs to be done with such urgency that it could interfere with the presidential election.


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked the release of parts of the report prepared by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The court’s order, concerning a request by the House Judiciary Committee for grand jury materials that the Justice Department had blacked out from the report provided to Congress, could mean that the full report would not be made available before the 2020 election.



New York Times
edit on 20-5-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



+1 more 
posted on May, 20 2020 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

Wasn't Nadler the one who fought to NOT release the grand jury testimony on Bill Clinton, even though at the time Clinton was in the middle of a civil suit where the testimony would have been pertinent?

Interesting twist you caught in regards to the fight about an impeachment proceeding being judicial vs political as well.

These guys are fun to watch, in a train wreck sort of way.

S&F....




posted on May, 20 2020 @ 06:11 PM
link   

The court’s order, concerning a request by the House Judiciary Committee for grand jury materials that the Justice Department had blacked out from the report provided to Congress,could mean that the full report would not be made available before the 2020 election.


Awe Shucks!

You saying Team TREASON won't get to have their November surprise rehashing their nothing burger?

I'm heartbroken.

I'm all choked up.

Really I am.

Not.
edit on 20-5-2020 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 06:17 PM
link   
is this an impeachable offence?



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Talk about fun to watch.

I hope Jerry pulls Corey Lewandowski into testify again.

That was a blast !




posted on May, 20 2020 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Nadler was and is looking into obstruction of justice . Which would be a impeachable offense .

But with what we’ve learned recently about how desperately they tried to find something to charge Trump with . They aren’t gonna find anything in the redacted version because we would’ve seen it the day the report hit the table .

Which means they’re protecting witnesses.

Personally I hope those witnesses names were redacted because of an ongoing investigation.
And that ongoing investigation provides evidence for Durham‘s investigation . (Somebody who flipped )

Remember Muller could’ve trumped up any charge and made the Democrats happy . They would’ve had more to run Wiz than anything else they’ve had so far .

But for some reason he didn’t .

Which makes my biggest question .

Why didn’t he do that ?

It’s not like he held back because of integrity and justice .


edit on 20-5-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Schiff and Nadler all screwed up in the head



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
"The panel was divided on other issues in the case, but it agreed that an impeachment trial was a “judicial proceeding” for purposes of the rule."

Which would make the impeachment process in this case eligible for judicial review.

Wrong...

The Senate holds the trial.

The House is not the trial portion of the impeachment process.

So, the Senate could request it. But the House cannot.



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

You missed the whole point .

The question has always been whether the impeachment process

Is political or judicial .

If it is a political process the Supreme Court has ruled it is not eligible for judicial review because of the separation of powers .

If the afore mentioned ruling stands and the process is found to be judicial . The Supreme court or any other federal court for that matter can review decisions made during the impeachment process .

We just went through three months of impeachment. I doubt there’s a person on the planet that doesn’t know the difference between the role of the house and the role of the senate .

Here’s the relevant part of the majority ruling in Nixon versus the United States .


But before we reach the merits of such a claim, we must decide whether it is "justiciable," that is, whether it is a claim that may be resolved by the courts. We conclude that it is not.


In that case they found the impeachment process to be political. Which meant that the Supreme Court couldn’t rule on impeachment .

The district of Columbia’s recent ruling found that the impeachment process is judicial . Which means the courts could intervene if that ruling holds.

Nixon versus the US

That’s the point I was making .
edit on 20-5-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Impeachment is a political process, not judicial.



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

The federal appeals court of the District of Columbia disagrees with you .

Which is why I pointed it out. A ruling like that could change what everyone believes about the impeachment process .

Groundbreaking is a good fit for the determination .
edit on 20-5-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
The district of Columbia’s recent ruling found that the impeachment process is judicial . Which means the courts could intervene if that ruling holds.

Ahem... that is not what you said.

You used the words 'impeachment trial', not impeachment process.

That was my point.

So, what were the exact words of the case, since you didn't link it (paywalled links don't count)?
edit on 20-5-2020 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Flynn and Stone weren't rail roaded?..a reply to: Fallingdown



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Vector99

The federal appeals court of the District of Columbia disagrees with you .


Appeals court rulings are frequently overturned by the SCOTUS. I know you've heard of the 9th circus, err circuit.

By defining impeachment as a judicial process, you give the defendant ALL rights guaranteed in judicial proceedings. Several of those rights, if they were available, have been trampled on and the impeachment would have been declared a mistrial before it ever hit the Senate.

But that's only if it were a judicial process, which it isn't.



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

This is getting silly but ..

Please quote where I said impeachment trial ?

Just reread the post throughout it I said impeachment process .

Here’s the quote from the New York Times citing the case .


The panel was divided on other issues in the case, but it agreed that an impeachment trial was a “judicial proceeding” for purposes of the rule.


Are you insinuating I wrote that ? Or did I miss something ?

The link to the last case was directly to the right of my quote in the New York Times article. They highlight them in blue so they’re easy to find .

Could always look them up too. Lol

But here you go .

I have no bearing with the exception of the final ruling and reason.

I’m just curious. What would the exact wording have to do with the decision ? They granted the release on the grounds of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure rule 6 (e’s) exception for judicial proceedings .

You don’t have to be performing duties in court for a procedure to be called a judicial process . So the word trial would have no bearing on the issue .



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

That’s my point .

I never meant to imply that it was caselaw now .

In fact a judge out of I believe it was Baltimore was overturned for the very same reasoning in Nixon versus the United States .

There is one thing that needs saying though.

Impeachment has been a valid and working part of the US Constitution for a long time . That’s because it’s been practiced as our founding fathers meant.

Now with the weaponization of impeachment something definitely needs to be done to remedy it’s hijacking . IMO it’s evident that means oversight .

Other supreme court justices have thought the same way in the past .
edit on 20-5-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: tanstaafl

Impeachment is a political process, not judicial.


I agree and here is why.

I remember during the impeachment. Trumps legal team argued that abuse of power isn't a crime. On its face the definition of abuse of power is so vague. It encompasses so many scenarios and means different things to different people.

In response to the argument abuse of power isn't a crime. The
impeachment supporters in the media and democratic party. Said themselves impeachment is a political process.

Elijah Cummings
"Keep in mind, impeachment is a political process. ... What does that mean? You've got to have bipartisanship," he said."

The fact that the power to impeach lies with congress by nature makes it political.



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Meniscus

... which is why, from a political viewpoint, that was the DUMBEST move the Dems could've made. They knew that no matter WHAT evidence came to light, there was ZERO chance that the Senate would remove Trump.

All they handed him was a spectacle to keep his name in the news, and now, he can say he was "acquitted" of all wrong doing. For the rest of his life.



posted on May, 20 2020 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So we agree that asking for the release of this grand jury material because its part of a judicial proceeding is nonsense.



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Meniscus
a reply to: Gryphon66

So we agree that asking for the release of this grand jury material because its part of a judicial proceeding is nonsense.


Did I say that?

I don’t think I said that.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2 >>

log in

join