Judge says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC

a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't have to.

The House is the Alpha and Omega when it comes to impeachment.

Federal judges DON't enter in to it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't have to.

The House is the Alpha and Omega when it comes to impeachment.

Federal judges DON't enter in to it.

Yeah, but judges do become involved in matters regarding grand juries and the balance of power between the Branches of Government.

a reply to: Gryphon66
I agree, I just don't see it happening with either of the big 2.

a reply to: dawnstar

LOL it's hilarious that you said I should do research (and even funnier that ol gryphy followed up with "right on..."). If you had done your own research you would know that the nixon tapes were procured as part of a criminal investigation into the perps. That's how they sidestepped executive privilege and obtained them. They were then shared with congress in the report given by the special prosecutor.

Another point of fact is that the special prosecutor regulations at the time gave the special prosecutor the authority to challenge executive privilege claims that were made by the president. This case is about grand jury material. That material is protected by laws passed by congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the judiciary. The idea that they will simply overturn all of that because they don't want to make congress go through those interviews again is laughable. An activist judge will, because they want it now. A judge who respects law and order won't.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66
I agree, I just don't see it happening with either of the big 2.

Nope. I'm with you there.

It's going to have to come from Us, and we're going to have to stop acting like saps and focus on what's good for US not for Them, the extremists, the 1%-ers, the fringe nutjobs.

We're conspiracy buffs. We're supposed to understand that the STATE is the shadowy menance, not each other.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Hey, you finally caught up! Awesome.

The important part is that the primacy of the judiciary pursuing criminal acts is superior to the President's right of priviledge.

Trump's not even claiming that with the House, he's just trampling the Constitution. A House subpoena is a direct result of the powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution. The President is limited to the powers granted to him.

IN other words, when this goes to SCOTUS as it probably will, and the question is, does the Executive Branch have the right to conceal grand jury information when the judge that presided over that grand jury has released it?

Does the primacy of the judiciary over Executive priviledge ring a bell?

What's the reason the President would want to do that again in the face of an impeachment inquiry? Oh, that's right, to hide crimes.

a reply to: Irishhaf

There is absolutely ZERO doubt that the plan is exactly what you've stated. Using the last three years as a guide, I'm confident they'll do exactly that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Caught up? I've been way ahead of you the whole time

But more seriously;

Trump's not even claiming that with the House, he's just trampling the Constitution

They have not issued a legally binding subpoena.

A House subpoena is a direct result of the powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution.

Only if the subpoena is for a legislative purpose. Impeachment is not a legislative purpose until it has been approved by either the entire house or at very least, the judiciary committee. Neither of those is the case.

The President is limited to the powers granted to him.

Executive privilege is one of those.

What's the reason the President would want to do that again? Oh, that's right, to hide crimes.

So why didn't mueller say there were crimes? I mean, he was the one that impaneled the grand jury and got all of that testimony, right? Of course, there is the other reason that a president might claim executive privilege on such materials: He was willing to cooperate extensively with a special counsel who didn't leak much because it kept his executive privilege intact (as he was able to have the DoJ redact executive privilege portions if they were in the report, if needed). The leaky dems are a completely different monster. I mean, we're dealing with serial leakers and liars. They'd love nothing more than to hamper his ability to govern, that's one of their top goals.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes, they have. Particularly in the case of the Intelligence Committee, the matter of the whistleblower was referred to the Congress as required by federal law (Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act). Thus, this became a valid matter under the House's oversight powers, as well as the sole power to impeach.

The power to investigate and issue supoenas was agreed upon by the whole House with the adoption of the Rules at the beginning of the Session.

So, Executive Privilige is an implied power acknowledged by the Supreme Court ... with limits in regard to the powers of the other branches. Or you can quote the Constitutional Article that gives the President that power if you like I'd love to see that.

Mueller gave ten instances in which obstruction could have occured. Volume II is devoted exclusively to this matter. He specificaly was prevented from making a determination as to the crime committed because of DOJ policy.

You're hand-waving through the rest of your post. Convoluted distractions. Bring an argument and I'll respond.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, they have.

Who has done what? Voted on impeachment? Please show me the vote.

The power to investigate and issue supoenas was agreed upon by the whole House with the adoption of the Rules at the beginning of the Session.

Yep, but to be a legally binding subpoena it has to be a legislative purpose. Like I said before, impeachment does not become a legislative purpose until it is voted on by the floor or at very least, the judiciary committee.

Mueller gave ten instances in which obstruction could have occured.

COULD have.

He specificaly was prevented from making a determination as to the crime committed because of DOJ policy.

Incorrect, as you've been told and shown at least a dozen times in this thread alone.

You're hand-waving through the rest of your post.

No I'm not. The idea that the trump administration would cooperate with a special counsel, whose report could only go public (or even to congress) at the discretion of his AG after redactions by said AG, is not some breach of executive privilege. Despite your desire for it to be so.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yawn.

Now you're cherry picking quotes? Link me saying they voted on impeachment.

The investigations currently proceeding are legitimate from the Constitution, to the Rules of the House, to Federal law.

No, a subpoena doesn't have to be for a "legislative purpose" the House has oversight and impeachment powers... either one is legitimate use of investigation and subpoena.

I've been told what ardent Trump supporters want to believe. Do you need me to quote from the Mueller Report?

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.

Mueller Report Volume II, pg. 1

a reply to: Dfairlite

And yet, a justice dept that argues in a court of law that exalts the executive to the point where he cant be investigated, cant be indicted, cant be arrested in the criminal system and cant be forced to cooperate in a congressional inquiry either, regardless of the crime probably would cause that judge to look at all of the laws and policies at play and decide to overturn something.

But, maybe I am wrong but didnt the judge already have most if not all of the information unredacted in the Flynn case?

I dont know.. time will tell who is right. But I still think that in the end, this will be ruled in congess' favor. The alternative would be that we just went through a very long investigation for absolutely nothing since even if illegalities have been found, the justice dept's hands are tied because of the policy that a sitting president cant be indicted and Congress' hands are tied because the justice dept is blocked from handing the information over to Congress so they can impeach.

a reply to: dawnstar

Are you ready for the funny part?

I absolutely am looking forward to the matter going to the Supreme Court because it is long past time that the Congresses indescriminate use of the investigative power is given strong Constitutional boundaries AND that insane expansion of the Power of the Executive in the last 80 years is stopped in its tracks.

The Constitution is VERY CLEAR about the co-equal powers of all three Branches, the Congress is not a tribunal and the Presidnet is not a tyrant.

Except, that's what they have become. I am glad to see the SCOTUS rule to restore the Constitution.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm looking forward to it also, not just because we will be a step closer to having this nightmare over (not really talking about the trump presidency as much as the whole danged mess) but, its gonna be fun watching how they manage to sort this out. I think in the end, no matter which side you're on you're gonna be surprise find just how much you didnt understand.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Now you're cherry picking quotes? Link me saying they voted on impeachment.

No, I simply have no idea what you're talking about, which portion of my response you're talking about. The reason for this confusion is that you have not quoted or mentioned it and instead just have jumped in saying "they have" with no context. Who has done what????? I just assumed your first response would be to the first part of my post which was about the house not having voted on impeachment.

No, a subpoena doesn't have to be for a "legislative purpose"

Yes it does. See Watkins vs United States (1957)

the House has oversight and impeachment powers... either one is legitimate use of investigation and subpoena.

Oversight is a legislative purpose according to SCOTUS, impeachement only becomes one once it is voted upon.

From watkins vs US:

The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste. But, broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. … Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. … No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress

I've been told what ardent Trump supporters want to believe. Do you need me to quote from the Mueller Report?

Do I need to quote from mueller?

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Robert Mueller Testimony on July 24th.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am glad to see the SCOTUS rule to restore the Constitution.

Bwahahahahah, thanks for the laugh. This is the same SCOTUS that allowed individual mandate to be a penalty when convenient and a tax when convenient. We need another constitutionalist or two before such a return to sanity is possible.

a reply to: dawnstar

And yet, a justice dept that argues in a court of law that exalts the executive to the point where he cant be investigated, cant be indicted, cant be arrested in the criminal system and cant be forced to cooperate in a congressional inquiry either, regardless of the crime probably would cause that judge to look at all of the laws and policies at play and decide to overturn something.

The constitution implies this very strongly. It's not really even an arguable thing. It's something we have all known and accepted for a long time. The president must be removed via impeachment before he is subject to any criminal investigation or indictment.

Here is article 2, section 3, clause 7 of the US Constitution

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

*emphasis mine

Once convicted of impeachment, the party is liable to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.

...since even if illegalities have been found, the justice dept's hands are tied because of the policy that a sitting president cant be indicted and Congress' hands are tied because the justice dept is blocked from handing the information over to Congress so they can impeach.

Of course those are not the only two options. The other option is for congress to call the witnesses that testified to the grand jury, to testify in front of them. The entire argument about the grand jury info is really an argument for speed. Congress doesn't want to have to redo the work because they are in a race against the deep state investigation by barr/durham, they have to delegitimize the president before that all comes out and shows their deeds.

So we're not in a position where the president can't be impeached or indicted, we're in a situation where congress has to do the actual leg work and prove the impeachable offense rather than make the executive incriminate itself (5th amendment). The fact that they've convinced you otherwise is a testament to the power of the media.

EDIT:
One other note; one important distinction in this grand jury case when compared to the nixon tapes is that the nixon tapes were evidence held by the executive that could not be obtained elsewhere. That is not the case with the grand jury information. Congress can get the testimony of those interviewed by the grand jury by simply calling them to testify.

Of course there is one other reason (other than speed) the democrats would prefer to go the route they're trying to go rather than go through getting the testimony themselves. The people the grand jury talked to were not allowed lawyers and they were not subjected to cross examination. If congress has to get the testimony themselves, they will have lawyers and republican congressmen will get to cross examine. So, for the purpose of propaganda, the grand jury material is perfect. For the purpose of truth, congressional testimony is better.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

The constitution implies this very strongly. It's not really even an arguable thing. It's something we have all known and accepted for a long time. The president must be removed via impeachment before he is subject to any criminal investigation or indictment.

Absolutely not true. The only document that establishes the concept of Presidential immunity is the DOJ procedural memos.

No one is above the law.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Absolutely not true.

LOL, no it's absolutely true. Your outrage notwithstanding.

The only document that establishes the concept of Presidential immunity is the DOJ procedural memos.

I quoted it right in the constitution.

No one is above the law.

Technically correct. The president can be removed via impeachment then tried criminally. As I said and as I quoted from the constitution.

More hogwash that's unrelated to the Epstein murder.