Special Counsel Mueller Impanels Washington Grand Jury in Russia Probe

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: mkultra11
a reply to: Xcathdra

The kicker is that there absolutely no crime. They are looking for one.

you are preaching to the choir. I have asked several people several times now in several threads to cite for me the federal statute for collusion.

They never do but they keep repeating it.

That's because there is no statute for collusion. You know that.

That does not mean there has not been a crime committed.

Sure but one usually investigates and determines if a crime occurred before getting a prosecutor involved.

a reply to: Xcathdra

He was about to be. He would have been had he not resigned.
Let's not try to revise history .

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

He was about to be. He would have been had he not resigned.
Let's not try to revise history .

About to be is not the same as indicted. Lets not try to revise history ok.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: mkultra11
a reply to: Xcathdra

The kicker is that there absolutely no crime. They are looking for one.

you are preaching to the choir. I have asked several people several times now in several threads to cite for me the federal statute for collusion.

They never do but they keep repeating it.

That's because there is no statute for collusion. You know that.

That does not mean there has not been a crime committed.

Sure but one usually investigates and determines if a crime occurred before getting a prosecutor involved.

It's a process, agreed.

The process is taking place as we speak.

May be best to sit back and watch it unfold before you invest much time dismissing it as a simple attempt to get rid of Trump.

originally posted by: Damiel
a reply to: mkultra11
What woud an Foia request reveal in 50yrs time ?

Idk. Let me go check my crystal ball and get back to you.

a reply to: DanteGaland

That is the sanest thing I've ever viewed you post.

However, this is not a traditional grand jury. Can you name anyone who would be indicted factually? Do you have any idea what the investigation has or will yield factually?

The reason that there is such a high rate of indictments is because the prosecutor gets to completely frame the case. Just food for thought.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: DanteGaland

Grand Juries indict so often because the only evidence presented is the prosecution's.

Because as a grand juror you are supposed to listen to the evidence and then vote, but all you're actually doing is voting to pass the case on for a formal trial.

So it's easier to just to that than to really think about what you're doing. After all, you've got a life they're holding you back from.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

He was about to be. He would have been had he not resigned.
Let's not try to revise history .

I was about to _______. Yes, lets revise history.......

a reply to: Xcathdra

Sure but one usually investigates and determines if a crime occurred before getting a prosecutor involved.

Yes we should at least be clear about what this is: a tax-payer funded investigation of US citizens without probable cause.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Sorry pal..thems are the facts. The prosecutor presents his "facts" to a secret jury without any challenge at all from the defendant. It used to be used to protect prosecution's witnesses, but many prosecutors now even admit that their preferred method for getting a case bound over for trial is the grand jury, as preliminary hearings are too risky. The defendant can cross examine and challenge evidence at a preliminary hearing, leading to a greater probability that the case never goes to trial. There are tons of testimonials from prosecutors themseves to support this.

a reply to: ketsuko

I served on a grand Jury on a criminal case here in Arizona back in 2004. There were16 of us present. 14 voted for, 2 voted against. Case headed to superior court. Little known fact- it doesn't need to be unanimous for a case to head to trial...just a majority. No wonder it has such a high success rate.

Yes.

So there will likely be an indictment or more out of this process, and then trials, and that's where the real show begins because then all the stuff has be drug out in the open and laid bare.

a reply to: mkultra11
Don''t forget next weeks lotto ... shh

a reply to: Vasa Croe
When I was thinking about it. Thinking about firing....
And I said this RUSHER , trump Russia thing is fake news...
Ad lib.

So it gets leaked that a grand jury is impaneled and who its looking at yet nothing leaks with info to put it into proper context.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm trying to get your point.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
So it gets leaked that a grand jury is impaneled and who its looking at yet nothing leaks with info to put it into proper context.

Agreed.

The Russian Lawyer meeting could be the starting point to climb up two different trees: the "Muh Russia" tree -and- the Fusion GPS tree.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The source could literally be one of the fifty or so people who got a letter to show up.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
So it gets leaked that a grand jury is impaneled and who its looking at yet nothing leaks with info to put it into proper context.

We must wait to the end to get absolute context.

Be patient and do not dismiss until that context is provided.