Judge says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC

Judge calls Trump impeachment probe legal, says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC

Things just got real ... or did they?

A federal judge on Friday rejected claims that the impeachment probe of President Donald Trump is illegitimate as she ordered the Justice Department to give a House committee secret grand jury material collected in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. That material could help the House Judiciary Committee substantiate “potentially impeachable conduct” by Trump, said Chief Judge Beryl Howell of U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in her ruling. Howell brushed aside arguments made by Trump’s supporters that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate because the House has not held a formal vote authorizing such a probe. “Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” the judge wrote.

It seems that in one stroke, a majority of White House talking points have been struck down ... Impeachment inquiry is legal and the redacted findings of the Mueller Report are now in play reigniting possiblilities of Obstruction of Justice (an established reason to Impeach Presidents)

How do you folks see this progressing?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you really think those who are doing this have not seen anything from the un-redacted Mueller findings? Those same findings were used to show there was nothing that had occurred because if something did their would have been an indictment.

This is just something else provided by an Obama appointee to keep the news cycle away from the new IG report and keep 'impeachment' not alive but a talking point.

a reply to: matafuchs

LOL. I know that's the interpretation that White House talking points suggest.

Obama appointee or not, Judge Howell is a US Federal Judge in the Washington District Court.

We will get a chance to see what the Mueller Report evidence provides to an legally acknowledged impeachment proceeding.

(PS, in the real world, you don't get to ignore Federal Judges because of BS partisan politics.)

good.

for a guy who wants transparency, Trump sure likes to block people from testifying under oath.

wonder why, or should I say how will the goal post be moved in response to why...

a reply to: Gryphon66

How exciting it must be for you.
Did Mueller say there was obstruction of justice when he closed his case? I don’t recall that he did.
If there was clear cut obstruction, why would Mueller back off of it?

Can't obstruct a false investigation, predicated on made up intel, and a made up dossier.

This is a hail mary, and it won't work.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Judge calls Trump impeachment probe legal, says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC

Things just got real ... or did they?

A federal judge on Friday rejected claims that the impeachment probe of President Donald Trump is illegitimate as she ordered the Justice Department to give a House committee secret grand jury material collected in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. That material could help the House Judiciary Committee substantiate “potentially impeachable conduct” by Trump, said Chief Judge Beryl Howell of U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in her ruling. Howell brushed aside arguments made by Trump’s supporters that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate because the House has not held a formal vote authorizing such a probe. “Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” the judge wrote.

It seems that in one stroke, a majority of White House talking points have been struck down ... Impeachment inquiry is legal and the redacted findings of the Mueller Report are now in play reigniting possiblilities of Obstruction of Justice (an established reason to Impeach Presidents)

How do you folks see this progressing?

I'm thinking if there were any damnable information hidden behind redactions that they would have been leaked and a talking point at some stage.

a reply to: Gryphon66

*shrugs*

If Trump killed Col. Mustard in the Library with the Candlestick, then fry him.

But if this leads to just innuendo, supposition, insinuations. . . . then *yawn*

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: matafuchs

(PS, in the real world, you don't get to ignore Federal Judges because of BS partisan politics.)

Right, you can only lie to federal judges to get FISA warrants for BS partisan politics.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Gryphon66

How exciting it must for you.
Did Mueller say there was obstruction of justice when he closed his case? I don’t recall that he did.
If there was clear cut obstruction, why would Mueller back off of it?

The Mueller Report listed several actions by the Trump Administration that could be Obstruction ... except that the DOJ won't indict a sitting President.

I wonder what the House will do with all that though ... not being under the control of the DOJ ... interesting to watch eh?

Not really exciting at all, but there's a lot better arguments for impeachment on the silver platter that Bob Mueller handed them.

I guess we'll see, eh? Thanks for your post.

It can and will be appealed.

This Obama-appointed activist judge’s unconstitutional decision will be overturned.

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: matafuchs

(PS, in the real world, you don't get to ignore Federal Judges because of BS partisan politics.)

Right, you can only lie to federal judges to get FISA warrants for BS partisan politics.

That's not really a part of this thread. This discussion is about an official judicial recognition of impeachment and the required disclosure of the redacted Mueller Report to the House. Thanks for your post.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
It can and will be appealed.

This Obama-appointed activist judge’s unconstitutional decision will be overturned.

Just because Judge was appointed by Obama?

I doubt it. Anything that is actually in the article that you'd like to discuss?

If not thanks for your post!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Progressive's rules for playing Clue:
State that some one did something some where
Scream at the other players that they are all racists/sexists
walk away the winner

***Back on topic***

I wonder if anyone will pick up on the fact that those GJ testimonies are also being used as evidence for on going investigations? Investigations in to things such as the newly opened "Russian HOAX".

I find it funny that the S/T crowd wants this evidence "NOW", but refuses to allow any Republicans to view any of their "evidence" without a S/T member looking over their shoulder. I would say double standards, but that would imply that one side as any.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

*shrugs*

If Trump killed Col. Mustard in the Library with the Candlestick, then fry him.

But if this leads to just innuendo, supposition, insinuations. . . . then *yawn*

LOL. IT may indeed be more of same ol' same ol' DB... but the one thing that this means is that the Mueller Report's findings are now recognized in a Federal court. That could have all sorts of interesting possibilities in the coming days.

a reply to: Gryphon66

How do you folks see this progressing?

On up to the Supreme court.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I was under the impression that grand jury testimony is non disclose under law.

a reply to: Guyfriday

I think the Republican members on the Committees have the same access to the witnesses that the Dems do ... they just can't subpoena on their own because they changed the House rules back in 2015.

Things are certainly getting interesting, eh? Thanks for your post.

originally posted by: highvein

On up to the Supreme court.

Exactly.

The Appeal is already written I'd imagine.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Gryphon66

How do you folks see this progressing?

On up to the Supreme court.

That would be amazing wouldn't it? On what basis, and do you think SCOTUS would bother to hear an appeal?