Judge says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC

a reply to: Gryphon66

But not kav.. or any republican appointed judge I bet. That's what gets me, wouldn't the republican appointed judges have a similar amount of bias? So, where does that lead us if not a neutered justice system.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

But not kav.. or any republican appointed judge I bet. That's what gets me, wouldn't the republican appointed judges have a similar amount of bias? So, where does that lead us if not a neutered justice system.

I already sourced that both sides have bias, but liberal judges appear to be far more biased (when it comes to the SC at least).

There are 3 swing judges on the SC, guess how many are liberal? 0

a reply to: dawnstar

Republicans want to wait to investigate Ukraine? That's stupid if true.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

But not kav.. or any republican appointed judge I bet. That's what gets me, wouldn't the republican appointed judges have a similar amount of bias? So, where does that lead us if not a neutered justice system.

This is a complicated question and out of place here I guess. I think we've known as Americans that appointing Federal judges was something of "the spoils of war" in a Presidential election ... I would say that the final straw in the collapse of a somewhat non-partisian judiciary was during the Obama Adminsitration when McConnell held up dozens of appointees for no reason along with Obama's pick for the SCOTUS. And now he brags about it. And the fans cheer him on.

That's why I put zero stock in most of the "but this is unfair" crying ... there's one set of rules for those in power and one set for those out and that goes both ways.

The Democrats had all ready seen a less redacted copy. Barr offered access to a less-redacted version of the report to 12 members of Congress — six Democrats and six Republicans.

They know what was redacted in and a lot had to do with micheal flynn. See after watching Mueller on TV i can tell you mueller found nothing. In fact he didnt even know what he wrote in his own report. This tells me he didn't write it and it means it has zero validity.

originally posted by: dragonridr
The Democrats had all ready seen a less redacted copy. Barr offered access to a less-redacted version of the report to 12 members of Congress — six Democrats and six Republicans.

They know what was redacted in and a lot had to do with micheal flynn. See after watching Mueller on TV i can tell you mueller found nothing. In fact he didnt even know what he wrote in his own report. This tells me he didn't write it and it means it has zero validity.

LOL. According to who?

I mean, you're stating your opinion but none of that is backed up by the facts.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Where did you or I say a word about republics ?

i’ve been talking about trumps rights prior to presentation of Ken Starr’s report to the house for a official vote .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Gryphon66

Where did you or I say a word about republics ?

i’ve been talking about trumps rights prior to presentation of Ken Starr’s report to the house for a official vote .

Hmmm. I can honestly say I have no idea what you're talking about.

a reply to: Gryphon66

As Usual

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I dont know, that's what I heard, but I just did a search and couldn't find anything like that, so maybe I misheard... take it as being unsubstantiated misinformation unless you hear it somewhere else.
Sorry...

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Gryphon66

As Usual

Okie dokie.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Gryphon66

Where did you or I say a word about republics ?

i’ve been talking about trumps rights prior to presentation of Ken Starr’s report to the house for a official vote .

Indeed, where have we said anything about republics? We haven't. Moving on....

You've been talking about "Trump's rights prior to Ken Starr's resport" ... yada yada?

Which report has Ken Starr made on Trump that has been presented to the House for an official vote?

When you have to answer none and that you made a rather ridiculous mistake, remember a few posts above I really tried to give you a pass and time to correct your post, but you decided on snark.

Now, if I were to respond as you do I might continue: "How confused are you man? Do you think they're about to impeach Trump or Clinton? Are you talking about Ken Starr or Robert Mueller? I realize all these names must get confusing but how out of touch are ..."

I'm not going to do that though because I don't think that kind of crap adds to our discussions.

I'll just say: I think you mispoke, Fallingdown. Better luck next time.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

PS: Your source was an opinion article written by a member of the Cato Institute. Maybe not the most factual or unbiased source, at least in tone.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ya, but I would prefer to believe that while they may be a tad bit partisan on some small issues, as long as it can appear to be just a matter of interpreting the laws differently, they would be inclined to set their political views aside and be more careful about how they interpret the laws when it comes to this case.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Opinions vary, perhaps they were just giving the Adminstration more rope?

Timing is everything + more rope

It was just a matter of time before Mr. T set his house on fire in such a way that nobody could look at it and argue that it wasn't on fire

He's pretty dependable that way. I admire Nancy's patience while sitting behind her duck blind

But, like you said - opinions vary

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

PS: Your source was an opinion article written by a member of the Cato Institute. Maybe not the most factual or unbiased source, at least in tone.

It listed the facts of when they vote together. The opinion about it is irrelevant.

The Supreme Court Might Have Three Swing Justices Now

Roberts did step several times into the role of “swing” justice, he wasn’t the only conservative justice who joined the liberals over the course of the term. Although he wasn’t in the middle ideologically, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s other nominee, was actually the most likely to join the liberals in closely decided cases.1 In fact, each of the conservative justices joined the liberals in a 5-4 or 5-3 decision at least once.

fivethirtyeight.com...

All the swing justices are Conservatives. None of the Liberals are. When the Liberals vote with Conservatives it is because they have a unanimous decision. It is what it is. I think Breyer has voted opposite Scalia on almost every single issue that the court was not unanimous on.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You've been talking about "Trump's rights prior to Ken Starr's resport" ... yada yada?

Now I understand.

You can’t keep up and I’m talking over your head my bad .

I’m using Ken Starr‘s investigation as an example of this investigation that’s not formally in the house either . In the distinct possibility that rights apply to Trump when they wouldn’t under a formal impeachment investigation .

Ken Starr was sanctioned for leaking during his investigation . That could also be significant now . ( Adam shiff)

U.S. District Court Judge Norma Johnson's secret ruling in recent days sanctioning Starr for allegedly leaking grand jury information to the news media.

Starr appealed Johnson's ruling, and in particular, was fighting an order that he turn over documents and other evidence related to possible illegal leaks to the news media.

According to lawyers familiar with the investigation, Johnson's order also included steps preventing Starr from gathering certain evidence.

Ken Starr sanctioned

Besides not being able to follow a conversation. Do you ever do any research before you speak condescendingly to somebody ?

You should because everything you say looks uninformed and suspect .

a reply to: dragonridr

Available lo six dems? You do realize that there are more Republicans participating in that "secretive" investigation that is going on in the house basement, right?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ya, but I would prefer to believe that while they may be a tad bit partisan on some small issues, as long as it can appear to be just a matter of interpreting the laws differently, they would be inclined to set their political views aside and be more careful about how they interpret the laws when it comes to this case.

That used to be a matter of integrity with the SCOTUS. Also, I have to say, that Occams seems to be right so far about Gorsuch and Kavannagh, both have surprised me so far.

Some people think that Impeachment is a bad thing, but I differ, in fact, I wish that there was also some process to remove Senators. The House of Representatives was intended to be the People's House, with the whole thing turning over every two years.

I want everyone in Goverment to know that the people's House can impeach them if they step out of line. Let's give McConnell's do-nothings something to do, eh? LOL

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You are correct. My comment that it was an Opinion article was somewhat rhetorical. By the way if you want to look at a slightly more rigorous analysis, check out Empirical SCOTUS - Changes Are Afoot: Evidence from 5-4 Decisions During the 2018 Term and What this Tells Us About the Supreme Court Moving Forward

Also, I think your idea to look at the question this way is very telling, and well-deserving of its own thread.

a reply to: Fallingdown

That's not what you said and you know it.

Don't like my posts, skip over them, I'm good with that.