Judge says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

One further thought. Gorsuch comes from a more libertarian approach and he is the most common "swing" vote with the liberals.

That makes sense.

a reply to: dragonridr

A growing number of Democrats suspect that Mueller and Barr were working together (30 year friendship) to insulate President Trump. That's why they want to see the thousands of pages of Grand Jury testimony. They think some damning facts against President Trump were intentionally ignored.

a reply to: Gryphon66

My problem with kav is that I got the impression from some of what I read that he kind of started off on the wrong foot so to speak. A tad bit over exuberant maybe, or maybe it was just Arrogance. He is young, surrounded by all these people with so many years of experience. It wouldn't hurt him one bit to just cool his jets and accept that maybe these people could teach him a thing or two.
That is just my opinion of him based on what I have read. People can have what ever opinion they want about him. But before they go accusing me of political bias, they should realize that I have the same misgivings about some of the new crop in the house and have said a few times on these boards I'm not really that impressed with them.
I can only hope they settle down and take advantage of the experience that surrounds them.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: dragonridr

A growing number of Democrats suspect that Mueller and Barr were working together (30 year friendship) to insulate President Trump. That's why they want to see the thousands of pages of Grand Jury testimony. They think some damning facts against President Trump were intentionally ignored.

I'll ask, do you have a source for that claim, or is it your opinion?

Here's my opinion: Bob Mueller has been downright blatant (for him) that the only reason that Trump wasn't indicted is because DOJ rules wouldn't let him be indicted.

He handed the House the impeachment on a silver platter and I think it's almost dinner time.

a reply to: dawnstar

I kinda like Kavannah even though it seems like there may be fire under the smoke with some of the complaints against him.

He was such a drama queen in the confirmation hearings, but he's made real sense in some of his opinions.

Turns out, with one or two big exceptions, I like Gorsuch. I think he may be the next Chief Justice.

I just hope he stays libertarian if the Court is going to be political.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, hasn't Robert's swung left a time or two recently? To be honest, I think that regardless of which way they swing, they want to preserve the integrity of the court and dont really appreciate being thought of as pawns in the service of the political power holders.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No I was talking about Ken Starr investigating for Americans. For some reason you pretended like I said he was investigating for Republicans .

My point this whole thread has been. That without the proper vote to make the inquiry formal. Trump might have legal rights he would during a real impeachment inquiry .

House rules be damned .

The supreme court interprets the constitution .

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, hasn't Robert's swung left a time or two recently? To be honest, I think that regardless of which way they swing, they want to preserve the integrity of the court and dont really appreciate being thought of as pawns in the service of the political power holders.

Yes. I think Roberts is starting to be concerned about his legacy, so he's taking a more centrist approach. I just want him to interpret the law according to the Constitution, heck, that's all I want any of them to do.

I hope you're right about the integrity of the Court!

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's my opinion, based on listening to Jerry Nadler, and parsing over educational messages from Q-anon this past Spring/Summer.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: dragonridr

A growing number of Democrats suspect that Mueller and Barr were working together (30 year friendship) to insulate President Trump. That's why they want to see the thousands of pages of Grand Jury testimony. They think some damning facts against President Trump were intentionally ignored.

He handed the House the impeachment on a silver platter and I think it's almost dinner time.

House Democrats have not written one article of Impeachment yet. (Unless they're lying when they say that)

Mueller must not have handed them anything on even a cardboard platter.

They will need to send at least 3 or 4 articles (accusations) to the Senate, to increase the odds that at least one of them gets enough "Yea" votes for removing President Trump from office. (I think 67 yes votes are needed?)

But before doing any of that, the House needs to get past this investigative phase and start having public hearings featuring key witnesses and evidence. Then comes the House vote. 25 Democrats are on the fence currently. (From states that Trump won.)

Oh My Goodness, check this out..www.majorityleader.gov...

The U.S. House will only be in session 24 days between now and January 6, 2020!

a reply to: Fallingdown

The justice dept still hasn't let lose of its gripe on the information the mueller investigation came up with!
Sure, barr was kind and let 6 from each party see the unredacted version and the courts have ordered some of it released. But all in all, I think the idea that trumps right have been trampled on is rather laughable. He has managed to use his rights along the his executive power to obstruct and stall this quite efficiently!
The Republicans are having a fit because the hearings so far have been closed door and not all republicans have access to what is being uncovered.. although there are quite a few more than six able to hear everything in those hearings as well as take part in them. And, boo hoo.. the republicans are the ones that came up with the rules that are being followed that they thought were so beneficial when they were the majority and they didnt have the foresight to realize that some day, they would become the minority and have to accept those same rules.
Barr has been fighting ever since the mueller investigation ended to keep parts of that outcome secret from the congress. It's been what?? Less than month for these secret meetings?
Nope, no indication of a double standard here!

a reply to: carewemust

They could always change their schedule. Or is there some law that limits the number of days they work through the year?

a reply to: carewemust

Nope, they haven't. They're investigating a referral of charges from the IG. If that is found to be substantive, they will file a resolution to commence formal proceedings, that will probably go to the Judicial Committee if general practice is served and if the formal inquiry finds the charges valid, the Articles will be drafted and presented to the House for a majority vote.

Ten counts of obstruction on the part of the Trump Administration were clearly delineated in the Report; I think you'll get an answer by mid-November.

NOW, your first point about the low chance of removal by the Senate is valid. That has NEVER happened to the two Presidents that have been Impeached due to blatant partisan politics.

We will see what happens. If the process results in removal, you can be assured that the matters will be so blatant and damning that even ardent Trump supporters will have no choice but to concur.

a reply to: dawnstar

But all in all, I think the idea that trumps right have been trampled on is rather laughable.

You wouldn’t laughing if it was your ‘s , Obama’s, your moms, your kids or anyone else you knew or liked right’s . It’s OK now because it’s the mean orange man .

The Republicans are having a fit because the hearings so far have been closed door and not all republicans have access to what is being uncovered.

You obviously didn’t follow my position. I didn’t address that and don’t care . My point is that until they have a formal vote they aren’t under the “sole power of the house of representatives” as stated in the constitution . If so it wouldn’t have to be the supreme court any federal court could issue a verdict .


That’s about all of your post that actually addressed the issues .

Everything else has been gone over 1000 times.

It’s whataboutism you might want to discuss it but I don’t .

a reply to: Fallingdown

If it was any of us peons, do you think we would get to be involved in the investigation into us to the extent some seem to be claiming trump should be involved in? Heck, we might not even know we were being investigated till the cuffs came out and we were being led away.

a reply to: dawnstar

If the cuffs were on you when you were going to trial.

Would you want your fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights ?

Makes no difference who the person is.

Those rights are guaranteed to all of us by the constitution.

a reply to: Gryphon66

False, 10 "instances" of potential obstruction as outlined by Muellers team and as already posted, failed as a result of DOJ opposing views on Obstruction of justice.

Once again, dead stick in the water.

The Senate will not remove, I can say this arrogantly and without reprisal.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: carewemust

They could always change their schedule. Or is there some law that limits the number of days they work through the year?

If they are serious about getting this over with before the first U.S. state primary (Iowa on Feb 3, 2020), the House needs to cancel the miscellaneous days off, and holiday vacations.

If the House gets enough yes votes to send Impeachment to the Senate, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker, must stop campaigning for the 2 or 3 months the Impeachment Trial lasts. I wonder how they will feel about that...since the odds are slim to none that the Senate will remove President Trump from office.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I didn't know the House was investigating a "referral of charges from the Inspector General" against President Trump!

Are you referring to the Intelligence Community I.G., State Dept I.G., or the Department of Justice I.G.? (Almost every big department has it's own I.G.)

More on this please.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Gryphon66

False, 10 "instances" of potential obstruction as outlined by Muellers team and as already posted, failed as a result of DOJ opposing views on Obstruction of justice.

Once again, dead stick in the water.

The Senate will not remove, I can say this arrogantly and without reprisal.

Have the 10 instances been tried in court? No? Then nothing has failed. The Attorney General of the United States made an announcement. That's all.

We'll see if the "stick" is indeed "dead" but I agree, logically based on what is known today, it is unlikely that 67 Senators would find the President guilty and remove him.

ETA: Bolded text