Judge says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC

originally posted by: carewemust
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.

I ask you for backup for your claims fairly regularly. I'm not aware that you've ever obliged. So, with all due respect, look it up.

a reply to: carewemust

Who am I kidding, we both know I value the facts more than being right ...

Washington, September 19, 2019 Washington D.C. – Today, following a closed briefing, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released letters received from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG). The first letter sent on September 9, 2019 can be found here, and the second letter sent on September 17, 2019 can be found here. The Committee also released a letter sent late Wednesday to Acting Director of National Intelligence confirming his testimony on Thursday, September 26, 2019.

First Letter from Intelligence IG to House

Second Letter

Enjoy. Question asked and answered.

a reply to: Fallingdown

The cuffs aren't on trump yet. They are just asking the neighbors and friends some questions.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

If I remember correctly, the selected Democrats refused to view it at that time, only the selected Republicans took advantage of the opportunity to view it. The Democrats were making a stand that they wanted complete unredacted copy of grand jury to be released then too.

Edit add: yes, in May 2019, none of the Dems read the less redacted report, but 5 Repubs did. CNN Source link

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

If I remember correctly, the selected Democrats refused to view it at that time, only the selected Republicans took advantage of the opportunity to view it. The Democrats were making a stand that they wanted complete unredacted copy of grand jury to be released then too.

Edit add: yes, in May 2019, none of the Dems read the less redacted report, but 5 Repubs did. CNN Source link

That's right. Thanks for reminding me CynConcepts.

a reply to: carewemust

Oh, those poor highly paid govt servants!! Meanwhile, many of their bosses... we the people.... are having to work from the time they wake up till the time the go to bed trying to hold down two jobs just to be able to live.you might run into some of them when you stop at the convenience store to fill up your gas tank on your way to grandma's for your christmas celebration when you pay for your gas.

If those senators running for the president cant handle that the job is intruding on their holiday festivities and pleas for a promotion because the crap needs to be taken care of then they dont need to be the president where the crap comes faster and is deeper!

But, this is important. The questions need to be answered. The rift has to be healed in a way that is acceptable for all.
And, lucky, lucky congress, judges, and trump administration... they are the ones elected and appointed to find those answers for us and bring this whole mess to a conclusion that is at least acceptable for all of us that the country doesnt blow up!
I wish them the best of luck.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Yes, 6 dems could read the unredacted version. And, it was considered classified so they couldn't share any of the information with their colleagues.
And now, by what I hear, we have 24 republicans sitting in and taking part in these investigative hearings, where everything that is uncovered is being held in secrecy.
And the republicans are crying foul over the hearings held in the basement but I kind of think they wont have to wait nearly as long as they've been waiting to learn what those 6 dems and 6 republicans got access to 6 months ago.
So, maybe people should just settle down, grab a beer or whatever suits your fancy, pop some popcorn and enjoy the show? Rudy's been doing a great job at providing comic relief!

By accepting limitations on what could be seen as determined by the AG, the Democrats would be acknowledging that Barr/Trump/the Executive Branch has control over what information Congress has access to. I don't blame them for saying "no thanks" in this instance.

Further,

That said, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which enshrines the traditional rule of grand jury secrecy, establishes exceptions that allow grand jury materials (such as transcripts of witness testimony) to be disclosed to certain outside parties in limited circumstances. Some of these exceptions allow for automatic disclosure—to necessary government personnel, for example—but many of the exceptions require that disclosure be authorized by the federal district court in the jurisdiction where the jury is convened, as the court ultimately has some degree of “supervisory authority” over the grand jury.

CRS - Do Courts Have Inherent Authority to Release
Secret Grand Jury Materials?

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) et. al.

... which specifically regards the topic under discussion. Judge Howell was and is the appropriately designated officer to determine who and for what purpose the grand jury material can be revealed ... not Bill Barr.

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.

Who are these growing number of democrats please? This sounds like something gleaned from Gateway Pundit that has no basis in reality.
Sorry but no.... this is not a thing with democrats and its not a thing with the real world media either.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Silly, I too would like to see more evidence for dramatic claims not marked as an expression of opinion, however, you just made a counter-claim which requires substantiation.

DO you have any direct evidence that no Democrats suspect that Muller and Barr were working together?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I asked for verification. Something that is demanded from me with every post I make.

For instance....

I didnt say no dems suspect this I am saying its not a thing of any substance. There is gray in between black and white.

I sure have evidence that THIS DEM does not think this and so that makes what I said true. I never gave an all or nothing scenario I asked like you where that information came from.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Gryphon66

I asked for verification. Something that is demanded from me with every post I make.

For instance....

I didnt say no dems suspect this I am saying its not a thing of any substance. There is gray in between black and white.

I sure have evidence that THIS DEM does not think this and so that makes what I said true. I never gave an all or nothing scenario I asked like you where that information came from.

I understand. Requests for factual citation can be used to frustrate commenters. For what it's worth, I have seen you unfairly badgered in this way. However, if we want to hold others responsible for valid arguments, I think we should try to hold ourselves to the same standard.

Therefore, I have to point out technically that your opinion does not counter CWM's unsubstantiated statements and really only constitutes an appeal to your own authority.

It would be much better if we all would just be clear about whether we're stating fact or sharing opinion when challenged, IMO.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Two separate realities, separate set of facts, and no sources accepted as credible by both sides...
Not even court decisions made by appointed judges.
Kind of a waste of time at this point.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

Two separate realities, separate set of facts, and no sources accepted as credible by both sides...
Not even court decisions made by appointed judges.
Kind of a waste of time at this point.

Indeed. Thus, reasonable people withdraw from the discussion which facilitates the perpetuation of extremist viewpoints.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yep, giant circle jerk hate fests winding people up till someone snaps and people end up dead.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Gryphon66

I asked for verification. Something that is demanded from me with every post I make.

For instance....

I didnt say no dems suspect this I am saying its not a thing of any substance. There is gray in between black and white.

I sure have evidence that THIS DEM does not think this and so that makes what I said true. I never gave an all or nothing scenario I asked like you where that information came from.

But when you say things like "Trump will definitely be impeached by Mueller", or "Hillary will 100% win the presidency", people start to question your credibility.

You understand that post history means something right????

Lolz🤪

a reply to: Scepticaldem

Silly is not the topic.

In the spirit of reasonable discourse I have to ask, why wouldn't you actually quote examples of your claim rather than merely paraphrasing? I mean, you wouldn't want to look unreliable, would you?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Silly is not the topic.

In the spirit of reasonable discourse I have to ask, why wouldn't you actually quote examples of your claim rather than merely paraphrasing? I mean, you wouldn't want to look unreliable, would you?

It has been said and it knows it.
It doesnt bother me....

Back to topic, when is the judge that has worked for democratic leadership for most of her career going to let the Democrats use the dirty Mueller report for Nancy's "impeachment inquiry"?

Is it happening by Thanksgiving as other silly posters have claimed????

Lolz🤪

a reply to: dawnstar

I dont see an impeachment on Trump happening any time soon.

a reply to: ChefFox

Oh impeachment could happen in the timeframe they set.
That just takes the house to do their part and they seem to be moving along at decent rate now.
But, I am assuming you mean the senate side of the equation.

And I see that as less impossible than I did before the Ukraine story broke and his decision to pull out of syria.
I also get the idea that maybe the republicans are being surprised by some of his actions as well as some of the facts that are being dug up. If it gets to the point where they know the dems can convince the public in general and they will suffer more if they dont remove him they will move rather quickly so they can have a viable candidate on the ballot.