Judge says House must get Mueller grand jury information - CNBC

a reply to: thedigirati

I disagree that there’s been any significant change to the balance of power ... with the exception that the power and scope of the Executive is faaar beyond anything the Founders intended.

Your post is brilliant hyperbole.

a reply to: Gryphon66

we will see wont we


You and I do not see eye to eye

I'm only 6 years older than you

you are 53 correct?

you will know in 8 years

no Democrat with be in the whitehouse before then.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

Defining those one disagrees with as scum is puerile.

Claiming that a political past disqualifies a judge would disqualify most of them.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Flynn took a plea deal.

He was railroaded into a plea deal, yes. And he can withdraw it at any time.

The judge hasn't been satisfied that he's fulfilled his end of the deal, which is why his sentencing has been delayed.

Thats the (fake news) claim. In reality, it is being delayed because they know it is a fraud.

He can't get his perjury charge dropped without getting the other charges, and more, reinstated. Then he'd have to go to trial on those.

Bring it on. Sydney Powell will eat their lunch, and still be home in time for dinner.

Flynn will be exonerated - and this time that word will actually be used legitimately and mean something.

a reply to: thedigirati

LOL.

Predict a winning lottery ticket and I will be impressed.

History and simple statistics strongly suggest that your Presidential prediction is mistaken.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Defining those one disagrees with as scum is puerile.

Claiming that a political past disqualifies a judge would disqualify most of them.

That isn't what he said. He was calling the TDS suffering (he didn't use those words, but it is clearly what he meant) 'never-Trumpers' scum - and they are. They are precisely what is sick and wrong with our society today.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Impeachment is not a judicial or criminal trial but a Congressional investigation

prior to impeachment which is basically bringing charges.

Durning Clintons impeachment they appointed Kenn Star as independent counsel . He investigated for the judicial committee who reviewed the report and submitted it to the house for a vote .

During that process Clinton was legally allowed to sue Ken Starr for contempt over leaks .

I’m not saying I’m right on where trumps constitutional rights stand. But I’m definitely saying it’s not as cut and dry as you’re trying to portray it .

I’ll wait for a appeals or the supreme court to weigh in.

As for conflict wait until you see the thread I’m doing this evening . It’s going to be a blockbuster .

a reply to: Fallingdown

You’re mistaken about the role Starr played. He was Independent Counsel and delivered his report which prompted the House to impeach Clinton on that basis.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I must add that Starr’s investigation went on for FOUR years against Clinton started with Whitewater and ended with a moist blue dress. Starr unlike Mueller didn’t have the dignity to stop when his charge was ended but instead kept going until he got Clinton for lying about oral sex.

Clinton was not removed but if you really want to find a coup you need look no further.

a reply to: dawnstar

if supreme court rules the Trump was entitled to all of his constitutional rights during the investigation. It could nullify any evidence in the impeachment hearing and the Senate trial under the fourth amendment and malicious prosecution .

There’re not following the procedures we are in uncharted territory here .

And like I said the house intelligence committee is leaking like a sieve. Kenn Starr was sanctioned for that .

a reply to: Gryphon66

Correct the independent counsel did the investigation and delivered 11 articles for possible impeachment to the house. The house judiciary committee voted on it then took it to the floor for a formal vote .

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: thedigirati

LOL.

Predict a winning lottery ticket and I will be impressed.

History and simple statistics strongly suggest that your Presidential prediction is mistaken.

I did, a scratch off won 40$ with my last 1$, the wife and clerk were both impressed.

look through my early posting on here

I have always had good "luck, karma, precog, what ever", my entire life.

Joined the Marines, and by "luck" got sent to Hawaii, and traveled around the world 3 times before I was 23 .

however, like the color of my skin, it was never my choice..

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
"Any claim that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, by a judge, in a judicial proceeding, is an attempt to over-rule the Constitution."

I would not say it doesn't happen, but not in this case. If the judge is wrong I would say they are misinterpreting the Constitution, not willfully trying to overrule it.

I disagree. They are a judge. A judge knows better. The TDS loons here who cannot see the obvious truth have an excuse. The judge doesn't - well, they do, they are a TDS suffering Obama appointee...

In the end the SC will tell us.

Yep.

Before she was a judge she was a lobbyist for many years. She faught hard to make sure their were tons of limitations on the Freedom Of Information Act. We all know how much we dont want freedom of information right?

Lolz🤪

I'm sure her ruling will be overturned in the Appeals Court based on that.

I was pointing out to another poster this judges political biases. The op didnt mention that she has always been an extreme left leaning judge. For God's sake she was ruling over the "Mueller investigation" before this. She couldnt get Trump that time so here she goes trying again. Alot of her character was left out of the op and this entire conversation. She was merely classied as an "Obama appointee".

Of course it is going to be overturned......

Lolz🤪

a reply to: thedigirati

Intuition is often contaminated by strong desire.

I guess we will see.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Gryphon66

Correct the independent counsel did the investigation and delivered 11 articles for possible impeachment to the house. The house judiciary committee voted on it then took it to the floor for a formal vote .

Incorrect again. You are strongly implying that Starr was investigating on behalf of the Republican House, not technically true but it is quite true that Starr’s intent supported by Republican Majority in the House was impeachment. Thus my comment addressed to those desperately looking for a coup.

That wasn’t a coup but it was definitely political railroading which is one reason of many why I find the current wailing and gnashing of teeth over Trump so appalling.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

She is still working on the mueller case..
Ruling on weather or not Congress should be giving the information mueller had gathered for crying out loud!!
And you guys think that we should just go and appoint another special counsel or whatever working under the justice dept for the ukraine mess?

a reply to: dawnstar

It would seem that to many of our friends and fellow-members being appointed by a Democrat should disqualify Howell.

Of course that’s tame compared with so many of the crude partisan remarks made.

a reply to: dawnstar

If it takes this long why in the world would we wait to appoint another? The longer these things take the sooner we have to get them started.

a reply to: thedigirati

Umm. Ya, love the rant.
Ya, I have doubts about kav..
Any hard feelings he might have has less to do with those doubts than his performance in the hearing along with what i interpreted as a veiled threat to the dems. Theres other things playing into those doubts, but the fact that seems to have flown completely over you head was that i was explaining why the case should bypass the next level and just go to the supreme court (where kav sits by the way). And the reasoning I gave was that even some of the dems seem to have the perception that Garland might not be fair in his decision because of how unfairly he was treated in that nomination. And, because of that perception, maybe he shouldn't be involved.
If only trump and gang cared enough about the public's perception to stop some of the crap they are doing instead of just telling us to... what was it, oh I cant remember, but basically it boiled down to live with it!
Well, this is how this particular judge saw the justice depts arguments.. and guess what... you are gonna have to live with it!!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ask your republican senators, because that was what some of them were asking for a day or two ago.
By what I hear, today's complaint was that there was someone scheduled to testify...
On..oh my god.. a Saturday!
I hope they dont expect much sympathy from those that are finding themselves having to work two jobs, 7 days a week.