TAKE THE POLL: HOW LONG BEFORE TRUMP GETS IMPEACHED
- Thread starter BigBlackBull76
- Start date
Sort of makes you feel right at home, since that's probably the way your wife feels about you, right? Is it PE or ED, or just your arrogance that drove her away? You could always get a sex change ... be the 'slut slag' we know you want to be.
If as you say you "don't give a rat's ass what my opinion is", why are you inserting yourself into this conversation between NC and I....and of course you can't say anything substantive to the topic. Your post was one giant string of ad hominem attacks. How sad
You'll have to show me where I specifically mentioned the US population, since you're so good at "reading through" an actual post and adding your opinions and assumptions of the other posters. In fact I've already mentioned in a couple prior posts that the people do not necessarily need to see any private one numbers etc. But the congress sure as hell does; congress is entitled to every single word in that Mueller investigation.
I'm sure you didn't go read the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) Title III. The Grand Jury, The indictment and Information from Cornell Law School, but here it is for YOU to discredit as usual.
You're really something, first you say SHOW ME the Information, then you spend the rest of the time trying to discredit what I provide you. You're a real lonely dude, aren't you, old man?
Rule 6. The Grand Jury
Last edited:
Oh god, what fun you are today ... first, I insert my opinion into your conversation with NC BECAUSE you do it to me all the time, don't you Mr. Hypocrite? Secondly, since you like to correct my occasional error in using the wrong words in a sentence, the correct word is "ME" ... you inserting yourself into this conversation between NC and me.
And lastly, I can't help it if you're having marital problems, h-h ... maybe go to a counselor or minister. Your woman wants nothing to do with you and you probably don't want to grant her a divorce because she'd take you for half of what you're worth, which from my perspective seems to be very little.
Maybe you need to just spend more time with her instead of staying on the internet 24-7.
I did....you just need to slow down and actually read your quotes I had in that post....here is is again for you:
No, they are not. The Judiciary committee is entitled to it IF they start impeachment hearings. I've cited the US code proving this along with multiple court cases where appellate level rulings support my statement.
I have no interest or need to discredit this code. In fact I cited the same code to support my statements. I'm not sure why you can't understand that. I believe the difference here is I didn't get my legal education from reading the Huffington Post and Vox.com.
I have inserted myself into your conversations on many occasions. You have asked myself and others not to do that, which I couldn't care less about....so I choose to continue inserting myself whenever I see fit. However, I have never told you to not insert yourself into my conversations. Therefore I can't (legitimately) be accused of being hypocritical. Note I asked "why are you inserting yourself into this conversation..." I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't....I merely asked to point out you did so, showing your hypocrisy.
You're right. See how an intellectually honest person responds when it is correctly pointed out they made a mistake, regardless of how pedantic the subject? You should try to learn from that.
Well I doubt you'll ever learn intellectual honesty....ad hominems uber ales für MacNLies
How Congress Can Legally See the Entire, Unredacted Mueller Report
The grand jury materials, too.
Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report was released to Congress and the public—or at least parts of it were. The report that was publicly released contains significant redactions. Attorney General William Barr suggested that he would release a version with fewer redactions to certain members of Congress in a nonpublic setting. Assuming he expeditiously follows through on that promise, that is a good thing. But it’s not enough.
After all, Barr said that even the version he will give to those members of Congress would not contain grand jury materials, which he said “by law, cannot be shared.” But Congress deserves to see the entire, unredacted report, as well as the underlying grand jury materials that gave rise to it. Fortunately, Congress has several avenues for obtaining that information.
First, although government attorneys are generally prohibited from releasing grand jury materials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), the rule allows “[a]n attorney for the government” to disclose grand jury material involving “foreign intelligence information … to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official’s duties.” There is a strong argument that at least members of the House and Senate intelligence committees are “national security officials” who should receive the information in the performance of their duties. Thus, grand jury materials implicating foreign intelligence should be confidentially released to at least the intelligence committees.
If Barr refuses to release such materials to the intelligence committees, they can issue subpoenas demanding that the Justice Department release information they believe was improperly or unnecessarily withheld, and if need be, the House of Representatives can sue in federal district court to enforce those subpoenas. That is precisely what the House successfully did during both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. Under Bush, the House sued to enforce subpoenas related to its investigation into the resignation of nine U.S. attorneys, while under Obama, the House did the same related to its investigation of the so-called Fast and Furious operation.
As one of us has previously explained, Congress can move quickly to issue those subpoenas, and it can expeditiously file suit if the Department of Justice does not comply. Moreover, Congress can ask the court to expedite proceedings to ensure that this litigation is resolved as quickly as possible.
Second, although Barr is correct that there may be some grand jury material the Department of Justice cannot release directly to Congress under grand jury secrecy rules, Congress can get that material, too. For that information, Congress can go directly to the district court judge who impaneled the Mueller grand jury and request that the judge release it. There are several legal arguments that the House can make in support of such release.
www.theusconstitution.org
The Forgotten Reason Congress Needs to See the Mueller Report
Legislators have a responsibility to police obstruction of justice, according to the Constitution.
News that Attorney General William Barr might have mischaracterized special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on obstruction of justice by the president has increased calls for Barr to release the report to Congress. If Barr refuses to do so and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler issues a subpoena, we may be in for a separation of powers showdown—and a central question will be the legal basis upon which Congress is entitled to see the fruits of Mueller’s investigation.
The argument for Congress obtaining Mueller’s full report on obstruction is typically based on its constitutional power to impeach: Since Congress alone has the power to take action against the president, if he has broken the law or abused his power—which is true if the Justice Department adheres to its policy of not indicting a sitting president, even if it is not settled law—Congress would by necessity need to see the evidence Mueller has gathered to determine if impeachment is warranted. If lawmakers weren’t able to see the report, then the president would effectively be immunized from accountability for wrongdoing while he is in office, putting him above the law.
www.politico.com
The grand jury materials, too.
Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report was released to Congress and the public—or at least parts of it were. The report that was publicly released contains significant redactions. Attorney General William Barr suggested that he would release a version with fewer redactions to certain members of Congress in a nonpublic setting. Assuming he expeditiously follows through on that promise, that is a good thing. But it’s not enough.
After all, Barr said that even the version he will give to those members of Congress would not contain grand jury materials, which he said “by law, cannot be shared.” But Congress deserves to see the entire, unredacted report, as well as the underlying grand jury materials that gave rise to it. Fortunately, Congress has several avenues for obtaining that information.
First, although government attorneys are generally prohibited from releasing grand jury materials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), the rule allows “[a]n attorney for the government” to disclose grand jury material involving “foreign intelligence information … to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official’s duties.” There is a strong argument that at least members of the House and Senate intelligence committees are “national security officials” who should receive the information in the performance of their duties. Thus, grand jury materials implicating foreign intelligence should be confidentially released to at least the intelligence committees.
If Barr refuses to release such materials to the intelligence committees, they can issue subpoenas demanding that the Justice Department release information they believe was improperly or unnecessarily withheld, and if need be, the House of Representatives can sue in federal district court to enforce those subpoenas. That is precisely what the House successfully did during both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. Under Bush, the House sued to enforce subpoenas related to its investigation into the resignation of nine U.S. attorneys, while under Obama, the House did the same related to its investigation of the so-called Fast and Furious operation.
As one of us has previously explained, Congress can move quickly to issue those subpoenas, and it can expeditiously file suit if the Department of Justice does not comply. Moreover, Congress can ask the court to expedite proceedings to ensure that this litigation is resolved as quickly as possible.
Second, although Barr is correct that there may be some grand jury material the Department of Justice cannot release directly to Congress under grand jury secrecy rules, Congress can get that material, too. For that information, Congress can go directly to the district court judge who impaneled the Mueller grand jury and request that the judge release it. There are several legal arguments that the House can make in support of such release.
OP-ED: How Congress Can Legally See the Entire, Unredacted Mueller Report | Constitutional Accountability Center
Thursday, special counsel Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report was released to Congress and the public—or at least parts of it were. The report that was publicly released contains significant redactions. Attorney General William Barr suggested that he would release a version with fewer...
www.theusconstitution.org
The Forgotten Reason Congress Needs to See the Mueller Report
Legislators have a responsibility to police obstruction of justice, according to the Constitution.
News that Attorney General William Barr might have mischaracterized special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on obstruction of justice by the president has increased calls for Barr to release the report to Congress. If Barr refuses to do so and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler issues a subpoena, we may be in for a separation of powers showdown—and a central question will be the legal basis upon which Congress is entitled to see the fruits of Mueller’s investigation.
The argument for Congress obtaining Mueller’s full report on obstruction is typically based on its constitutional power to impeach: Since Congress alone has the power to take action against the president, if he has broken the law or abused his power—which is true if the Justice Department adheres to its policy of not indicting a sitting president, even if it is not settled law—Congress would by necessity need to see the evidence Mueller has gathered to determine if impeachment is warranted. If lawmakers weren’t able to see the report, then the president would effectively be immunized from accountability for wrongdoing while he is in office, putting him above the law.
The Forgotten Reason Congress Needs to See the Mueller Report
Legislators have a responsibility to police obstruction of justice, according to the Constitution.
www.politico.com
Last edited:
wrong again there Mr. Foot in Mouth man!
Abraham Lincoln Quotes - BrainyQuote
Enjoy the best Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote. Quotations by Abraham Lincoln, American President, Born February 12, 1809. Share with your friends.
you need to stick with being some kind of legal aid....never be smart enough to fool anyone with your false facts
How Congress Can Legally See the Entire, Unredacted Mueller Report
The grand jury materials, too.
Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report was released to Congress and the public—or at least parts of it were. The report that was publicly released contains significant redactions. Attorney General William Barr suggested that he would release a version with fewer redactions to certain members of Congress in a nonpublic setting. Assuming he expeditiously follows through on that promise, that is a good thing. But it’s not enough.
After all, Barr said that even the version he will give to those members of Congress would not contain grand jury materials, which he said “by law, cannot be shared.” But Congress deserves to see the entire, unredacted report, as well as the underlying grand jury materials that gave rise to it. Fortunately, Congress has several avenues for obtaining that information.
First, although government attorneys are generally prohibited from releasing grand jury materials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), the rule allows “[a]n attorney for the government” to disclose grand jury material involving “foreign intelligence information … to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official’s duties.” There is a strong argument that at least members of the House and Senate intelligence committees are “national security officials” who should receive the information in the performance of their duties. Thus, grand jury materials implicating foreign intelligence should be confidentially released to at least the intelligence committees.
If Barr refuses to release such materials to the intelligence committees, they can issue subpoenas demanding that the Justice Department release information they believe was improperly or unnecessarily withheld, and if need be, the House of Representatives can sue in federal district court to enforce those subpoenas. That is precisely what the House successfully did during both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. Under Bush, the House sued to enforce subpoenas related to its investigation into the resignation of nine U.S. attorneys, while under Obama, the House did the same related to its investigation of the so-called Fast and Furious operation.
As one of us has previously explained, Congress can move quickly to issue those subpoenas, and it can expeditiously file suit if the Department of Justice does not comply. Moreover, Congress can ask the court to expedite proceedings to ensure that this litigation is resolved as quickly as possible.
Second, although Barr is correct that there may be some grand jury material the Department of Justice cannot release directly to Congress under grand jury secrecy rules, Congress can get that material, too. For that information, Congress can go directly to the district court judge who impaneled the Mueller grand jury and request that the judge release it. There are several legal arguments that the House can make in support of such release.
OP-ED: How Congress Can Legally See the Entire, Unredacted Mueller Report | Constitutional Accountability Center
Thursday, special counsel Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report was released to Congress and the public—or at least parts of it were. The report that was publicly released contains significant redactions. Attorney General William Barr suggested that he would release a version with fewer...
The Forgotten Reason Congress Needs to See the Mueller Report
Legislators have a responsibility to police obstruction of justice, according to the Constitution.
News that Attorney General William Barr might have mischaracterized special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on obstruction of justice by the president has increased calls for Barr to release the report to Congress. If Barr refuses to do so and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler issues a subpoena, we may be in for a separation of powers showdown—and a central question will be the legal basis upon which Congress is entitled to see the fruits of Mueller’s investigation.
The argument for Congress obtaining Mueller’s full report on obstruction is typically based on its constitutional power to impeach: Since Congress alone has the power to take action against the president, if he has broken the law or abused his power—which is true if the Justice Department adheres to its policy of not indicting a sitting president, even if it is not settled law—Congress would by necessity need to see the evidence Mueller has gathered to determine if impeachment is warranted. If lawmakers weren’t able to see the report, then the president would effectively be immunized from accountability for wrongdoing while he is in office, putting him above the law.
The Forgotten Reason Congress Needs to See the Mueller Report
Legislators have a responsibility to police obstruction of justice, according to the Constitution.
even though I don't want to see him impeached and would rather see him voted out....I would still like to see Congress initiate impeachment proceedings.....just another "honor" he needs to have
"BrainyQuote.com" is just yet another place where Lincoln has been falsely attributed with that quote. I'm sure as the master of copy/pasting memes you could find all kinds of pretty pictures of Lincoln with that quote falsely attributed to him. It doesn't make it so. It only proves that many people like you, NC, and Donald Trump are ignorant of the quote.wrong again there Mr. Foot in Mouth man!
Abraham Lincoln Quotes - BrainyQuote
Enjoy the best Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote. Quotations by Abraham Lincoln, American President, Born February 12, 1809. Share with your friends.www.brainyquote.com
you need to stick with being some kind of legal aid....never be smart enough to fool anyone with your false facts
If you'd like to prove me wrong, post an actual citation listing when & where Lincoln said "this country will never fall from the outside, it will fall from within" or "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves" since that is your "Brainy"quote version of the statement.
Lincoln obviously said the following, meant specifically for you.....
naturally the web is wrong...and you are right...????
HH you always have a problem with being wrong......well your refusal to admit it anyway....must I remind you that you are 0-fer....in the argument wins now for almost 2 years
but in your usual rebuttal...you will just keep arguing about it for several days until the other person just gets tired of arguing....BTW just because they quit answering you ….doesn't mean you have won either
and see how stupid you are......Lincoln talking about the internet...just fake news...like your arguments...you keep altering his pic...if you want to make the pic correct it would have the quote in question on it
Last edited:
Not easy to fence sit these days.
I know I am having a problem with it...and trying to remain objective...but there are those.....
nongolfer
Male
Ha ha ha ha....
you just haven't noticed how neutral I really am...and cordial...well except when it comes to assholes....then I get a little testy...there are some on here that could piss the pope off!
nongolfer
Male
After IG Horowitz ****** Mueller to kick politically biased Trump-hater Strzok off his investigative team, Mueller embedded FBI analysts in his office whose sole purpose was writing summaries of his investigation & reporting findings back to Strzok's C.I. team at FBI HQ
Source has been fairly accurate, but not 100%. I'll wait on John Solomon, and specifically, Sara Carter. Sara Carter has been 100%.
I'll just put it on record, in writing, the title of this thread should be changed to how long before the first indictments for illegal surveillance, leaking, etc, rather than the title which we already know to be based on a false premise.
A false premise in this case would be fruit of the poisonous tree, to use one legal term we might be hearing more about between now and the DNC National Convention in July 2020. Probably after that as well.
If one reads the Mueller report, the first place they should concentrate on are pages 11 and 12. The predicate, or reasonable cause if you like that term, has been stated to be G Pap's meeting, and not the Fusion GPS dossier. Except it now seems we are getting credible leaks the surveillance started before Strzok, and if one reads pages 11 and 12 closely, the predicate doesn't match the tale being told.
Folks, if you think this is over, let me state clearly, you are incorrect. And if you think it's not over, becuase of the SDNY, and how they are going to get Trump, I'd encourage you to not believe me, but just keep watching.
Source has been fairly accurate, but not 100%. I'll wait on John Solomon, and specifically, Sara Carter. Sara Carter has been 100%.
I'll just put it on record, in writing, the title of this thread should be changed to how long before the first indictments for illegal surveillance, leaking, etc, rather than the title which we already know to be based on a false premise.
A false premise in this case would be fruit of the poisonous tree, to use one legal term we might be hearing more about between now and the DNC National Convention in July 2020. Probably after that as well.
If one reads the Mueller report, the first place they should concentrate on are pages 11 and 12. The predicate, or reasonable cause if you like that term, has been stated to be G Pap's meeting, and not the Fusion GPS dossier. Except it now seems we are getting credible leaks the surveillance started before Strzok, and if one reads pages 11 and 12 closely, the predicate doesn't match the tale being told.
Folks, if you think this is over, let me state clearly, you are incorrect. And if you think it's not over, becuase of the SDNY, and how they are going to get Trump, I'd encourage you to not believe me, but just keep watching.
Similar threads
- Poll
