Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But we already covered that. A judge ordered the release of the grand jury info in the Clinton investigation. So this is the "comeuppance", if you will.Whatever the courts decide I am good with, just follow the law, because if the situation comes up again, and it doesn't favor you, then you will have lost your legal ground.
Thirty years after the fact did a judge order a release of the grand jury in the Clinton investigation, are you wanting us to wait 30 years?
Also Starr reported directly to Congress, not the A.G.
Thirty years after the fact did a judge order a release of the grand jury in the Clinton investigation, are you wanting us to wait 30 years?
No.
It was televised in 1998.
And if so, the court will have to judge the right to privacy of those indicted and the need of the state to protects its sources and methods against the political agenda of the Democrats.If you want the Grand Jury testimony released there will be a court involved. Depend on how the Democrats want to play this.
Likewise, no legal authority to demand it. Except political cuntery, that is.The law doesn't require it, dumbass. It's as simple as that.With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)
So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?
There is no law regarding it's release.
There's nothing stopping it from being released in it's entirety.
Except political cuntery, that is.
More like oversight, chief.
It was ALL released to CongressBut we already covered that. A judge ordered the release of the grand jury info in the Clinton investigation. So this is the "comeuppance", if you will.Whatever the courts decide I am good with, just follow the law, because if the situation comes up again, and it doesn't favor you, then you will have lost your legal ground.
Thirty years after the fact did a judge order a release of the grand jury in the Clinton investigation, are you wanting us to wait 30 years?
Also Starr reported directly to Congress, not the A.G.
Thirty years after the fact did a judge order a release of the grand jury in the Clinton investigation, are you wanting us to wait 30 years?
No.
It was televised in 1998.
The grand jury still had some of their findings sealed, only the parts of the grand jury investigation that were pertinent to the impeachment proceedings and to the Senate proceedings was released, the rest weres released in 2018.
Bill Clinton wants to weigh in on whether to release sealed 1998 grand jury documents - CNNPolitics
Wrong. Barr is within his right legally to sit on the Report...and Congress is within THEIR rights to demand it's release.Likewise, no legal authority to demand it. Except political cuntery, that is.The law doesn't require it, dumbass. It's as simple as that.With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)
So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?
There is no law regarding it's release.
There's nothing stopping it from being released in it's entirety.
Except political cuntery, that is.
More like oversight, chief.
Oversight implies legal authority. You just said there's no law regarding its release, which means they can demand all day long, and no one has to comply. It's a moot point anyway, the report will be released to the extent it is legal to do so.
The law requires Barr to redact/remove certain information; Congress cannot compel Barr to break the law.Wrong. Barr is within his right legally to sit on the Report...and Congress is within THEIR rights to demand it's release.
In other words Barr is not breaking the law but would have to comply with a court order to release.
It was ALL released to CongressBut we already covered that. A judge ordered the release of the grand jury info in the Clinton investigation. So this is the "comeuppance", if you will.Whatever the courts decide I am good with, just follow the law, because if the situation comes up again, and it doesn't favor you, then you will have lost your legal ground.
Thirty years after the fact did a judge order a release of the grand jury in the Clinton investigation, are you wanting us to wait 30 years?
Also Starr reported directly to Congress, not the A.G.
Thirty years after the fact did a judge order a release of the grand jury in the Clinton investigation, are you wanting us to wait 30 years?
No.
It was televised in 1998.
The grand jury still had some of their findings sealed, only the parts of the grand jury investigation that were pertinent to the impeachment proceedings and to the Senate proceedings was released, the rest weres released in 2018.
Bill Clinton wants to weigh in on whether to release sealed 1998 grand jury documents - CNNPolitics
It was ALL released to CongressBut we already covered that. A judge ordered the release of the grand jury info in the Clinton investigation. So this is the "comeuppance", if you will.Whatever the courts decide I am good with, just follow the law, because if the situation comes up again, and it doesn't favor you, then you will have lost your legal ground.
Thirty years after the fact did a judge order a release of the grand jury in the Clinton investigation, are you wanting us to wait 30 years?
Also Starr reported directly to Congress, not the A.G.
Thirty years after the fact did a judge order a release of the grand jury in the Clinton investigation, are you wanting us to wait 30 years?
No.
It was televised in 1998.
The grand jury still had some of their findings sealed, only the parts of the grand jury investigation that were pertinent to the impeachment proceedings and to the Senate proceedings was released, the rest weres released in 2018.
Bill Clinton wants to weigh in on whether to release sealed 1998 grand jury documents - CNNPolitics
And if so, the court will have to judge the right to privacy of those indicted and the need of the state to protects its sources and methods against the political agenda of the Democrats.If you want the Grand Jury testimony released there will be a court involved. Depend on how the Democrats want to play this.
And if so, the court will have to judge the right to privacy of those indicted and the need of the state to protects its sources and methods against the political agenda of the Democrats.If you want the Grand Jury testimony released there will be a court involved. Depend on how the Democrats want to play this.
You meant to say it will be judged on whether the grand jury testimony is material to the investigations of the appropriate congressional committees.
Likewise, no legal authority to demand it. Except political cuntery, that is.The law doesn't require it, dumbass. It's as simple as that.With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)
So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?
There is no law regarding it's release.
There's nothing stopping it from being released in it's entirety.
Except political cuntery, that is.
More like oversight, chief.
Oversight implies legal authority. You just said there's no law regarding its release, which means they can demand all day long, and no one has to comply. It's a moot point anyway, the report will be released to the extent it is legal to do so.
And if so, the court will have to judge the right to privacy of those indicted and the need of the state to protects its sources and methods against the political agenda of the Democrats.If you want the Grand Jury testimony released there will be a court involved. Depend on how the Democrats want to play this.
You meant to say it will be judged on whether the grand jury testimony is material to the investigations of the appropriate congressional committees.
That is true however with no indictments, it would all be kept from at least the public since the Grand Jury didn't indict anyone. Had Starr found nothing on to indict on, the Grand Jury testimony would not have been made public at all.
Judges don't care what the Dim douchebags in Congress want. Their job is to worry about the rights of the people affected.And if so, the court will have to judge the right to privacy of those indicted and the need of the state to protects its sources and methods against the political agenda of the Democrats.If you want the Grand Jury testimony released there will be a court involved. Depend on how the Democrats want to play this.
You meant to say it will be judged on whether the grand jury testimony is material to the investigations of the appropriate congressional committees.
"Oversight" doesn't give them the authority to violate the rights of US citizens. Of course, I realize you don't give a flying fuck about that.Likewise, no legal authority to demand it. Except political cuntery, that is.The law doesn't require it, dumbass. It's as simple as that.
There is no law regarding it's release.
There's nothing stopping it from being released in it's entirety.
Except political cuntery, that is.
More like oversight, chief.
Oversight implies legal authority. You just said there's no law regarding its release, which means they can demand all day long, and no one has to comply. It's a moot point anyway, the report will be released to the extent it is legal to do so.
It's a constitutional authority. Any argument would include the fact that they cannot conduct oversight investigations without that info.
Citizens like Manafort SCUMP Jr? etc etc those scum of the earth?"Oversight" doesn't give them the authority to violate the rights of US citizens. Of course, I realize you don't give a flying fuck about that.Likewise, no legal authority to demand it. Except political cuntery, that is.There is no law regarding it's release.
There's nothing stopping it from being released in it's entirety.
Except political cuntery, that is.
More like oversight, chief.
Oversight implies legal authority. You just said there's no law regarding its release, which means they can demand all day long, and no one has to comply. It's a moot point anyway, the report will be released to the extent it is legal to do so.
It's a constitutional authority. Any argument would include the fact that they cannot conduct oversight investigations without that info.
You're the scum of the earth, not them.Citizens like Manafort SCUMP Jr? etc etc those scum of the earth?"Oversight" doesn't give them the authority to violate the rights of US citizens. Of course, I realize you don't give a flying fuck about that.Likewise, no legal authority to demand it. Except political cuntery, that is.
More like oversight, chief.
Oversight implies legal authority. You just said there's no law regarding its release, which means they can demand all day long, and no one has to comply. It's a moot point anyway, the report will be released to the extent it is legal to do so.
It's a constitutional authority. Any argument would include the fact that they cannot conduct oversight investigations without that info.
Did trump give you a security clearance too?You're the scum of the earth, not them.Citizens like Manafort SCUMP Jr? etc etc those scum of the earth?"Oversight" doesn't give them the authority to violate the rights of US citizens. Of course, I realize you don't give a flying fuck about that.More like oversight, chief.
Oversight implies legal authority. You just said there's no law regarding its release, which means they can demand all day long, and no one has to comply. It's a moot point anyway, the report will be released to the extent it is legal to do so.
It's a constitutional authority. Any argument would include the fact that they cannot conduct oversight investigations without that info.
With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)
So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?
Wrong.With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)
So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?
The short answer is none. Congress has the Constitutional Right to receive the Special Prosecutor's Report without delay and more importantly WITHOUT REDACTIONS!!!
Agreed.........
The MOST revealing sentence in Barr's SUBJECTIVE summary is the fact (which even Barr could not bury) that Trump was NOT exonerated of obstruction........we all well know that "collusion" is not in itself a crime....sure its slimy, unethical and even unpatriotic....so it is not a crime........
But, Mueller basically handed over to CONGRESS (not just the DOJ) an important step toward reviewing the investigation and if indeed obstruction of justice is validated by the congressional committee, then impeachment....which is really an open trial......is warranted.
