Court Ruling: Barr MUST Redact Grand Jury Testimony

[SDBoiler1]

The Ds will not like this ruling. "Give us the full report! Give us the full report!" This cannot be done - it's illegal, because grand jury testimony is intended to be kept secret, under almost all circumstances.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-barr-must-redact-grand-214050275.html

 

[Bruce1]

Must be just another judge appointed by Trump to cover his butt. Probably one of Trump’s Russian buddies. LOL

 

[SDBoiler1]

Must be just another judge appointed by Trump to cover his butt. Probably one of Trump’s Russian buddies. LOL

Three judge panel made the decision. One appointed under Reagan, one under Obama, and one under Trump. Guess which way the voting went - 2 to 1, with 2 voting to uphold the law and keep the traditional separation of power intact and 1 voting to give judges more power than they had before.

 

[70boiler]

Given the breadth of your conclusion, I would venture to think that you have actually read neither Rule 6(e), McKeever v Barr , nor Haldeman v Sirica.
Clearly the Government has the option to request divulging the information to a Congressional Committee. Whether that would be granted would be up to the District Court and subject to the normal appeals process. McKeever involves a disclosure that was authorized only on the request of a private citizen.
Let me posit a situation that I think would abhor you.
Let us assume that in 2012 a special counsel determined via a Grand Jury investigation of President Obama that he likely had been bribed by Iran and may have improperly covered it up. Justice Department rules indicate that a sitting President is not subject to indictment. So you believe that under that setting there would have been no ability to release the information to Congress for impeachment consideration? I seriously doubt that you would approve.
Ultimately, seeking to release such information for review by Congress is a political decision and controlled by the inherent integrity of the Department of Justice. Mr. Barr is clearly going to show who he really is through his choices in this matter.

 

[BoilerJS]

Lets assume that the FBI, after 2 years of investigation, an investigation conducted under false pretense, (the Steele Dossier), found no evidence of collusion. Yet the opposing political party continues to hound the POTUS, political judges continue to overstep their authority and make rulings that are overturned by a higher court.
The Dems lost the election, they will lose the next election by a land slide, House, Senate and POTUS if they keep this BS up.

 

[70boiler]

I don't have the slightest idea how your comment even remotely is related to the gist of this thread topic.

 

[BoilerJS]

I don't have the slightest idea how your comment even remotely is related to the gist of this thread topic.

I was making fun of the ridiculousness of your post.
And playing my own what if game. The difference is the ridiculousness of my post actually happened and is happening. Your scenario didn't happen but probably should have. You want to find corruption, follow the money.

 

[70boiler]

I was making fun of the ridiculousness of your post.
And playing my own what if game. The difference is the ridiculousness of my post actually happened and is happening. Your scenario didn't happen but probably should have. You want to find corruption, follow the money.

That's just bizarre

 

[indy35]

Did you sleep through the 2018 midterm? Democratic landslide.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Did you sleep through the 2018 midterm? Democratic landslide.

What do you call the Obama midterms then? They were worse for the Ds than 2018 was for the Rs. That's a fact, jack.

 

[indy35]

What do you call the Obama midterms then? They were worse for the Ds than 2018 was for the Rs. That's a fact, jack.

That was a Republican landslide, what's your point?

 

[SDBoiler1]

That was a Republican landslide, what's your point?

2018 wasn’t a landslide by historical standards. It was about typical for midterm elections historically or perhaps slightly worse than average. The President’s party nearly always loses seats in the midterms in recent history.

In Obama’s midterms Ds lost their asses, especially the one year.

 

[70boiler]

2018 wasn’t a landslide by historical standards. It was about typical for midterm elections historically or perhaps slightly worse than average. The President’s party nearly always loses seats in the midterms in recent history.

In Obama’s midterms Ds lost their asses, especially the one year.

Lmao... nothing like a "Mine's bigger than yours" argument to sort things out.

 

[miksta]

Lmao... nothing like a "Mine's bigger than yours" argument to sort things out.

And he was also just wrong. It was the third biggest gain by any party in the last 40 years.

 

[SDBoiler1]

And he was also just wrong. It was the third biggest gain by any party in the last 40 years.

Rs GAINED 2 Senate seats in 2018. If you go back to 1916, this was NOT the historical rout you make it seem. Sorry.