Negative. A lower court has ruled that they should have it. Barr won't deliver until the SCOTUS directs him to do so.
Congress now has all of the grand jury testimony and everything else related to the Mueller Probe
Assuming the SCOTUS hears a incredibly false premise.Negative. A lower court has ruled that they should have it. Barr won't deliver until the SCOTUS directs him to do so.
Your opinion appears to be that Barr will misrepresent the facts, or even outright lie to achieve an indictment where there is no actionable evidence. Is that correct? If so, It seems as though the presiding judge would have some control over that process.
I'm not familiar with the workings of a grand jury, so it could be that Barr can manipulate the information in any way he chooses to achieve an indictment, but I would assume that path has consequences for Barr if he's using fraudulent or incomplete information. What's to prevent any prosecutor from weaponizing the system?
I'll have to read up on the process when I have a little time.
Barr can do as he pleases but now his evidence and methods are open to the legally recognized powers impeachment brings. Barr has demonstrated egregious abuse of office with protecting Trump from the law. Barr could be impeached and removed by the party which has no problems with a Trump lawyer arguing for immunity to commit nonstop stop murder, but Barr has no buffer- indeed he's facing potential imprisonment not from an ordinary congressional contempt threat which he laughed at, but court ordered jail with another can of worms possible, which is limiting Presidential pardon which i think likely if an attempt to free Barr, Rudy, or whomever is aiding Trump in noncompliance. Why? Because it would be the absolute of impeachment vs pardon for corrupt self interest in an impeachment.
We can only hope for the country, that he gets his turn in the barrel.Your opinion appears to be that Barr will misrepresent the facts, or even outright lie to achieve an indictment where there is no actionable evidence. Is that correct? If so, It seems as though the presiding judge would have some control over that process.
I'm not familiar with the workings of a grand jury, so it could be that Barr can manipulate the information in any way he chooses to achieve an indictment, but I would assume that path has consequences for Barr if he's using fraudulent or incomplete information. What's to prevent any prosecutor from weaponizing the system?
I'll have to read up on the process when I have a little time.
That's an overly long string of speculation. No federal court ruling is final until it reaches the SCOTUS. The chances of Barr not complying with their eventual ruling is functionally zero. He'll be stalling every inch of the way in an appropriately lawyerly fashion. He's too smart to expose himself to personal legal liability.
Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. I'm talking about Barr in front of a grand jury presenting evidence for an indictment. Yes he gets to choose what information is presented, but isn't there also a judge present? And if his evidence is tainted or fictional wouldn't that judge halt the proceedings?Barr can do as he pleases but now his evidence and methods are open to the legally recognized powers impeachment brings. Barr has demonstrated egregious abuse of office with protecting Trump from the law. Barr could be impeached and removed by the party which has no problems with a Trump lawyer arguing for immunity to commit nonstop stop murder, but Barr has no buffer- indeed he's facing potential imprisonment not from an ordinary congressional contempt threat which he laughed at, but court ordered jail with another can of worms possible, which is limiting Presidential pardon which i think likely if an attempt to free Barr, Rudy, or whomever is aiding Trump in noncompliance. Why? Because it would be the absolute of impeachment vs pardon for corrupt self interest in an impeachment.
Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. I'm talking about Barr in front of a grand jury presenting evidence for an indictment. Yes he gets to choose what information is presented, but isn't there also a judge present? And if his evidence is tainted or fictional wouldn't that judge halt the proceedings?
It would be Durham or his staff rather than Barr. It's just a splashy PR stunt from Barr, something to pull attention away from Trump's woes. What it means is that anybody who demanded a subpoena to testify will get one, regardless of their reasons for doing so.Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. I'm talking about Barr in front of a grand jury presenting evidence for an indictment. Yes he gets to choose what information is presented, but isn't there also a judge present? And if his evidence is tainted or fictional wouldn't that judge halt the proceedings?
Your opinion appears to be that Barr will misrepresent the facts, or even outright lie to achieve an indictment where there is no actionable evidence. Is that correct? If so, It seems as though the presiding judge would have some control over that process.
I'm not familiar with the workings of a grand jury, so it could be that Barr can manipulate the information in any way he chooses to achieve an indictment, but I would assume that path has consequences for Barr if he's using fraudulent or incomplete information. What's to prevent any prosecutor from weaponizing the system?
I'll have to read up on the process when I have a little time.
Fair enough. I'll reserve judgement until I see what (if anything) comes out of the Grand Jury.Yes, you read me correctly. I'm only basing that off of what he's already done, multiple times. Most recently with the Mueller Report.
The reason I think he will pursue this route, regardless of what a presiding judge does to squash it...is that they simply don't care. Trump and Barr are well outside the law now, and that's been the case for some time. They aren't interested in procedure, law, ethics--they are only interested in crafting a story that the base will love. They've decided that their court is public opinion, and Trump really does have a grasp on controlling the minds of his people.
Funny, when Barr went to Italy to dig up dirt, the Italian PM said they had zero clue as to what he was investigating about. When this is over, he needs to be investigated.
Just as a point of fact, there is no judge at a federal grand jury hearing. It is expected that the prosecutor wants a unbiased opinion, and it is assumed that the prosecutor is acting in good faith. A grand jury is not intended to be a trial, it is just intended to be a objective check to prevent the courts from wasting their time.Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. I'm talking about Barr in front of a grand jury presenting evidence for an indictment. Yes he gets to choose what information is presented, but isn't there also a judge present? And if his evidence is tainted or fictional wouldn't that judge halt the proceedings?
Comical is the term that comes to mind in regard to how the Repubs up on the Hill are attempting to shield their president from the consequences of his own actions.
Too little too late it seems. Whatever the Repubs are up to will not change the direction that the investigation is moving in and it sure does look like Trump is headed for a really bad time of which his lawyers can't do much about.
As expected Trump kept witnesses from testifying and the man with the best brain couldn’t recall anything.Isnt that what was said about the Mueller report? Whatever happened to that?
Isnt that what was said about the Mueller report? Whatever happened to that?
Has the Justice Dept. finally given up on going after McCabe?
Justice Department withdraws secrecy argument on McCabe files
DOJ attorneys said they were no longer arguing that public release of records about Andrew McCabe would interfere with an ongoing enforcement action.www.politico.com
That whole investigation stinks to high heaven.I read that as they’re desperate to give right wing media something to talk about other than impeachment. Seems like the criminal case is ongoing.
That whole investigation stinks to high heaven.