Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nature Boy 2.0

Appeals court temporarily blocks release of Mueller grand jury material to Democrats

7 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sweet Satan, that Fox News article... I won't touch some clearly factual errors in the reporting in there (e.g., it is incorrect to say -- though it is often repeated, and incorrectly -- that Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy between Trump and Russia, but rather that there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution). There's actually precious little "news" about the ruling at all -- most of it is about the impeachment inquiry itself. The story is about -- or should be about -- why the court ruled as it did. What is important to note is that this is a procedural issue, not a substantive one, and the article does point to that. The reason is to give the DOJ more time to bring its case that the materials should not be disclosed. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-temporarily-blocks-release-of-mueller-grand-jury-materials/ar-AAJyjDi?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Sweet Satan, that Fox News article... I won't touch some clearly factual errors in the reporting in there (e.g., it is incorrect to say -- though it is often repeated, and incorrectly -- that Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy between Trump and Russia, but rather that there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution). There's actually precious little "news" about the ruling at all -- most of it is about the impeachment inquiry itself. The story is about -- or should be about -- why the court ruled as it did. What is important to note is that this is a procedural issue, not a substantive one, and the article does point to that. The reason is to give the DOJ more time to bring its case that the materials should not be disclosed. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-temporarily-blocks-release-of-mueller-grand-jury-materials/ar-AAJyjDi?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Is it fairly common for grand jury testimony to be made public?  And yes, I realize it is the House committees that would see this, but they are the representatives of the general public.  Additionally, we certainly know that anything even remotely damaging would certainly be leaked.


Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Is it fairly common for grand jury testimony to be made public?  And yes, I realize it is the House committees that would see this, but they are the representatives of the general public.  Additionally, we certainly know that anything even remotely damaging would certainly be leaked.

I think the better and more relevant question here is, is it fairly common for grand jury testimony to be made "public" (using your definition) in the context of an impeachment proceeding? We don't have a ton of precedent here, but we have to look at what is most analogous, rather than more generally. So what are the analogues?

 

Andrew Johnson

Not applicable; no grand jury convened (AFAIK) to deliberate on evidence relevant to impeachment proceedings.

 

Richard Nixon

Grand jury convened re the Watergate break-in; Nixon named (under seal) as unindicted co-conspirator. Jurors advised of OLC guidance that Nixon couldn't be indicted (probably) so impeachment would be the only way to address his alleged crimes. Evidence went to Congress at the request of the grand jury under seal. 

 

Bill Clinton

Grand jury empaneled; Clinton gave testimony.  AFAIK, this testimony was handed over because it formed the basis of articles of impeachment.

 

So it appears (and I say that in the most weaselly way possible) that there is precedent for grand jury testimony to be handed over under seal to Congress as part of impeachment proceedings where the officer being impeached is not the party to have given testimony to the grand jury. But I defer to the judges on the DC Circuit -- they know a lot more than I do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, elmcitymaven said:

I think the better and more relevant question here is, is it fairly common for grand jury testimony to be made "public" (using your definition) in the context of an impeachment proceeding? We don't have a ton of precedent here, but we have to look at what is most analogous, rather than more generally. So what are the analogues?

 

Andrew Johnson

Not applicable; no grand jury convened (AFAIK) to deliberate on evidence relevant to impeachment proceedings.

 

Richard Nixon

Grand jury convened re the Watergate break-in; Nixon named (under seal) as unindicted co-conspirator. Jurors advised of OLC guidance that Nixon couldn't be indicted (probably) so impeachment would be the only way to address his alleged crimes. Evidence went to Congress at the request of the grand jury under seal. 

 

Bill Clinton

Grand jury empaneled; Clinton gave testimony.  AFAIK, this testimony was handed over because it formed the basis of articles of impeachment.

 

So it appears (and I say that in the most weaselly way possible) that there is precedent for grand jury testimony to be handed over under seal to Congress as part of impeachment proceedings where the officer being impeached is not the party to have given testimony to the grand jury. But I defer to the judges on the DC Circuit -- they know a lot more than I do!

but the Russian probe has nothing to do with the phone call thingy ? It has been stated there was no collusion and not enough evidence on obstruction 

Edited by Nature Boy 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

but the Russian probe has nothing to do with the phone call thingy ? It has been stated there was no collusion and not enough evidence on obstruction 

I am nominally supposed to be working at the moment (shhhhhhhh.) so this is a quick and dirty analysis. Basically -- we don't know! The information they seek from the testimony was redacted from the report. But in order to get that testimony, the committee needs to prove that it is likely to lead to the development of facts and evidence relating to the question at hand. It doesn't need to pass the higher threshold of "relevance" that is needed for evidence to be admissible at trial -- we're still in the discovery phase. So if there is a good faith basis to seek the information, a court will uphold the disclosure. The court here has said it needs more time to consider the DOJ's argument that disclosure is not permissible. 

 

We just don't know right now. File under: unknown knowables. And it's good we don't know if the testimony is protected against disclosure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

I think the better and more relevant question here is, is it fairly common for grand jury testimony to be made "public" (using your definition) in the context of an impeachment proceeding? We don't have a ton of precedent here, but we have to look at what is most analogous, rather than more generally. So what are the analogues?

 

Andrew Johnson

Not applicable; no grand jury convened (AFAIK) to deliberate on evidence relevant to impeachment proceedings.

 

Richard Nixon

Grand jury convened re the Watergate break-in; Nixon named (under seal) as unindicted co-conspirator. Jurors advised of OLC guidance that Nixon couldn't be indicted (probably) so impeachment would be the only way to address his alleged crimes. Evidence went to Congress at the request of the grand jury under seal. 

 

Bill Clinton

Grand jury empaneled; Clinton gave testimony.  AFAIK, this testimony was handed over because it formed the basis of articles of impeachment.

 

So it appears (and I say that in the most weaselly way possible) that there is precedent for grand jury testimony to be handed over under seal to Congress as part of impeachment proceedings where the officer being impeached is not the party to have given testimony to the grand jury. But I defer to the judges on the DC Circuit -- they know a lot more than I do!

Wasn’t this suit to open the Grand Jury testimony brought forth prior to the Democrats “impeachment” proceedings were started?  Regardless, you can say one thing for the Swamp, a lot of lawyers are making a lot of money.


Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...