If Democrats in Congress subpoena documents illegal to release is that a criminal conspiracy?

Born Free said:

Which no one who Mueller indicted had anything to do with Trump and the Russian, they were all exonerated along with Trump, You lost and I'm arty partying.

Click to expand...

Does it matter that the investigation did not lead to indictments against Trump but did so with many of his key advisors and staff? We are not privy to the details yet so I am reserving judgement as to the nature of Trump's involvement in this entire affair. There was nothing to lose, it was a matter of clearing what appeared to be a massive conflict of interest and clear obstruction by Trump for firing Comey. That has not been proven to be exonerated yet so I would not party too soon. The one redeeming aspect of this was that it was very clear to any but Trump supporters that Trump did not hire the best and brightest, far from it.

joko104 said:

The summary of the Mueller report makes it very clear it is criminally illegal to release grand jury matters, citing the statute. Despite this, many Democrats in Congress (nearly all lawyers) said they are going to vote to subpoena those prohibited documents.

Click to expand...

It is Congresses job to oversee the executive branch and ultimately to decide what the American people do and do not have a right to know. There are many things that the average person should not be required to make public knowledge about themselves just because they were under investigation. The President is not an average person. The people have a right to know what if any evidence there may have been linking the Trump campaign to Russia. We are not required to rely on the word of a Republican Attorney General who himself was appointed by the very President that is under investigation. Legal Ethics should have required Barr to recuse himself from the decision entirely in the first place.

bubbabgone said:

Sorry, but if evidence of collusion was there Mueller would have noted it. "Can't be established" is like saying "Just don't see it"
If it was inconclusive he would have done something similar to what he did with obstruction.

Click to expand...

The point is we don't know what Mueller noted or what he didn't. All we know is the top line recommendation against criminal charges with regard to conspiracy or coordination with the Russian government. And it's just fact that "did not establish," which is a legal term of art, simply isn't the same thing as "found no evidence that."

It's also not a given that Mueller would treat the two charges equivalently. Conspiracy or coordination with the Russian government is a specific charge with lots of prosecutorial precedent - what needs to be established to criminally charge and have a roughly 85% chance of obtaining a conviction in court. One of his main jobs was making that determination, and he did it, and we all have to accept it. But accepting that isn't to also accept "NO COLLUSION!" because they're different assertions.

I really don't want to pollute the thread with Hillary's emails, but the parallels are instructive here. FBI and DOJ concluded that she shouldn't be charged with a crime and prosecuted, but for three years (nearly) we've had non-stop discussions about whether that decision was proper, etc., and also that just because DoJ didn't believe it could prevail in court did NOT mean Hillary did nothing wrong. So we cannot have had that now years long debate and then we "democrats" be asked to accept - no charges = no wrongdoing! Until we see the report, we can't decide anything like that in this case.

Obstruction, on the other hand, is complicated by the fact the person involved is POTUS, and there's been no shortage of Trump supporting lawyers argue effectively that 'if the President does it, it's not obstruction.' So we've heard arguments that because he CAN fire the FBI director, firing him cannot be "obstruction" even if the evidence shows pretty conclusively he did it to stop the investigation. The point is those are tough legal questions, and it's reasonable for Mueller to punt on that and defer first to DoJ proper and the AG, then to Congress. The problem there is Congress cannot make the political decision (which is where the legal experts saying, 'if POTUS does it, it's not a crime' argue is the proper venue) without the report laying out the case for obstruction, in a legal or political sense.

I didn't claim that.
The day Barr's letter came out I made that distinction.

Click to expand...

The person I initially responded to did make that claim, directly, using the term "exonerated." But you're right, you didn't.

But the fact remains the AG did review what Mueller reported and he and Rosenstein concluded there wasn't enough to charge obstruction.
If there was, Mueller would have recommended it himself unless he left it open for another reason.
You'll have to decide what that might be.

Click to expand...

See above - in short there are significant legal questions about whether and to what extent the POTUS CAN obstruct, if what he is doing is within his legal prerogatives.

Bottom line is if the POTUS cannot legally 'obstruct' an investigation by exercising his legal prerogatives as President, which is one common legal argument, then the decision about what is 'obstruction' is political, i.e. impeachment. And that cannot be evaluated without the facts, hence, show us the report!

Vadinho said:

Does it matter that the investigation did not lead to indictments against Trump but did so with many of his key advisors and staff?

Click to expand...

It does not bother me one little bit. If Trump had a brother and he shot and killed someone does that make Trump somehow guilty? Hell know.

We are not privy to the details yet so I am reserving judgement as to the nature of Trump's involvement in this entire affair.

Click to expand...

You can wait until the cows come home but Trump and everyone involved in his campaign were exonerated from anying Russia. Period,

There was nothing to lose, it was a matter of clearing what appeared to be a massive conflict of interest and clear obstruction by Trump for firing Comey.

Click to expand...

There you go off the deep end. Please post up your PROOF that Trump obstructed anything. You also prove you are not well informed, Trump could fire Comey any time he wanted that is the presidents prerogative. Pweiod

That has not been proven to be exonerated yet so I would not party too soon.

Click to expand...

THE EXTREMELY THOROUGH PROBE TURNED UP NOTHING

The investigation of the President and his campaign by Robert Mueller included 19 investigative lawyers, 40 agents, 2800 subpoenas, contact with 13 foreign governments, interviews of 500 witnesses, and it cost over $25 million over 625 days.

The conclusion of Mueller’s investigation is they “did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Mueller did not find that the campaign conspired or knowingly coordinated with Russia’s efforts on social media to influence the election. Nor did he find that the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking of various email accounts. All of this, “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

The headline is there is NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION.

The President not only didn’t collude, he rebuffed all efforts to do so.

In Barr’s words, Mueller “does not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct [by President Trump] constituted obstruction.” In Mueller’s words, “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

HUH? What did we hire Mueller to do? He left it to Barr to decide and, with Rod Rosenstein’s help, he did. There is none.

BARR DID DECIDE! HE SAID THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION
Barr has concluded that the elements of the crime of obstruction of justice are not present here. He states:

The report identifies no actions that, in our judgement, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

When Mueller left this to Bill Barr, he made him a target, gave a nugget to the Democrat media and the Democrats, and didn’t do his job. Mark Levin said he didn’t pursue obstruction because there was no probable cause — no evidence. He says Mueller did this to smear the President.

The one redeeming aspect of this was that it was very clear to any but Trump supporters that Trump did not hire the best and brightest, far from it.

Click to expand...

Sorry, when you look at Trumps policy successes, he has a brilliant team.. VS Obama who was a complete failure.

You lost arty and I'm Partying

It is not illegal for Congress to see Grand Jury proceedings. Thus, this thread is completely off-base. Oh, how do I know that grand jury testimony is permissible to be sceen by Congress? Because that's what happened during Watergate!

The grand jury’s only thesis, such as it is, was “that the evidence referred to above [should] be transmitted forthwith to the House Judiciary Committee for such use as it considers appropriate.”

Click to expand...

Since this "poll" is based upon a bogus question, I didn't respond.

bubbabgone said:

Forget the gang of 8. Schiff was talking to the media before his hearings ended. He above all can't be trusted. He's one of the most dishonest in a bunch noted for dishonesty.

Click to expand...

Devin "I sued my cow!" Nunes ring a bell? And if anyone in the Congress believes Schiff leaked Gang of Eight material, they should file a complaint or charge him. I've seen no evidence he has and I don't think you can provide any examples of him doing it.

The important details of the report should be released to everyone.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. But at its core the Mueller investigation was a counterintelligence investigation, or included a big element of that at least, and it's entirely appropriate for the Gang of Eight to see what he found in that regard, classified or not. Just for example, let's assume the infamous pee tape exists and Mueller found evidence of it. That's not illegal in any way, but it would compromise POTUS in a big way and Congress should know that. Same if Russian interests hold $2 billion in paper on Trump properties, and can call it and bankrupt him. That's not illegal, but Congress should know. Etc. I'm not suggesting any of that is true, but the point is there is a LOT beyond criminality that is important in this investigation, and we only know the criminal part, and only a sliver of that investigation. It's not enough.

FISA warrants aren't grand jury testimony and I suspect you'll be seeing why certain ones are problematic after the IG issues his report.
The democrats are anxious to see the report because they need something to distort on the campaign trail, as is their wont.
Remember where you heard it.

Click to expand...

Great, you support the IG looking into that, and all I'm suggesting is Congress has a chance to look into the details of the Mueller investigation including the classified parts of it and issue THEIR report. It's part of those checks and balances thing, sunlight is the best disinfectant, etc.

Born Free said:

...
Sorry, when you look at Trumps policy successes, he has a brilliant team.. VS Obama who was a complete failure.

You lost arty and I'm Partying

Click to expand...

Brilliant team? The Trump administration is a kakistocracy, which means rule by the worst.

A few months ago NY Times columnist Gail Collins asked readers to help her select Trump’s worst cabinet member. It was a hard choice, because there were so many qualified applicants.The winner, by the way, was Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary. That looks like an even better call now: Ross’s department has reportedly prepared a report declaring that imports of European cars threaten U.S. national security. This is both ludicrous and dangerous. It gives Trump the right to start a new phase in his trade war that would inflict severe economic damage while alienating our allies.

Trump's team also included Larry Kudlow, his chief economist, who is well known for getting everything wrong. Now, Trump said he planned to nominate Stephen Moore for the Federal Reserve. Moore is manifestly, flamboyantly unqualified for the position. Moore has also been wrong about everything. His track record includes predicting that George W. Bush’s policies would produce a magnificent boom, Barack Obama’s policies would lead to runaway inflation, tax cuts in Kansas would produce a “near immediate” boost to the state’s economy, and much more. And, of course, never an acknowledgment of error or reflection on why he got it wrong.


Beyond that, Moore has a problem with facts. After printing a Moore op-ed in which all the key numbers were wrong, one editor vowed never to publish the man’s work again.

So, which policies were a success? The tax-cut, predicted massive investment. It didn't happen. It also predicted much higher growth. That didn't happen -- growth is the same as the last five years. What it did do brilliantly is create more debt.

How about those tariffs? Those were a failure too -- harming farmers to the point that Trump had to bail them out and causing job losses in the auto industry. With brilliance like that and $500,000, you can bribe your way into UCLA.

Born Free said:

It does not bother me one little bit. If Trump had a brother and he shot and killed someone does that make Trump somehow guilty? Hell know.



You can wait until the cows come home but Trump and everyone involved in his campaign were exonerated from anying Russia. Period,



There you go off the deep end. Please post up your PROOF that Trump obstructed anything. You also prove you are not well informed, Trump could fire Comey any time he wanted that is the presidents prerogative. Pweiod



THE EXTREMELY THOROUGH PROBE TURNED UP NOTHING

The investigation of the President and his campaign by Robert Mueller included 19 investigative lawyers, 40 agents, 2800 subpoenas, contact with 13 foreign governments, interviews of 500 witnesses, and it cost over $25 million over 625 days.

The conclusion of Mueller’s investigation is they “did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Mueller did not find that the campaign conspired or knowingly coordinated with Russia’s efforts on social media to influence the election. Nor did he find that the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking of various email accounts. All of this, “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

The headline is there is NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION.

The President not only didn’t collude, he rebuffed all efforts to do so.

In Barr’s words, Mueller “does not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct [by President Trump] constituted obstruction.” In Mueller’s words, “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

HUH? What did we hire Mueller to do? He left it to Barr to decide and, with Rod Rosenstein’s help, he did. There is none.

BARR DID DECIDE! HE SAID THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION
Barr has concluded that the elements of the crime of obstruction of justice are not present here. He states:

The report identifies no actions that, in our judgement, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

When Mueller left this to Bill Barr, he made him a target, gave a nugget to the Democrat media and the Democrats, and didn’t do his job. Mark Levin said he didn’t pursue obstruction because there was no probable cause — no evidence. He says Mueller did this to smear the President.



Sorry, when you look at Trumps policy successes, he has a brilliant team.. VS Obama who was a complete failure.

You lost arty and I'm Partying

Click to expand...

Boy, that was a lot of really good right wing gibberish meant to exonerate Trump from his actions and associates given none of us has seen the report nor the evidence. But we are in a post-democratic system now, it's all about our dear leader, nothing else matters to people like you including the integrity of our institutions and the norms of governance. If you added up Trump's record and compared it to Obama, you would find very little to brag about in regard to Trump. In a nutshell, he is a skid mark on the nation's underwear that tons of Tide and bleach will never remove. We will just have to throw the filthy thing away.

MTAtech said:

Brilliant team? The Trump administration is a kakistocracy, which means rule by the worst.

Click to expand...

No surprise, there is not a liberal that supports anything Trump does. You don't support what Trump as done with the economy, Trump creating jobs you hate. Bringing back manufacturing jobs you don't support, because Obama said those jobs are not coming back. You don't support that our unemployment rate is at 3.7%. You don't support of solid year at 3% GDP. You don't support Trump telling NATO to pay up their fair share of the NATO agreement which is 2% of their GDP and now the members are paying up more than ever, making NATO stronger than ever. You don't support Trump taking on China to level the playing field on China's tariffs and you don't support Trump in trying to stop China from stealing our intellectual capital. You don't support Trump taking out ISIS. You don't support Trump having to go and enforce Obama's RED LINE on Syria. You don't support Trump's efforts to pull in NK and you don't support Trump bringing home our held hostages. And you really don't support that Trump got some but not all of the remains of our brave men and woman who lost their lives in NK. No president before him as done that. You don't support Trump renegotiating NAFTA to get a better deal. You don't support Trumps border security. You don't support Trump approving the Keystone Pipeline that is safer and less costly to move the oil. You don't support Trump opening up ANWAR. You really don't support the stock market is at record highs. And this really pisses you off, you don't support Trump appointing Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the SC. Christ I could go on and on but when you compare Trump successes vs Obama's, Trump has lots of successes vs Obama who was a complete failure. Tell me what does Obama have to hang in his billion dollar shrine to himself, nothing that I know of, but he has all the failure he wants to hang up.

What it did do brilliantly is create more debt.

Click to expand...

See, Trump has a hot economy, and what did Obama do, he borrowed 10 trillion adding to the national debt and all we got for it was the "worst economic recovery in US History"

How about those tariffs? Those were a failure too -- harming farmers to the point that Trump had to bail them out and causing job losses in the auto industry.

Click to expand...

Hell you want instant gratification, Trump and China are in talks as we speak, vs Obama who didn't now China existed.

Yeah I know you support China's tariffs that take away over 500 billion a year because of their tariffs.

That Giant New Toyota-Mazda Car Plant in Alabama Could End Up Even Bigger Than Expected
New Toyota-Mazda Car Plant in Alabama Could Be Huge | Fortune

Detroit — Fiat Chrysler needs to add capacity to build new Jeeps, CEO Mike Manley said at the Detroit auto show Monday. The automaker is expected this month to announce details about where it will add that capacity.

The Detroit News reported in December that Fiat Chrysler had plans to convert the idled Mack Avenue Engine II plant in Detroit into an assembly plant as part of the automaker's plans to add two new three-row Jeep SUVs to its lineup.

Detroit — Fiat Chrysler needs to add capacity to build new Jeeps, CEO Mike Manley said at the Detroit auto show Monday. The automaker is expected this month to announce details about where it will add that capacity.

ttps://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/chrysler/2019/01/14/details-new-fiat-chrysler-plant-coming-this-month/2572679002/

I also know you do not support Trump trying to pull in China stealing our intellectual capital, you really hate Trump doing that.

And remember Obama lost 11.2 billion of taxpayer money bailing out GM and he gave Solyndra 538 million that we taxpayers completely lost.

I will say Obama really surrounded himself with some of the dumbest people to add to our national debt 10 trillion in just 8 yr. And the bailout money he lost, surrounded by dumbassed. And those same dumbasses with Obama presided over the worst economic recovery in US History

Vadinho said:

Boy, that was a lot of really good right wing gibberish meant to exonerate Trump from his actions and associates given none of us has seen the report nor the evidence.

Click to expand...

Christ you just got the AG's summary, that exorated Trump colluding with the Russians and anyone in his campaign. Further Mueller passed off to he AG for him to decide the obstruction case, Barr found nothing in Mueller's report to suggest any wrong doing with obstruction. So you can wait around until the cows come home and nothing is going to change.

But we are in a post-democratic system now, it's all about our dear leader, nothing else matters to people like you including the integrity of our institutions and the norms of governance.

Click to expand...

Yeah you like that status quo, Crooked IRS targeting Republicans, you love a crooked bias FBI, and the DOJ under Obama that many have been fired, demoted or have quit. You love it that Crooked Hillary paid for a phony dossier by the Russian and given to the FBI so that they could use that phony dossier to give to a judge to issue a FISA warrant. You loved it when Crooked Hillary destroyed 30,000 e-mail that she had on a private server that she had bleached. I know your idea of integrity and norms of governance, it's full of

If you added up Trump's record and compared it to Obama, you would find very little to brag about in regard to Trump. In a nutshell, he is a skid mark on the nation's underwear that tons of Tide and bleach will never remove. We will just have to throw the filthy thing away.

Click to expand...

Here we go, I will respond latter with more detail. You'll love it.

No surprise, there is not a liberal that supports anything Trump does. You don't support what Trump as done with the economy, Trump creating jobs you hate. Bringing back manufacturing jobs you don't support, because Obama said those jobs are not coming back. You don't support that our unemployment rate is at 3.7%. You don't support of solid year at 3% GDP. You don't support Trump telling NATO to pay up their fair share of the NATO agreement which is 2% of their GDP and now the members are paying up more than ever, making NATO stronger than ever. You don't support Trump taking on China to level the playing field on China's tariffs and you don't support Trump in trying to stop China from stealing our intellectual capital. You don't support Trump taking out ISIS. You don't support Trump having to go and enforce Obama's RED LINE on Syria. You don't support Trump's efforts to pull in NK and you don't support Trump bringing home our held hostages. And you really don't support that Trump got some but not all of the remains of our brave men and woman who lost their lives in NK. No president before him as done that. You don't support Trump renegotiating NAFTA to get a better deal. You don't support Trumps border security. You don't support Trump approving the Keystone Pipeline that is safer and less costly to move the oil. You don't support Trump opening up ANWAR. You really don't support the stock market is at record highs. And this really pisses you off, you don't support Trump appointing Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the SC. Christ I could go on and on but when you compare Trump successes vs Obama's, Trump has lots of successes vs Obama who was a complete failure. Tell me what does Obama have to hang in his billion dollar shrine to himself, nothing that I know of, but he has all the failure he wants to hang up.

Our good friend Born Free uses the spaghetti method of argument — throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

Let’s just remember that Trump’s efforts, regardless of how well meaning, to deal with China or North Korea, were failures. We haven’t had a year of 3% gdp growth. It was 2.9%, the same as 2015. His economic policies, which have basically been tax cuts for the rich and corporations coupled with policies that make the air and water dirtier along with tariffs that hurt Americans. The totality have been complete failures.

As as far as stocks are concerned, 2017 was a good year but stocks have done nothing since.

What Trump is best at is taking credit. Unemployment has been on a downward slope for a decade but he bathes in the glory of low unemployment, not because of any policies but because he happens to be there at the time.

His Foreign policy objectives have resulted in fracturing decade old alliances while not getting NATO countries to pay more — as if that is an important objective compared to world peace.

An objective review of any of his results tests as failures but his cult view them as successes because he says so.

JasperL said:

Devin "I sued my cow!" Nunes ring a bell? And if anyone in the Congress believes Schiff leaked Gang of Eight material, they should file a complaint or charge him. I've seen no evidence he has and I don't think you can provide any examples of him doing it.



Yes, of course. But at its core the Mueller investigation was a counterintelligence investigation, or included a big element of that at least, and it's entirely appropriate for the Gang of Eight to see what he found in that regard, classified or not. Just for example, let's assume the infamous pee tape exists and Mueller found evidence of it. That's not illegal in any way, but it would compromise POTUS in a big way and Congress should know that. Same if Russian interests hold $2 billion in paper on Trump properties, and can call it and bankrupt him. That's not illegal, but Congress should know. Etc. I'm not suggesting any of that is true, but the point is there is a LOT beyond criminality that is important in this investigation, and we only know the criminal part, and only a sliver of that investigation. It's not enough.



Great, you support the IG looking into that, and all I'm suggesting is Congress has a chance to look into the details of the Mueller investigation including the classified parts of it and issue THEIR report. It's part of those checks and balances thing, sunlight is the best disinfectant, etc.

Click to expand...

Your real point in all of that language-camouflage is that the Democratics are looking desperately to the Mueller report for any excuse for impeachment and campaign talking points so don't bother, what they're doing is not unexpected by me or anyone else who have ever observed how they operate.

bubbabgone said:

Your real point in all of that language-camouflage is that the Democratics are looking desperately to the Mueller report for any excuse for impeachment and campaign talking points so don't bother, what they're doing is not unexpected by me or anyone else who have ever observed how they operate.

Click to expand...

It shouldn't be unexpected because it's been the GOP strategy through all the Bill Clinton years then at least half the Obama years through TODAY, and last I heard BUTHEREMAILS! was going to be a major point in the 2020 election.

But I'll just note you ignored every point to essentially say, Democrats ===> BAD!!! Yes, we got it. In the meantime, let's see the report.

Like it, or not, the Dems will get their hands on the report and the American people can decide for themselves.

If Democrats in Congress subpoena documents illegal to release is that a criminal conspiracy?

Click to expand...

That's an easily answered question because once documents come into Congress' possession, Congress' status as a separate but equal branch of government makes them become within Congress' purview to opt to release or not release. Congress' authority to effect such releases comes from Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution, known as the "speech or debate" clause, whereby lawmakers are exempt from executive or judicial branch consequences -- such as criminal and civil penalties -- for "legislative acts" made as part of their official responsibilities.

• "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Thus, a member need only submit the document in question into the record of speech and debate during a public hearing, and, voila, it's released, and no charges can be brought as consequence of doing so.




See also:

• Congressional Authority to Obtain And Release Tax Returns and the various references in that document.
• Congressional Access to Executive Branch Information: Legislative Tools

Born Free said:

Never going to happen, there has never been a report that was released in full, never. What is released will be heavily redacted. Further there is classified info that is in someway comprised by an ongoing investigations. What your asking is not going to happen.



Not a damn thing, but in reality Barr is confined by the laws he works under, no matter how much you scream. What Barr outlined today if it was not accurate, Mueller and crew would know it, and you can bet there would be hell to pay if Barr LIED.

Click to expand...

Barr already testified during his confirmation hearings that he would release as much as he was legally allowed. Congress confirmed him. I guess they believed him. No reason that we should not. He's been vetted, and has not given any indication that he's not going to do exactly as he testified.

The truth hurts. Your problem is you were 100% certain Crooked Hillary was going to win, you lost. Then you were 100% certain Kavanagh was a gang leader for rape. You lost again, Kavanagh is a SCJ. Now for over 2 yrs your were 100% certain that Trump colluded with the Russians, you lost again. You're on the losing end with your hatred of Trump. I would move on if I was you, you could expel some of that hatred.

Click to expand...

This accusing Barr of something that he's not even done yet is just a pivot away from the failed Trump / Russian collusion meme and onto the next thing, so as to avoid facing accountability for 2+ years of propaganda from Democrats and their complicit propagandist 'new' media.

joko104 said:

The summary of the Mueller report makes it very clear it is criminally illegal to release grand jury matters, citing the statute. Despite this, many Democrats in Congress (nearly all lawyers) said they are going to vote to subpoena those prohibited documents.

Would that be a criminal conspiracy by them? If they voted to have someone assassinated, are they protected because they are in Congress? If they try to organize a vote to have documents made public that are illegal to see, have or divulge, isn't that a criminal conspiracy and if they actually vote to do so haven't they then committed a crime?

Click to expand...

Congress can subpoena anything they damn well please. They literally write the laws of this country. If they subpoena prohibited documents and get them --that means they literally are following the law to get those documents.

Honestly, what is so hard about this?

JasperL said:

It shouldn't be unexpected because it's been the GOP strategy through all the Bill Clinton years then at least half the Obama years through TODAY, and last I heard BUTHEREMAILS! was going to be a major point in the 2020 election.

But I'll just note you ignored every point to essentially say, Democrats ===> BAD!!! Yes, we got it. In the meantime, let's see the report.

Click to expand...

I didn't ignore your points ... I summarized them.

The Democrats are law abiding citizens we will not jeopardize the fbi or cia like trump would do we will not release anything that would hurt our intelligence organizations we are patriots to country first before self or party!!!

plutonium said:

The Democrats are law abiding citizens we will not jeopardize the fbi or cia like trump would do we will not release anything that would hurt our intelligence organizations we are patriots to country first before self or party!!!

Click to expand...

I agree that Democrats and Republicans are law abiding citizens. Unfortunately, it seems that many who call themselves Democrats are unable to accept the truth. They seem to have turned their disappointment at the outcome of the 2016 election into a blind hatred of the President. He isn't perfect, but we didn't have an election for perfection in past activity's. If we had, I doubt if either of us would be on the ballot. I know Hillary wouldn't have been on the ballot.

Each time I have heard him mention the FBI or CIA, he has been most cordial regarding the everyday, hard working agents. He just doesn't like Comey or Brennan. From the few things we have been allowed to see, I don't like their actions either.
Regards,
CP