• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court approves a six-month extension for the Grand Jury

Seriously, "it has nothing to do with the House"? It has everything to do with the House of Representatives.

No, it has nothing to do with the House.

That is precisely who will ultimately get Mueller's recommendations.

Mueller isn't going to make any recommendations; that's not his job. He will file a report of his findings with the Attorney General.

Where do you think the decisions will be made as to who gets indicted

The Department of Justice, the only place in the federal government which may do such a thing.

or if Trump gets impeached?

That is up to the House. But that has nothing to do with who gets Mueller's report.

Rod Rosenstein is still overseeing the Mueller investigation and Robert Mueller will present his findings to him

No.








[h=1]28 CFR 600.8 - Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.[/h]

prev | next
§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.
(a)Budget.
(1) A Special Counsel shall be provided all appropriate resources by the Department of Justice. Within the first 60 days of his or her appointment, the Special Counsel shall develop a proposed budget for the current fiscal year with the assistance of the Justice Management Division for the Attorney General's review and approval. Based on the proposal, the Attorney General shall establish a budget for the operations of the Special Counsel. The budget shall include a request for assignment of personnel, with a description of the qualifications needed.
(2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year. The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.
(b)Notification of significant events. The Special Counsel shall notify the Attorney General of events in the course of his or her investigation in conformity with the Departmental guidelines with respect to Urgent Reports.











(c)Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.8

they're not going to rot in the bottom drawer of Matt Whitakers bottom desk drawer if that's what you think.

I do not think anything other than what I said, that Mueller's report will be delivered confidentially to the Attorney General, as required, and that there is no requirement for the Attorney General to share it with the House (or make it public).


Furthermore, if Trump or Whitaker attempt to cut off the Mueller investigation and don't allow him to complete his work, the Democratic House has already stated that they will subpoena Mueller to be questioned in a public, televised forum to describe in full detail the results of his investigation.

Great. I didn't say anything remotely otherwise.
 
There's already been several guilty pleas and prison sentences, one has already served his prison sentence. I'm sure that Jared Kushner, Don Jr., Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi aren't getting much sleep these nights. Don Jr. may be able to get a pardon from his daddy, and Jared may get one from Trump but Trump just cannot pardon everyone in a criminal case, including himself!

Where is the criminal collusion that we have been told over and over that president is guilty of?
You have people charged with crimes that had NOTHING to do with the 2016 election. Nothing.....
Years old financial issues or stupid people lied to the FBI??
 
I'm not so sure he is unable to get more extensions. Do you have any information to support that contention?

In any case, he doesn't HAVE to have a Grand Jury. Heck, he has the full investigative resources of the US government at his disposal. The Grand Jury is only useful for compelling people to talk and for bringing charges without going through the DOJ...and we've seen him go through the DOJ already.

Another possibility, though remote, is that the Attorney General might just TELL him to wrap it up by a certain date and submit whatever he has.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-04/mueller-s-dc-grand-jury-granted-more-time-to-investigate

According to this article by Bloomberg, the six month extension applies to the Grand Jury that's been sitting on this panel for the past 18 months. If, after the six month term of extension expires, there is still more that Mueller wants to pursue then he'll have to empower a completely new panel of jurors.

[snip] Expiration of the panel’s term won’t necessarily spell the end of the special counsel’s work either, Waxman said. Mueller could impanel a new grand jury if work remains to be done, the attorney said, explaining that’s something prosecutors prefer not to do because it may result in having to present evidence that had already been heard by the prior panel.

"It would be burdensome to put that testimony before a new grand jury," because sometimes that testimony must be imparted in the form of transcripts read to the new panel, absent context and a live witness’s demeanor, former Chicago federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti said.

Former Justice Department lawyer Ryan Fayhee echoed that point. "They clearly invested a lot in this particular grand jury and they don’t want to redo it," he said.[/snip]
 
No, it has nothing to do with the House.



Mueller isn't going to make any recommendations; that's not his job. He will file a report of his findings with the Attorney General.



The Department of Justice, the only place in the federal government which may do such a thing.



That is up to the House. But that has nothing to do with who gets Mueller's report.



No.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.8



I do not think anything other than what I said, that Mueller's report will be delivered confidentially to the Attorney General, as required, and that there is no requirement for the Attorney General to share it with the House (or make it public).




Great. I didn't say anything remotely otherwise.

Oh trust me, Matt Whitaker will most certainly refer it to the responsible party which is the House.
 
There's already been several guilty pleas and prison sentences, one has already served his prison sentence. I'm sure that Jared Kushner, Don Jr., Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi aren't getting much sleep these nights. Don Jr. may be able to get a pardon from his daddy, and Jared may get one from Trump but Trump just cannot pardon everyone in a criminal case, including himself!

What is it you believe that Corsi and Stone are guilty of?
 
Yes, I read it today, this is a one-time extension and there will absolutely be no more. I will search for the link. But there's another reason why Mueller will have to finish this up this year. There's a five year statute of limitations in the federal system for most crimes. It says you can only be prosecuted from five years based on the last time you committed a crime. On a charge of conspiracy for example, that's five years from the last incident of conspiracy. The clock is running and Trump is worried about what the SDNY will do and if he's impeached, say within a year, he would be out of office and fair game for the prosecutors of the southern district and they would be well within the statute of limitations for prosecution.

Well, you have a lot of speculation going on what with "conspiracy", "SDNY", "impeachment", etc. Heck, I don't even know where you get the notion that Trump is worried about the SDNY? Has he said something to that effect? I haven't heard it.

In any case, it ultimately falls to the Attorney General to decide to try to make a case and prosecute it after Trump is out of office. Mueller has absolutely no say in the matter. Neither does SDNY.

So, I have to say that your "statute of limitations" thing is a moot point.

I'll wait patiently for your link.
 
Where is the criminal collusion that we have been told over and over that president is guilty of?
You have people charged with crimes that had NOTHING to do with the 2016 election. Nothing.....
Years old financial issues or stupid people lied to the FBI??

Worry about all that when Mueller comes out with the results of this investigation, don't get yourself all bent out of shape about it now, it's too soon.
 
Well, you have a lot of speculation going on what with "conspiracy", "SDNY", "impeachment", etc. Heck, I don't even know where you get the notion that Trump is worried about the SDNY? Has he said something to that effect? I haven't heard it.

In any case, it ultimately falls to the Attorney General to decide to try to make a case and prosecute it after Trump is out of office. Mueller has absolutely no say in the matter. Neither does SDNY.

So, I have to say that your "statute of limitations" thing is a moot point.

I'll wait patiently for your link.

Beyond Trump's fears of impeachment, or fear that his children will be indicted, he's afraid of what happens afterwards if impeachment ever comes. If some bombshell drops in the Mueller investigation, something that brings Republicans to the table, once he's out of office he's no longer immune from indictment. He will still be brought up on charges and they will be well within the statute of limitations. This is what's driving all this madness.

Listen if you want links, get them yourself. I'm not your teacher or mother, be a grown up and look it up and stop being lazy and expect the world to cater to your whims. I've already given you one to the Bloomberg article, if you want any more links then go get them.
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-04/mueller-s-dc-grand-jury-granted-more-time-to-investigate

According to this article by Bloomberg, the six month extension applies to the Grand Jury that's been sitting on this panel for the past 18 months. If, after the six month term of extension expires, there is still more that Mueller wants to pursue then he'll have to empower a completely new panel of jurors.

[snip] Expiration of the panel’s term won’t necessarily spell the end of the special counsel’s work either, Waxman said. Mueller could impanel a new grand jury if work remains to be done, the attorney said, explaining that’s something prosecutors prefer not to do because it may result in having to present evidence that had already been heard by the prior panel.

"It would be burdensome to put that testimony before a new grand jury," because sometimes that testimony must be imparted in the form of transcripts read to the new panel, absent context and a live witness’s demeanor, former Chicago federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti said.

Former Justice Department lawyer Ryan Fayhee echoed that point. "They clearly invested a lot in this particular grand jury and they don’t want to redo it," he said.[/snip]

Thanks for this.

Absent any other information, I'll take the article's word for it. It does stand to reason that jurors wouldn't be empaneled for an indefinite time through successive extensions.

But, as the article stated, Mueller could get another Grand Jury. Even with the drawbacks, doing that might be to his advantage.

So no...I don't agree that July is any kind of deadline.
 
Beyond Trump's fears of impeachment, or fear that his children will be indicted, he's afraid of what happens afterwards if impeachment ever comes. If some bombshell drops in the Mueller investigation, something that brings Republicans to the table, once he's out of office he's no longer immune from indictment. He will still be brought up on charges and they will be well within the statute of limitations. This is what's driving all this madness.

Listen if you want links, get them yourself. I'm not your teacher or mother, be a grown up and look it up and stop being lazy and expect the world to cater to your whims. I've already given you one to the Bloomberg article, if you want any more links then go get them.

sigh...

You are making statements that I question...and then you tell ME to go find the answer. No. I won't. I'll just dismiss your statements out of hand since you provide no justification.

Speaking of which, I dismiss your statements about "Trump's fears of impeachment", "fear that his children will be indicted" or that "he's afraid of what happens afterwards if impeachment ever comes". (unless, of course, you provide something he's said that supports your statements)

Put some facts where your mouth is, or be dismissed.
 
What is it you believe that Corsi and Stone are guilty of?

Neither of them are guilty of anything at the moment. They haven't even been indicted (yet). I can only assume that it will be something to do with their connections with Wikileaks and Gucifer 2.0. (the GRU) and whether or not they had a part in the leaks of documents illegally obtained from the GRU and Wikileaks.
 
sigh...

You are making statements that I question...and then you tell ME to go find the answer. No. I won't. I'll just dismiss your statements out of hand since you provide no justification.

Speaking of which, I dismiss your statements about "Trump's fears of impeachment", "fear that his children will be indicted" or that "he's afraid of what happens afterwards if impeachment ever comes". (unless, of course, you provide something he's said that supports your statements)

Put some facts where your mouth is, or be dismissed.

My signature is my response.
 
There's several reasons why July is a deadline only. It simply has to be wrapped up or he'll no longer have a Grand Jury, this is it. There are no options for any further extensions than this one. Robert Mueller was charged to investigate Russia collusion and Russia interference in our election. As it's widely agreed upon, there just is no man in this country with higher standards and impeccable ethics other than Robert Mueller. He was not "instituted to to get rid of Trump". That's not true at all, but it's the only 'out' that conservatives have to feed their base.

What Mueller will present when he's finished are facts that can be verified in several different ways. Cell phone records, emails, eye witnesses, bank records, sworn testimony, etc. There will be nothing vague or uncertain. Robert Mueller is a consummate professional prosecutor, unlike crazy eyes Giuliani who has totally lost his mind over the past years.

You seem to be under the impression that the Mueller investigation is a legal affair. It isn't. It's a political matter...100% political. His "investigation" is a function of the political class throwing a temper tantrum that someone from outside the political class won the election.
 
You seem to be under the impression that the Mueller investigation is a legal affair. It isn't. It's a political matter...100% political. His "investigation" is a function of the political class throwing a temper tantrum that someone from outside the political class won the election.

The Department of Justice is the judicial branch of government and Robert Mueller works in this jurisdiction. So yes, it most certain is an entirely legal and binding investigation. Trying to make up stories about the illegitimacy of this investigation doesn't work, nobody but Trump stooges would even believe such an immature and uneducated supposition.
 
Worry about all that when Mueller comes out with the results of this investigation, don't get yourself all bent out of shape about it now, it's too soon.

I am laughing at the lefty's who believe the Russian narrative you guys were spoon fed at every turn and you believe it.
The big Russian collusion case was made up foolishness from the very start but some were too stupid to understand that.

Once again:
Where is the criminal collusion that we have been told over and over that president is guilty of?
You have people charged with crimes that had NOTHING to do with the 2016 election. Nothing.....
Years old financial issues or stupid people lied to the FBI??
 
Neither of them are guilty of anything at the moment. They haven't even been indicted (yet). I can only assume that it will be something to do with their connections with Wikileaks and Gucifer 2.0. (the GRU) and whether or not they had a part in the leaks of documents illegally obtained from the GRU and Wikileaks.

It doesnt seem as if Stone stole the emails, had the emails or leaked them himself. The accusation seems to be (and I cant be certain since no one will answer) that he worked with Assange on the timing or was tipped off as to when certain things might be released. If thats true, what is the crime in that?
 
This all reminds me of bad episodes of 'Scandal'. Are we really kidding ourselves that discovering THE TRUTH is what we are after? What's more, how many without sin in DC should cast the first stone?
 
Likely, the next six months will be all that is required and this wraps up. By the looks of it Mueller has already laid the groundwork for his finale and is probably waiting for the new house to get itself organized in preparation. We will probably see Trumps kids get busted by NY before The President gets his just to put him off balance (even more so) and then the release will ensue...in phases.
 
Likely, the next six months will be all that is required and this wraps up. By the looks of it Mueller has already laid the groundwork for his finale and is probably waiting for the new house to get itself organized in preparation. We will probably see Trumps kids get busted by NY before The President gets his just to put him off balance (even more so) and then the release will ensue...in phases.

I thought this was about Russian collusion. Sounds to me like it has become a process to simply destroy a sitting president and you are all for it. I suspect that you arent a hypocrite and will call for a special council to thoroughly investigate the next democratic president with equal fervor, right?
 
Oh trust me, Matt Whitaker will most certainly refer it to the responsible party which is the House.

The House isn't the "responsible party."

You don't even know what's going to be in the report, so you have no idea what's going to happen with it.
 
I am laughing at the lefty's who believe the Russian narrative you guys were spoon fed at every turn and you believe it.
The big Russian collusion case was made up foolishness from the very start but some were too stupid to understand that.

Once again:
Where is the criminal collusion that we have been told over and over that president is guilty of?
You have people charged with crimes that had NOTHING to do with the 2016 election. Nothing.....
Years old financial issues or stupid people lied to the FBI??

Let me mention something that has taken place over the past day or two which relates direct to a Trump-Putin connection.

Two days ago, Trump related a story about Russia and Afghanistan. Now, why he suddenly threw himself into this bogus rhetoric is another question but let's talk about the substance of that little tirade about Afghanistan.

Trump defended the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 saying that it was the "right thing to do" even though he said it “bankrupted” Moscow and led to the demise of the Soviet Union. He said the invasion targeted terrorists who were flowing into the Soviet Union. He said, “The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there.”

While Trump might personally agree with Russia’s decision to invade Afghanistan in 1979, the United States at the time did not. The U.S. boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow in protest and the U.N. General Assembly voted 104-18 to deplore the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.

The United States actually took the side of Afghans fighting against Soviet forces, providing them with shoulder-fired rockets that allowed them to shoot down Soviet helicopters and planes. That further burdened the Soviets and increased their human and military losses. The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, the same year that the Berlin Wall fell. The Soviet Union crumbled in 1991.

Here's the bottom line regarding the non-factual recounting by Trump of the Soviet-Afghanistan wars. This story as he told it, nearly word by word was never reported in any article, magazine, newspaper or television news broadcast. The story as he told it were specific talking points of Russia and this story only comes from one place, the Kremlin. It's revisionist history. Trump actually changed/revised history. The question now is, who is the person giving Trump these specific pro-Soviet talking points? It did not come from our U.S. Intelligence communities and Trump is not a reader, so who is the source? This is extremely worrisome because these are issues that the Kremlin is concerned about today.

Last July, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, he literally did the same thing regarding the country Montenegro. Most people will only recall the prime minister of Montenegro being rudely shoved aside by Trump at the G20 meeting last year. In that Tucker interview, Trump stated that the people of Montenegro are "very aggressive, very aggressive people". Montenegro is very important to Putin and these talking points are clearly Kremlin talking points and how they're getting into and out of Trump's mouth is a great question to ask him.

Trump is very uninformed about many things, particularly geopolitics. He doesn't read and usually skips reading the daily briefs. He has someone else read them then relate it back to him verbally. When he speaks about a subject like Soviet-Afghanistan conflicts he's speaking words that someone else fed him, not his own. He would be hard pressed to find Afghanistan on a map. It's a real national security problem when our commander-in-chief speaks as though he's the puppet of someone. Statements that are so historically inaccurate gives credence to the supposition that he is indeed communicating and taking his cues from Russia, specifically Putin.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom