House Intel votes to send witness transcripts to Mueller for possible perjury charges

[uptower]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/06/house-intel-mueller-investigation-1152048

"The House Intelligence Committee voted on Wednesday to send dozens of witness interview transcripts from its Russia investigation to special counsel Robert Mueller, who could use them to prosecute potential instances of perjury...The panel’s Democrats have long suggested that Donald Trump Jr. and other witnesses might have lied to the committee during its investigation and they’ve encouraged Mueller to examine whether perjury or obstruction of justice charges are warranted against them."

 

[CaughtInThe]

A lot of republicans sweating these last 12 months.

 

[apdst]

Now, they worried about if someone lied to Congress? :lamo

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Now, they worried about if someone lied to Congress? :lamo

Yes, they are

 

[Mycroft]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/06/house-intel-mueller-investigation-1152048

"The House Intelligence Committee voted on Wednesday to send dozens of witness interview transcripts from its Russia investigation to special counsel Robert Mueller, who could use them to prosecute potential instances of perjury...The panel’s Democrats have long suggested that Donald Trump Jr. and other witnesses might have lied to the committee during its investigation and they’ve encouraged Mueller to examine whether perjury or obstruction of justice charges are warranted against them."

Mueller has had access to those testimonies since last Sep. This is nothing but political posturing and public opinion manipulation on the part of Schiffty. They are getting ready for their big push to get public support for impeachment proceedings.

(Keep in mind, though, they don't really WANT to impeach Trump. They just want to damage him in the eyes of the public. It's all about 2020.)

 

[apdst]

Yes, they are

After all the other people who lied and Congress didn't say a word. :lamo

 

[ttwtt78640]

Now, they worried about if someone lied to Congress? :lamo

If that someone is tied to Trump (in a bad way, of course).

 

[Bullseye]

A lot of republicans sweating these last 12 months.

Probably not.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Mueller has had access to those testimonies since last Sep. This is nothing but political posturing and public opinion manipulation on the part of Schiffty. They are getting ready for their big push to get public support for impeachment proceedings.

(Keep in mind, though, they don't really WANT to impeach Trump. They just want to damage him in the eyes of the public. It's all about 2020.)

He hasn't had access to certified copies which is what he would need to use in a filing. Republicans refused to provide Mueller's office with certified copies.

Here's an example from the Stone incident:

For weeks, the special counsel’s office has had access to an unofficial copy of Stone’s closed-door September 2017 interview, according to people with knowledge of the process. Mueller’s request of the official copy signals the special counsel could now be pursuing an indictment, several legal experts said.

“That suggests prosecutors are getting ready to bring a charge,” said former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner. “Prosecutors can’t bring a charge without an original certified copy of the transcript that shows the witness lied.”

The House Intelligence Committee, which has provided testimony of its witnesses to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for a declassification review, has not yet turned over the official Stone transcript to Mueller, according to the people with knowledge of the situation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d4730df8a222

Keep in mind that very shortly after receiving a certified copy of Stone's testimony he was indicted. Since he's had access to the testimonies, he probably already has an indictment prepared, should one be required, and is merely waiting for the certified copy to file it.

 

[dcsports]

He hasn't had access to certified copies which is what he would need to use in a filing. Republicans refused to provide Mueller's office with certified copies.

Here's an example from the Stone incident:



Keep in mind that very shortly after receiving a certified copy of Stone's testimony he was indicted. Since he's had access to the testimonies, he probably already has an indictment prepared, should one be required, and is merely waiting for the certified copy to file it.

Mueller asked for the certified transcript on December 19 and they provided it to him on December 21... note that this was the 'old' Republican controlled committee. It was the first time they asked for an official transcript. They didn't deny Mueller anything.

This is absolutely political theater.

 

[dcsports]

After all the other people who lied and Congress didn't say a word. :lamo

For their part, Democrats are being entirely consistent, even if they are hypocrites in their statements on the matter. This isn't unexpected. In every case, it's not about justice or fairness, but what benefits them politically.

 

[uptower]

Mueller has had access to those testimonies since last Sep. This is nothing but political posturing and public opinion manipulation on the part of Schiffty. They are getting ready for their big push to get public support for impeachment proceedings.

(Keep in mind, though, they don't really WANT to impeach Trump. They just want to damage him in the eyes of the public. It's all about 2020.)

I think they'd love to impeach him but without the senate votes, you're kinda right, they will probably have to settle for PR wins until 2020 instead. Between that and his own big mouth constantly getting him in hot water it'll be better than Benghazi.

 

[OscarLevant]

Mueller has had access to those testimonies since last Sep. This is nothing but political posturing and public opinion manipulation on the part of Schiffty. They are getting ready for their big push to get public support for impeachment proceedings.

(Keep in mind, though, they don't really WANT to impeach Trump. They just want to damage him in the eyes of the public. It's all about 2020.)

Posturing? ARe you kidding me?


Do your homework.

yes, he had zeroxes to peruse, but Mueller can't bring an indictment without a certified original copy, That's the law.

 

[Media_Truth]

Start locking up the family. Don Jr. Kushner. Maybe Trump will come clean then...

 

[CaughtInThe]

Probably not.

Yeah, being arrested and indicted and investigated is like playing putt putt.

 

[dcsports]

Posturing? ARe you kidding me?


Do your homework.

yes, he had zeroxes to peruse, but Mueller can't bring an indictment without a certified original copy, That's the law.

Correction - he can't use the transcript as evidence to bring an indictment without a certified copy. All he had to do to obtain one is to ask for it - and he's only asked for one. The committee provided that one within days, and has told him they would provide anything he needs.

Again, theater.

 

[yankintx]

For their part, Democrats are being entirely consistent, even if they are hypocrites in their statements on the matter. This isn't unexpected. In every case, it's not about justice or fairness, but what benefits them politically.

As was Bengazi and the email investigation. Both dragged out by the GOP for maximum political gain. What goes around, comes around.

 

[HumblePi]

Now, they worried about if someone lied to Congress? :lamo

Intentionally withholding information from Congress is a crime. What the bigger question is, why did they lie and what are they trying to hide or cover up by telling the truth? Hope Hicks for example, she even admitted to Congress that she has lied in the past for Trump but then refused to answer any questions claiming 'executive privilege'. The Republican committee had allowed Steve Bannon to dodge questions, failed to demand relevant documents from the Trump campaign, and had not heard from key witnesses.

 

[HumblePi]

Correction - he can't use the transcript as evidence to bring an indictment without a certified copy. All he had to do to obtain one is to ask for it - and he's only asked for one. The committee provided that one within days, and has told him they would provide anything he needs.

Again, theater.

Mueller asked for the Stone transcript to be delivered immediately in December. This was the first time the Intelligence panel has been asked to turn over testimony to Mueller’s team and Roger Stone was indicted within days of the transfer of the transcript. I believe Muller's attorneys needed the transcript in order to obtain a warrant on Stone. As far as all the other testimonies, Mueller could have easily obtained any that he wanted directly through intelligence agencies that vet these transcripts for classified material.

 

[j-mac]

Intentionally withholding information from Congress is a crime.

Only since 2016 in liberals eyes ....



Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[HumblePi]

Only since 2016 in liberals eyes ....



Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Intentionally withholding information from Congress is obstruction of justice.

Nov. 5th, 2010

Contempt of Congress Statutory Contempt of Congress Contempt of Congress is punishable by statute and under the inherent powers of Congress.130Congress has not exercised its inherent contempt power for some time.131 The statutory contempt of Congress provision, 2 U.S.C. 192, has been employed only slightly more often and rarely in recent years. Much of what we know of the offense comes from Cold War period court decisions. Parsed to its elements, §192 states that;

I. Every person
II. summoned as a witness
III. by the authority of either House of Congress
IV. to A. give testimony, or B. to produce papers
V. upon any matter under inquiry
VI. before A. either House, B. any joint committee, C. any committee of either House
VII. who willfully A. makes default, or B. refuses 1. to answer any question 2. pertinent to the matter under inquiry shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

 

[Mr Person]

Trumpists don't seem to realize yet that federal judges and juries don't care about their stupid bull**** and will convict if perjury and obstruction type charges are supported. Oh well. Their problem.

I guess they'll just have to relegate themselves to the same to-be-ignored status as 9/11 truthers earned. Then, democracy can begin to heal a bit.

 

[apdst]

Intentionally withholding information from Congress is a crime. What the bigger question is, why did they lie and what are they trying to hide or cover up by telling the truth? Hope Hicks for example, she even admitted to Congress that she has lied in the past for Trump but then refused to answer any questions claiming 'executive privilege'. The Republican committee had allowed Steve Bannon to dodge questions, failed to demand relevant documents from the Trump campaign, and had not heard from key witnesses.

People do it all the time and NOW it's a crime? :lamo

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw0l9iBCt3kW5YlQFsZvjqml&ust=1549641062031788

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw23qEiYYEHFQYsETpFGZxCe&ust=1549641134243586

 

[dcsports]

As was Bengazi and the email investigation. Both dragged out by the GOP for maximum political gain. What goes around, comes around.

I disagree, in part. Those were serious issues. No doubt they played to the advantage of the GOP, as the Obama administration stonewalling on the Benghazi investigation made them look stupid, and the email issue made Hillary look either incompetent or criminal, but they were real issues. I say in part, because Democrats seemed to feel in those cases that these were no big deal (my original point).

The difference in this case - and I was referring to a specific action - was that the committee made a big deal of giving Mueller information he already had, in a form he didn't ask for, painting the picture that Republicans were denying him something. It's all theater.

Now, if they were really serious about 'protecting the integrity of congressional testimony', and had evidence of Trump Jr., or anyone else, lying to them, there's a process for that. They can refer the issue to the DOJ with the transcript and any other evidence they have. The DOJ can then either assign it to Mueller if it's within his scope (or related enough that is makes sense), or assign a 'normal' prosecutor to review. They didn't do that.

 

[yankintx]

I disagree, in part. Those were serious issues. No doubt they played to the advantage of the GOP, as the Obama administration stonewalling on the Benghazi investigation made them look stupid, and the email issue made Hillary look either incompetent or criminal, but they were real issues. I say in part, because Democrats seemed to feel in those cases that these were no big deal (my original point).

The difference in this case - and I was referring to a specific action - was that the committee made a big deal of giving Mueller information he already had, in a form he didn't ask for, painting the picture that Republicans were denying him something. It's all theater.

Now, if they were really serious about 'protecting the integrity of congressional testimony', and had evidence of Trump Jr., or anyone else, lying to them, there's a process for that. They can refer the issue to the DOJ with the transcript and any other evidence they have. The DOJ can then either assign it to Mueller if it's within his scope (or related enough that is makes sense), or assign a 'normal' prosecutor to review. They didn't do that.

Sorry Sport, if they were real issues Hillary would have been indicted. Do I need to remind you those were investigations conducted by a Republican Congress and they got squat. They were important to you for partisan reasons. Probably the same reason the Dems will subpoena the hell out of Trump. Only difference, Trump will cry like a little bitch the entire time, whaaa witch hunt. Do twelve hours in front of a hostile Congressional Committee Rump, he would not last 30 minutes!