uptower
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2018
- Messages
- 20,058
- Reaction score
- 17,143
- Location
- Behind you - run!
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Now, they worried about if someone lied to Congress? :lamo
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."
Yes, they are
Now, they worried about if someone lied to Congress? :lamo
Probably not.A lot of republicans sweating these last 12 months.
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.)
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
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.
After all the other people who lied and Congress didn't say a word. :lamo
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.)
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.)
Probably not.
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.
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.
Now, they worried about if someone lied to Congress? :lamo
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.
Intentionally withholding information from Congress is a crime.
Only since 2016 in liberals eyes ....
Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?