Trump erupts over congress demand for Mueller report just hours before deadline for release

[pamak]

and again, if you think that you will get away by repeating nonsense, it will not work

I answered all your challenges, including the political nature of the impeachment!

From one of my previous posts...

Do you understand the meaning of "ASSIST" mentioned in the law you cited?

Where does it say that the people who ASSIST an AG in enforcing the federal criminal law must be part of the criminal procedure?

You pull things out of your a** again!

This is what you cited...

A person to whom information is disclosed under
Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist
an attorney for the government in performing that attorney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law.


and before that it says

any government personnel—including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign gov- ernment—that an attorney for the government consid- ers necessary to assist in performing that attorney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law;



It is obvious that it does not matter to what organization that member who receives grand jury information belongs to. What matters only is if such disclosure of grand Jury information helps enforcing the federal criminal law!

So we return to the issue which you are incapable of refuting up until now!

Since according to the DOJ opinion, the AG can only indict a president after he is removed from office, then everybody involved in an impeachment (which is a political process) assists the AG in enforcing the federal criminal law!

The law does nor require those who assist the AG in ENFORCING the FED LAW to be members of the executive branch!

 

[sjmay]

No you did not!

You just cited this!

A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attor- ney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law.


and I addressed by a counterargument that you have failed to par!

...the law permits the disclosure of grand jury information to people who assist the AG in enforcing the federal criminal law!

And my argument has been articulated (based on the DOJ's legal opinion which I also cited in another post) that

since according to the DOJ opinion, the AG can only indict a president after he is removed from office, then everybody involved in an impeachment (which is a POLITICAL procedure) assists the AG in enforcing the federal criminal law!

Again, you are citing a law about a CRIMINAL procedure......Is impeachment a CRIMINAL procedure? If yes, stop, because you have no idea what it is, and if no, it's not a criminal procedure, then the law that you cited, does not apply.

 

[Exactice]

T..[/COLOR]

YES I stated, OR I think I stated that Congress CAN Impeach ALL they want, but still require the 2/3rds HOUSE and Senate. A prosecutor IS NOT needed But it validates. What I mean is IF Mueller did in fact find Collusion. THE likely hood that a 2/3rds Impeachments would be MUCH more likely and not require a TRIAL by Senate after the approved 2/3rds House vote would be ratified and Trump Gone .

YES I stated that as well, MUELLER DID NOT make the decision gave that decision to the DOJ. PERIOD. Mueller whom has legal authority to MAKE a decision as well send an Indictment over to the DOJ chose NOT too. WHY would he do that if the concern of partisanship fell on AG Barr OR is it FACT Mueller did not have enough evidence TO Indict PERIOD.

Because the Concern is the RELEASE of Sensitive documents. WITH that the reluctance of the other PARTY TOO investigate. Notice the Hypocrisy?

1) Obama DOJ, refused to Prosecute HRC for document CRIMES PERIOD
2) Trump DOJ, refuse to prosecute TRUMP for accused Crimes, WITH that, a Special COUNCIL could NOT even send an indictment over after investigating for 2 years.
3) A FOIA was request as well as Subpoenas to release the FULL FISA reports, FULL knowing that it cant be done I even KNOW and accept that. BUT dems like schiff had to make dumb remarks about the Nunes memos and STILL do this DAY they have NOT release an Unredacted FISA in relation to carter page. What makes you THINK that they would release an unredacted version of the Mueller report? I mean REALLY?

The Fact? Wait you are saying that our DOJ cannot prosecute Crimes if its a Sitting President. I thought there was arguments that that was a lie and a President CAN be indicted.... MORE hypocrisy no?

So lets reverse here

1) Can a sitting POTUS actually be indicted or Not
2) Mueller and the SC had ever opportunity to send indictments. BUT ZERO in relation to the accusation of Collusion. NOW here is the kicker... IF #1 is True.... now hear me out.... And TRUMP IS Guilty.... Why not indict ALL THE People around him if he is GUILTY as TRUMP could NOT be the only PARTY PERIOD that colluded with Russians, Supposedly EVERYONE on the DEMS thinks, Manafort is guilty, Kushner is guilty, Jr is guilty... YET NOT a single AMERICAN let alone associate NOT protected by the so called (constitution) got Indicted, WHY is that?? Seriously Mueller is an SC and his 19 prosecutors, WOULD it not be in the best interest if there was CRIME to freaking CHARGE Them?


AGAIN to your FINAL POINT. Congress has the POWER TO Impeach there is NO arguing NOR debating that. THE ISSUE is if they can ACTUALLY Do it.... Al Green and Waters ALREADY tried to pass an impeachment resolution... THEY CAN TRY ALL THEY WANT..... It does NOT MEAN it will happen. NORMALLY for it to happen a CHARGEABLE Crime would be prevalent and MORE so charged.


You (Dems) Wanting the the Report Un redacted is JUST a ploy to Rally the PUBLIC opinion to justify an impeachment resolution by the HOUSE so it CAN go to Trial in the Senate its a smear campaign. NOT because an ACTUAL charge or indictment is FACT... just to create dirty waters so that the House Republicans SINCE the Dems hold Majority can easily PASS the Impeachment resolution but let it get all convoluted in the Senate.....


Here is the thing, A QUICK and Fast Impeachement would be a QUICK 2/3rds house and senate, NO TRIAL Vote... Trump is GONE. Dems Very well know PERIOD that at this point in the game after Barr's Summary and the conclusion of the Special COUNCIL that chance is ZERO.

SO as you state.... Majority Impeachment (SINCE the Dems control the house) IT HAS TO GO TO TRIAL in the SENATE which the Republicans CONTROL anyways SO NO WHERE NEAR a 2/3rd a legal battle to ensue and good excuse to discredit Trump.

ITS A DUMBASS GAME and the sad part is.......The American people are starting to see the shenanigans...

 

[pamak]

Again, you are citing a law about a CRIMINAL procedure......Is impeachment a CRIMINAL procedure? If yes, stop, because you have no idea what it is, and if no, it's not a criminal procedure, then the law that you cited, does not apply.

Which again is irrelevant because the law does not prohibit the disclosure of information to people who are not pafrt of the criminal procedure but still help the AG to enforce the federal criminal law

A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attor- ney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law.

So your point is irrelevant!

 

[sjmay]

Which again is irrelevant because the law does not prohibit the disclosure of information to people who are not pafrt of the criminal procedure but still help the AG to enforce the federal criminal law

And here you are saying the law is irrelevant.....

LOL it's ok, keep twisting it, turning it, bending it to your viewpoint.....

 

[pamak]

1) Can a sitting POTUS actually be indicted or Not[/COLOR]
.

No, according to the DOJ which means that everybody involved in an impeachment which may unseat a president helps the AG to enforce the federal criminal law because only then can the AG go after the person who has violated the law!

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

last page

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal
prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus
violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing vaUdity of
our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken
and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Assistant Attorney General


Office of Legal Counsel

The above was written in 2000 an is still valid!

 

[pamak]

And here you are saying the law is irrelevant.....

LOL it's ok, keep twisting it, turning it, bending it to your viewpoint.....

No, I am saying YOUR POINT is irrelevant because the law does not say what you say!

The law does not say that House members are incapable of receiving grand jury information because impeachment is a political process. The law simply requires that disclosure of a grand jury information ASSISTS the AG enforcing a federal criminal law

 

[sjmay]

No, I am saying YOUR POINT is irrelevant because the law does not say what you say!

So the law doesn't make a distinction between CRIMINAL and POLITICAL?

 

[pamak]

So the law doesn't make a distinction between CRIMINAL and POLITICAL?

No, it does not make the distinction regarding if the people who assist the AG to enforce the federal criminal law use a criminal or political process!

You cited the part!

Now read it again!

A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attor- ney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law.

 

[sjmay]

No, it does not make the distinction regarding if the people who assist the AG to enforce the federal criminal law use a criminal or political process!

You cited the part!

Now read it again!

A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attor- ney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law.

LOL you do realize you are quoting the law from FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE right?

 

[pamak]

LOL you do realize you are quoting the law from FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE right?

Yes, and I am saying that people can still use political procedures such as impeachment to assist an AG in indicting a sitting president. In fact, according to the DOJ this is the ONLY way for an AG to try to enforce the federal criminal law against a sitting president who has violated the federal criminal law. The Congress removes the president from office and then the AG goes after the former president! So, it does not make sense for the law to exclude all those who are involved in an impeachment from those government officials who may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attor- ney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law.

 

[Exactice]

No, according to the DOJ which means that everybody involved in an impeachment which may unseat a president helps the AG to enforce the federal criminal law because only then can the AG go after the person who has violated the law!

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

last page

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal
prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus
violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing vaUdity of
our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken
and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Assistant Attorney General


Office of Legal Counsel

The above was written in 2000 an is still valid!

OK!..... So then WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT?????? If Barr's Summary is Correct of Mueller's Findings.


1) Why demand for an unredacted report that 1 cannot divulge grand-jury material, WHICH is NOT allowed FOR THOSE NOT CHARGED.
2) IF they cannot Impeach or UNSEAT those associated THEN what justification?


You are proving my POINT. there is ZERO LAWFUL REASON for any of this. The whole thing is Shenanigans. THE WANT to cast a cloud doubt, and any possible reason to discredit the POTUS. congress CAN at any point VOTE for Impeachment.... THEY DO NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT its a few FANATICALS...Al Green.... Maxine Warters, Schiff. Swallwell......

THEY DO NOT have the backing and it pisses them off that MUELLER did NOT go along with the Charades. Now they Try to blame AG Barr...... whom has NO reason to lie as hes NOT hiding the report and the CANNOT redact Muellers FINDINGS just sensitive material.

WE WILL KNOW If Barr was truthful in the key findings shortly it will NOT be a secret. HE WOULD BE A COMPLETE MORON TO LIE. also .... where the hell is Mueller if Barr is lying...


ANYWAYS... ALL Shenanigans, and I hope the American People see it plain as day.

Schiff.... I dont...I dont. BUT IS IT ILLEGAL I dont care your opinion I care about the law and facts..
Swalwell. I though he had evidence I thought he was sure indictments were coming.
Nadler... Can go kick rocks.... HELL Pelosi has given up.....

ITS SHENANIGANS!!!

 

[sjmay]

Yes, and I am saying that people can still use political procedures such as impeachment to assist an AG in indicting a sitting president. In fact, according to the DOJ this is the ONLY way for an AG to try to enforce the federal criminal law against a sitting president who has violated the federal criminal law. The Congress removes the president from office and then the AG goes after the former president! So, it does not make sense for the law to exclude all those who are involved in an impeachment from those government officials who may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attor- ney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law.

So you know you are quoting the law from FEDERAL PROCEDURES FOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, and yet you still want to maintain that the law doesn't distinguish between CRIMINAL AND POLITICAL?

As far as the bolded goes, you are correct, but it does not mean he can share grand jury information freely, he still needs a court order.

 

[pamak]

So you know you are quoting the law from FEDERAL PROCEDURES FOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, and yet you still want to maintain that the law doesn't distinguish between CRIMINAL AND POLITICAL?

As far as the bolded goes, you are correct, but it does not mean he can share grand jury information freely, he still needs a court order.

My position about the political and criminal procedure is based on the fact that the
a political procedure is necessary to trigger an indictment against a sitting president!

from my previous posts which describe the DOJ legal interpretation...



The Impeachment Judgment Clause provides:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than
to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any
Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the
Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.



The textual argument that the criminal prosecution
of a person subject to removal by impeachment may not precede conviction by
the Senate arises from the reference to the “ Party convicted” being liable for
“ Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment.” This textual argument draws support from Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of this Clause in The Federalist Nos.
65, 69, and 77, in which he explained that an offender would still be liable to
criminal prosecution in the ordinary course of the law after removal by way of
impeachment.

The law you cited does not say anything about a judge approving anything!
Therefore , if there is signature this will be most probably procedural or may simply verify that information such deliberation and voting of the jury is not released (as the law clearly protects such information)

 

[sjmay]

My position about the political and criminal procedure is based on the fact that the
a political procedure is necessary to trigger an indictment against a sitting president!

from my previous posts which describe the DOJ legal interpretation...



The Impeachment Judgment Clause provides:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than
to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any
Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the
Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.



The textual argument that the criminal prosecution
of a person subject to removal by impeachment may not precede conviction by
the Senate arises from the reference to the “ Party convicted” being liable for
“ Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment.” This textual argument draws support from Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of this Clause in The Federalist Nos.
65, 69, and 77, in which he explained that an offender would still be liable to
criminal prosecution in the ordinary course of the law after removal by way of
impeachment.

No one is arguing that.....you are right....

Doesn't mean Barr can FREELY SHARE GRAND JURY INFORMATION.

 

[pamak]

No one is arguing that.....you are right....

Doesn't mean Barr can FREELY SHARE GRAND JURY INFORMATION.

The question is CAN BARR SHARE GRAND JURY INFORMATION with people who can assist him in enforcing the federal law?

Yes, he can according to the law that you also cited!

Does an impeachment help an AG launch a criminal indictment against his former boss (after the president is removed from office)?

Yes it does according to the DOJ legal interpretation

1+1=2

There is no law that prohibits Barr sharing grand jury information with members of the House who consider impeachment!

Noone is saying that Barr can print grand jury material and start sharing it freely with everybody. Plus, (as we both read) the law does not permit the release of information related to grand jury deliberations and voting.

 

[sjmay]

The question is CAN BARR SHARE GRAND JURY INFORMATION with people who can assist him in enforcing the federal law?

Yes, he can according to the law that you also cited!

Does an impeachment help an AG launch a criminal indictment against his former boss (after the president is removed from office)?

Yes it does according to the DOJ legal interpretation

1+1=2

There is no law that prohibits Barr sharing grand jury information with members of the House who consider impeachment!

Noone is saying that Barr can print grand jury material and start sharing it freely with everybody. Plus, (as we both read) the law does not permit the release of information related to grand jury deliberations and voting.

For Criminal procedures...NOT Political procedures.

 

[pamak]

For Criminal procedures...NOT Political procedures.

For ASSISTING an AG to enforce a federal criminal law against a sitting president, and such assist can only come in the form of the political procedure of impeachment!

From the law YOU CITED...

A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attor- ney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law.

 

[sjmay]

For ASSISTING an AG to enforce a federal criminal law against a sitting president, and such assist can only come in the form of the political procedure of impeachment!

From the law YOU CITED...

A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attor- ney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law.

Again, which comes from the FEDERAL PROCEDURES FOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURES, not FEDERAL PROCEDURES FOR POLITICAL PROCEDURES,

And hence why I keep saying you twist and redefine the law to suit you.

 

[pamak]

Again, which comes from the FEDERAL PROCEDURES FOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURES, not FEDERAL PROCEDURES FOR POLITICAL PROCEDURES,

And hence why I keep saying you twist and redefine the law to suit you.

There is no way to enforce a federal criminal law against a sitting president without getting the assist of the political procedure of impeachment and Senate trial to remove the person from office and launch then a criminal procedure against the former president!

The textual argument that the criminal prosecution
of a person subject to removal by impeachment may not precede conviction by
the Senate arises from the reference to the “ Party convicted” being liable for
“ Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment.” This textual argument draws support from Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of this Clause in The Federalist Nos.
65, 69, and 77, in which he explained that an offender would still be liable to
criminal prosecution in the ordinary course of the law after removal by way of
impeachment.

 

[sjmay]

There is no way to enforce a federal criminal law against a sitting president without getting the assist of an impeachment and Senate trial to remove the person from office and launch then a criminal procedure against the former president!

The textual argument that the criminal prosecution
of a person subject to removal by impeachment may not precede conviction by
the Senate arises from the reference to the “ Party convicted” being liable for
“ Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment.” This textual argument draws support from Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of this Clause in The Federalist Nos.
65, 69, and 77, in which he explained that an offender would still be liable to
criminal prosecution in the ordinary course of the law after removal by way of
impeachment.

You are absolutely right.

Doesn't mean that the law applies to political procedures.

 

[pamak]

You are absolutely right.

Doesn't mean that the law applies to political procedures.

If I am absolutely right then members of the political procedure of impeachment help the AG to enforce the federal criminal law against a sitting president and therefore they can receive grand jury information!

On top of that, you still have not cited anything to justify why a secrecy requirement of grand jury information related to an investigation of a sitting president is applied to the political procedure of impeachment!

 

[sjmay]

If I am absolutely right then members of the political procedure of impeachment help the AG to enforce the federal criminal law against a sitting president and therefore they can receive grand jury information!

On top of that, you still have not cited anything to justify why a secrecy requirement of grand jury information related to an investigation of a sitting president is applied to the political procedure of impeachment!

You are right about the procedure, you are not right in applying a criminal law procedure, to a political procedure,


You don't get that though....

 

[pamak]

You are right about the procedure, you are not right in applying a criminal law procedure, to a political procedure,


You don't get that though....

But you assume that whatever limitations apply to criminal procedures about secrecy regarding grand jury information must be also applied to political procedures without citing evidence from any law and despite the fact that the Constitutional role that the House has to impeach a sitting president creates a need to access information that the AG used in grand juries during an investigation of the Trump Campaign and Trump himself.

Not to mention that the Constitution requires conformity to separation of powers when a decision is made about a sitting president which in turn requires that one cannot have a subordinate of the executive branch (AG) acting like a gatekeeper for which type of information should reach the house in a case of impeaching a president.

 

[sjmay]

But you assume that whatever limitations about secrecy regarding grand jury information applies to criminal procedures must be also applied to political procedures without citing evidence from the law and despite the fact that the Constitutional role that the House has to impeach a sitting president creates a need to access information that the AG used in grand juries during an investigation of the Trump Campaign and Trump himself. Not to mention that the Constitution requires conformity to separation of powers when a decision is made about a sitting president which in turn requires that one cannot have an subordinate of the executive branch acting like a gatekeeper for what type of information should reach the house.

I'm not assuming anything.....

I am saying that he is not allowed at all to release grand jury information without a court order, unless there are very specified exemptions, those exemptions have to do with CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

You are trying to use those exemptions for a POLITICAL PROCEDURE.

You can't do that.