aggiehawg said:Even more of a pompous ass than the regular Brit. Why anyone continues to pay for his services is a mystery to me.Quote:
The man who passed off garbage as fact to assist in spying on a presidential campaign accusing the people of investigating that of acting in bad faith. Gotta love the chutzpah.
That's my point. The guy isn't offering any objective information to his clients. He tailors his product to what he thinks the client wants to hear, even going as far as to manufacture evidence.MouthBQ98 said:aggiehawg said:Even more of a pompous ass than the regular Brit. Why anyone continues to pay for his services is a mystery to me.Quote:
The man who passed off garbage as fact to assist in spying on a presidential campaign accusing the people of investigating that of acting in bad faith. Gotta love the chutzpah.
Confirmation bias or even better, credentialed endorsement of political propaganda as investigative product for the purposes of lending an appearance of legal legitimacy to it.
Then they are stupid and throwing money away.MouthBQ98 said:
The clients don't want reality. They want credentialed endorsement of propaganda as at least plausibly factual which makes it potentially much more politically useful.
He is giving them all exactly the service they want.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/486818-appeals-court-rules-doj-must-give-mueller-grand-jury-materials-toQuote:
A federal appeals court in Washington ruled on Tuesday that the Department of Justice must hand over grand jury materials from former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation to Congress.
A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge's decision that the House's impeachment inquiry justified its request for the sealed documents.
"In short, it is the district court, not the Executive or the Department, that controls access to the grand jury materials at issue here," Judge Judith Rogers wrote in an opinion for the panel's 2-1 majority. "The Department has objected to disclosure of the redacted grand jury materials, but the Department has no interest in objecting to the release of these materials outside of the general purposes and policies of grand jury secrecy, which as discussed, do not outweigh the Committee's compelling need for disclosure."
On to a full court hearing and then the Supreme Court.texaggierm said:https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/486818-appeals-court-rules-doj-must-give-mueller-grand-jury-materials-toQuote:
A federal appeals court in Washington ruled on Tuesday that the Department of Justice must hand over grand jury materials from former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation to Congress.
A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge's decision that the House's impeachment inquiry justified its request for the sealed documents.
"In short, it is the district court, not the Executive or the Department, that controls access to the grand jury materials at issue here," Judge Judith Rogers wrote in an opinion for the panel's 2-1 majority. "The Department has objected to disclosure of the redacted grand jury materials, but the Department has no interest in objecting to the release of these materials outside of the general purposes and policies of grand jury secrecy, which as discussed, do not outweigh the Committee's compelling need for disclosure."
aggiehawg said:Then they are stupid and throwing money away.MouthBQ98 said:
The clients don't want reality. They want credentialed endorsement of propaganda as at least plausibly factual which makes it potentially much more politically useful.
He is giving them all exactly the service they want.
So they are essentially overruling their own circuit court decision in McKeever. Saying now that federal courts do have an inherent powers to ignore the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.texaggierm said:https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/486818-appeals-court-rules-doj-must-give-mueller-grand-jury-materials-toQuote:
A federal appeals court in Washington ruled on Tuesday that the Department of Justice must hand over grand jury materials from former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation to Congress.
A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge's decision that the House's impeachment inquiry justified its request for the sealed documents.
"In short, it is the district court, not the Executive or the Department, that controls access to the grand jury materials at issue here," Judge Judith Rogers wrote in an opinion for the panel's 2-1 majority. "The Department has objected to disclosure of the redacted grand jury materials, but the Department has no interest in objecting to the release of these materials outside of the general purposes and policies of grand jury secrecy, which as discussed, do not outweigh the Committee's compelling need for disclosure."
It's not their money so they don't care.aggiehawg said:Then they are stupid and throwing money away.MouthBQ98 said:
The clients don't want reality. They want credentialed endorsement of propaganda as at least plausibly factual which makes it potentially much more politically useful.
He is giving them all exactly the service they want.
At least there is a consistency in those positions.BMX Bandit said:
Very interestingly, the justice that wrote the concurrence in this case wrote the opinion in the McGahn case
Let's hope so. That opinion is #resistance fantasy. These people are nuts.aggiehawg said:So they are essentially overruling their own circuit court decision in McKeever. Saying now that federal courts do have an inherent powers to ignore the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.texaggierm said:https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/486818-appeals-court-rules-doj-must-give-mueller-grand-jury-materials-toQuote:
A federal appeals court in Washington ruled on Tuesday that the Department of Justice must hand over grand jury materials from former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation to Congress.
A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge's decision that the House's impeachment inquiry justified its request for the sealed documents.
"In short, it is the district court, not the Executive or the Department, that controls access to the grand jury materials at issue here," Judge Judith Rogers wrote in an opinion for the panel's 2-1 majority. "The Department has objected to disclosure of the redacted grand jury materials, but the Department has no interest in objecting to the release of these materials outside of the general purposes and policies of grand jury secrecy, which as discussed, do not outweigh the Committee's compelling need for disclosure."
Surely Barr will opt to take this to SCOTUS. (I hope.)
she would remand to district court to see if still need to do so:Quote:
The primary question addressed by the majority concerns whether the district court could authorize disclosure to the Committee. On this point, I agree with the majority that the Committee's petition could fit within Rule 6(e)'s "judicial proceeding" exception because it sought the grand jury materials preliminary to a possible Senate impeachment trial, which has always been understood as an exercise of judicial power. The Constitution vests the Senate with the "sole Power to try all Impeachments."
Quote:
Although I agree that the authorization of disclosure was within the district court's discretion at the time it issued its decision, the district court's analysis was highly fact-bound. Rule 6(e)'s "preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding" exception to grand jury secrecy required the district court to find that the "primary purpose" of the Committee's inquiry was impeachment.
***
In light of these developments, remand is necessary for the district court to address whether authorization is still warranted. A similar analysis of the Committee's application today requires ascertaining whether such investigations are ongoing and, if so, whether their "primary purpose" is to obtain the grand jury materials for impeachment
***
Similarly, remand is necessary for the district court to consider whether the Committee continues to have a particularized need for the requested grand jury materials, or whether the intervening developments have abrogated or lessened the Committee's need for these records. Once again, this requires a fact-intensive inquiry.
Quote:
The constitutional problem presented by this case pertains not to authorization of disclosure, but to the separate question of whether the district court had jurisdiction to compel DOJ to release the grand jury materials to the Committee. I
based on this from concurrence, don't see how this overturn McKeeverQuote:
Unlike McGahn, this case does not involve a suit between the political branches over executive-branch documents or testimony. Instead, it involves an application for access to records of the grand jury, whose disclosure the district court has traditionally controlled. As the dissent acknowledges, grand jury records do not belong to the Executive Branch.
***
The Department holds these records subject to the ongoing supervision of the district court. Accordingly, Rule 6(e) bars the Department from disclosing these records to Congress without court approval.
***
I understand the dissent's concern that ordering the Executive Branch to provide grand jury records to Congress could make us a tool of the House in the exercise of its "sole power of impeachment." Dissent at 34-39. The Judiciary's proper place in an impeachment fight is typically on the sidelines. See Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 228-36 (1993). But, as gatekeepers of grand jury information, we cannot sit this one out. The House isn't seeking our help in eliciting executive-branch testimony or documents. Instead, it's seeking access to grand jury records whose disclosure the district court, by both tradition and law, controls.
Quote:
"[w]hen the court authorizes . . . disclosure [of grand jury records], it does so by ordering an attorney for the government who holds the records to disclose the materials." McKeever v. Barr, 920 F.3d 842, 848 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
I guess they are trying to distinguish McKeever by positing that an impeachment investigation by a House Committee is a "judicial proceeding" within the meaning of 6(e).Quote:
based on this from concurrence, don't see how this overturn McKeeverQuote:
Quote:
"[w]hen the court authorizes . . . disclosure [of grand jury records], it does so by ordering an attorney for the government who holds the records to disclose the materials." McKeever v. Barr, 920 F.3d 842, 848 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
These seem like critical pointsQuote:
I guess they are trying to distinguish McKeever by positing that an impeachment investigation by a House Committee is a "judicial proceeding" within the meaning of 6(e).
Problem is, there was no formal authorization for impeachment preceding the subpoena at issue here. Further, there has already been articles of impeachment brought and a Senate trial. The horse done left the barn.
Quote:
...Wherever that congressional inquiry lands, there is now clear and convincing evidence that the country, the president and the courts were kept in the dark about an historic turnaround in the evidence in January 2017, even as defendants were being pressured to plead guilty to crimes unrelated to the collusion allegation. Time will tell whether those who kept this secret for two more years will be held to account.
You didn't ask me but I'll give .01 since I'm not sure my opinion at this time is worth a full .02. While Carter Page has a good case for what is known as a Bivens action or 1983 action for violation of his civil rights, we do not yet know exactly how the surveillance of Page was used to then infringe directly on Trump's civil rights.fasthorse05 said:
crinum, I know the entire Mueller investigation team is being reviewed. I don't know if they're all being officially investigated, but if so, will there be grounds for a lawsuit from Trump?
I'm assuming any investigation will find astounding legal oddities and probably violations of the law.
Way back when the existence of the Carter Page FISA warrant became public knowledge, I flipped out because it was under Title I. That's the full monty for surveillance and under the two hop rule for to/from and about queries, that could in theory amass many hundreds, if not thousands of people subject to some level of surreptitious surveillance.fasthorse05 said:
Hawg, it was kind of a question for those with knowledge, so it's appreciated.
Most comments, good, bad, and indifferent, are generally welcome, so no worries.
Quote:
I'll give .01 since I'm not sure my opinion at this time is worth a full .02.
captkirk said:These seem like critical pointsQuote:
I guess they are trying to distinguish McKeever by positing that an impeachment investigation by a House Committee is a "judicial proceeding" within the meaning of 6(e).
Problem is, there was no formal authorization for impeachment preceding the subpoena at issue here. Further, there has already been articles of impeachment brought and a Senate trial. The horse done left the barn.
That's the argument. That is also why I think no formal articles of impeachment based directly on the Mueller report were prepared last December. Had that happened, this case regarding grand jury material would have definitely been rendered moot by now.Quote:
Yes, it would seem unless another impeachment investigation is started, the need for access to those documents in a "judicial proceeding" no longer exists.
Which is why I think most of the chaos, confusion and hysteria regarding Mueller, Impeachment, the virus and market plunge is a concerted and coordinated effort to create a positive feedback loop to discredit Trump and run him off; either now or in November.aggiehawg said:That's the argument. That is also why I think no formal articles of impeachment based directly on the Mueller report were prepared last December. Had that happened, this case regarding grand jury material would have definitely been rendered moot by now.Quote:
Yes, it would seem unless another impeachment investigation is started, the need for access to those documents in a "judicial proceeding" no longer exists.
I would submit that the failure of Pelosi to formally authorize a direct impeachment inquiry for the Judiciary Committee prior to the subpoena being issued last summer should be fatal to this case under McKeever. The alternative is that any investigation conducted by House or Senate committees that could potentially lead to an impeachment inquiry and trial are deemed "judicial proceedings" under F.R.Crim.P Rule 6(e) exceptions.
That would be catastrophic to allow such an approach to stand and would severely hamper the separation of powers and weaken the Presidency.
When Bill Barr gave that speech about the unitary Executive, I cheered because he actually gets it and understands the genius of the Founders when setting up our republic.Quote:
The Dems and Deep State are trying to create a Parliament type Gov't, where a Republican President is treated as a PM, controlled by and answerable to Congress, and a Dem/Progressive President is allowed freedom of action with no suppression, simply by not enforcing the "controls" they put in place.
Separation of powers, my butt. The Red Queen wants c-o-n-t-r-o-l, consolidated in her position only. Trump can't re-fill open Judge positions fast enough.
