There are many on here who block out the Hannity news sub forum, but this one is rather important. Here’s the link to Hannity’s thread on it:
The question becomes this: What do liberals and never Trumpers do if the court rules that grand jury testimony can ONLY be released for the exceptions given in the law. A report to congress is NOT among the exceptions.
What happens if Muellers report is just a very short one page that says there was no collusion and Trump didn’t obstruct justice and no information on what his grand jury found? Does the house go to impeachment hearings for the sole purpose of finding what was given/said to the grand jury?
Now the other point is this. If the law only gives specific reason’s that grand jury information can be released, is it activism if the judges ignore the law and say it should be released?
Here is a non sara carter link to the court case and why it’s important. The politico report also go more in depth into the specifics of the law and why some other grand jury information has been released (Clinton’s grand jury under starr operated under a different law with an exclusion specifically that congress would get a report, and that the information allowed on the Supreme court nominee only included publicly released information).
And the Politico write up on it with a little more info
Not clickbait, and not desperation. It’s a court hearing next month that could have a lot of implication on what Mueller can and can’t release. If you choose not to read it, not my fault.
I did read it. It said there’s an obscure court case that WILL TOTES KEEP MUELLER FROM RELEASING THINGS FOR REALS (as long as the Dems don’t take the house and the judges make a super broad ruling in a specific direction) BUT FOR REALS ITS THE END.
Yes, and the subpoena the house issues could be challenged in court just like this “obscure” case. A judge would need to determine if a congressional subpoena supersedes the law on it being released.
Failure of Dems to take the house, if the “obscure” case comes out in a certain way keeps the grand jury testimony secret unless charges are filed.
So my fairly quick research shows a special counsel or special prosecutor is not, in fact, the same thing as a grand jury, legally.
So my question would be does this ruling apply to investigations of a special prosecutor/counsel that end up leading to no specific charges being filed?
Are special prosecutor’s reports that lead nowhere never released either?
If the answer is “no- they ARE released”, then this case has zero relevance.
Grand jury testimony is secret with no exceptions. Mueller will not be able to include grand jury witness testimony or information obtained through grand jury subpoenas in his report.
The Jig is up! Breaking News, even on the hannity.com! Bruce Ohr admitted to Congress behind closed doors that there was extreme anti Trump Bias in the FBI even previous to Carter Page FISA! OOOOPS! It is starting to look more and more as if the FBI did Let Hillary off the hook, and tried to set up Trump with fake Russian ties, via Stefan Halper, to create a false narrative.
He has hundreds and hundreds of hours of interviews. Much of that grand jury testimony was first learned through interviews or other means. Indeed, it would be really weird for him to be asking questions in furtherance if an indictment that he didn’t know the answers to. He has enormous documentary evidence. This likely not the silver bullet you seek to suppress the truth.
These are not investigative grand juries. He is doing the investigating and using the jury to secure indictments based on what he already knows.
My prediction? A flood of conservatives trying to post-date their long “histories” of supporting the secrecy of grand jury proceedings and how fundamental that is to our republic.
No he isn’t. But any report he presents to the public can’t have any information that was given to the grand jury in secret according to the law. Not even to congress.
He can release his conclusions, but when it comes to backing them up, he wouldn’t be able to put any alleged facts that were presented to the grand jury or testimony. And if he only learned something through the grand jury testimony it wouldn’t be included in any report he delivers – even to congress according to current law he is operating under.
So your saying Mueller, knowing that the any report will somehow be made public, should not put any information he learned from grand jury testomony in it to remain in compliance of the law then correct?
And if he doesn’t, do you support anyone who releases it in violation of the law, or shares it (including media) facing charges?
Correct, if information is presented in interviews and depositions outside the grand jury it matters not what the Judge rules about the Grand Jury testimony since there will be an outside source for the same thing.
One thing we’ve learned about how Mueller works, he knows the information before it ever gets to the Grand Jury.
