Politico: Judiciary Committee asks a judge to share Mueller's secret grand jury evidence
The House Judiciary Committee is preparing to petition a federal judge to release former special counsel Robert Mueller’s most closely guarded evidence: the material he gathered using a secretive grand jury.
The petition, which will be made to Beryl Howell, the chief judge of Washington, D.C.’s federal district court, asks that the material be provided to Congress, though it does not seek the public release of the grand jury evidence.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler has sought Mueller’s grand jury evidence for months, arguing that it’s essential for Congress to view it in order to fully investigate potential abuses of power by President Donald Trump and his inner circle. Nadler has previously asked the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr to join him in court to seek the release of the information, but Barr has declined, calling such a move unprecedented.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The Mueller hearings on Wednesday did not meet Democrat expectations, so now there is a shift in focus to the Grand Jury testimonies. My prediction. Their request is going to be denied, if not by the first judge, it will be denied on appeal.
More News On The U.S. Judiciary Committee Wanting Mueller's Secret Grand Jury Evidence
House panel to ask court for Mueller grand jury material -- AP
Raising Prospect of Impeaching Trump, House Seeks Mueller’s Grand Jury Secrets -- The New York Times
House panel chairman says Mueller court action imminent -- Reuters
Nadler Cites Impeachment Prospect in Suit for Mueller Evidence -- Bloomberg
Perhaps honor and justice will prevail.
ReplyDeleteThe law was made up by Congress. As such Congress can change the law. Until they do, they are asking a judge to collude with fat boy Nadler to break the law.
ReplyDeleteOf course the fat boy will go judge shopping.
1. name-calling tells us more about you than about him
ReplyDelete2. what they are asking for is not illegal if the judge approves the request. No laws need to be changed
3. nothing there? why worry?
Lapides,
ReplyDeleteCould you repeat the question?
Liberals think nothing of violating ex post facto laws, so why should violating grand jury secrecy matter to them?
ReplyDeleteIn for a penny, in for a pound, when it comes for illegality, Liberals are for it.
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6
If you have had wiretaps. informants, moles, investigations etc since 2016 or 3 1/2 years, it is no longer about finding the truth, but shear lawfare, shear harassment. There is no there there.
I can see why Democrats are desperate. They tried their Jeffrey Epstein gambit thinking they could control the conflagration. Trump is still standing but Bill Clinton and other Democrat child rapists are about to be investigated, indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced.
It is not a coincidence that child murderers will have their execution dates set. The lawless Democrat Party is being sent a message.
ReplyDeleteI like the unraveling. Not as sudden as liberal's falling like a cloudburst from the above when DJT won the it's-in-the-hat election but in the end, the impact, methinks, will be as great.
If I were an investment advisor I would advise all to go out and buy image polishing company shares of stock NOW!!! Sound of gold coins clinking and brass bands adding to the enthusiasm.
Just pretend Congress going after Hillary and give them some two years or more
ReplyDeleteHmmmm
ReplyDelete