• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump loses the ability to block subpoena

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Sorry but that simply is false.

Deny all you want to, but I doesn't change the facts.

Just like you was wrong about rule 6(e) regarding grand jury info, you are wrong about this as well.

Deal with it.
 
Last edited:

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
You seem to consider those that do care about character puritans. I just consider them decent people.

I doubt it.

The House Democrats have no duty to accept the judgments of Barr or Mueller.

Actually they do, it's why we paid $40 million for an investigation. If they don't agree with it, then the House Democrats can refund $40 million out of their personal bank accounts then. If not then they can just s.t.f.u!
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
So there we have it .... Rich people cheat on their taxes all the time! So who cares if crimes were committed! Everybody does it! Nobody really cares about the law anyway! Pathetic.

Let me ask you, what happens when a regular Joe Shmoe cheats on his taxes? Does everyone just proclaim that it's okay because people cheat on their taxes all the time? No worries? Hardly.

I'm not talking about nobody cares as it regards to the law. You are taking my comment out of context.

The context of the answer was about his re-election. Even If he did cheat on his taxes, it will not effect his re-election. Because nobody will hold it against him personally. It's just taxes, it's not like he ran over our dog, smacked our momma, then slept with our wives and tried to cover it up!
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I'm not talking about nobody cares as it regards to the law. You are taking my comment out of context.

The context of the answer was about his re-election. Even If he did cheat on his taxes, it will not effect his re-election. Because nobody will hold it against him personally. It's just taxes, it's not like he ran over our dog, smacked our momma, then slept with our wives and tried to cover it up!
So, what I said. Thanks.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
So, what I said. Thanks.



Cheating on your taxes is against law, people dont wnat tax cheaters for President, it makes him dirty.

But lets just see whos right and whos wrong here, so who knows the right anser, how many of President in the past have broken the law by cheating on their taxes have become President???????????
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Reposting inaccuracies doesn't magically make them accurate.

Just because you are wrong about the law doesn't make the law inaccurate. It just means you are.

Which is why Congress still doesn't have what they want.;)
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
So, what I said. Thanks.

Nope, here's your pose in its entirety.

So there we have it .... Rich people cheat on their taxes all the time! So who cares if crimes were committed! Everybody does it! Nobody really cares about the law anyway! Pathetic.

Let me ask you, what happens when a regular Joe Shmoe cheats on his taxes? Does everyone just proclaim that it's okay because people cheat on their taxes all the time? No worries? Hardly.

You think nobody cares cause it's rich people who cheat. Rich has nothing to do with it. Nobody cares because its taxes. It's not like its violent crime. Didn't hear you wanting to string up Willie Nelson when he didn't pay his taxes. So stop pretending like it's the horrible travesty when in fact you don't care that deeply about the issue. Its faux outrage because you hate Trump, and that's all it is.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Nobody cares because its taxes.
In other words it is your money! It is money that could go towards roads and bridges. It could go towards clean water. It could go towards police and fire departments. Heck, it could even go towards that stupid wall that is never going to be built.

When the rich cheat on their taxes they cheat big. The average tax payer cannot even come close to this level of cheating. When they cheat your government out of millions, they are cheating you. You pay more, and get less.

Maybe you don’t care. You should.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
In other words it is your money! It is money that could go towards roads and bridges. It could go towards clean water. It could go towards police and fire departments. Heck, it could even go towards that stupid wall that is never going to be built.

When the rich cheat on their taxes they cheat big. The average tax payer cannot even come close to this level of cheating. When they cheat your government out of millions, they are cheating you. You pay more, and get less.

Maybe you don’t care. You should.

You're misrepresenting me. It's not that I don't care. Its that it's not as great of a travesty you pretend it is. I guarantee you don't loathe your neighbor for cheating on his taxes as much as you do Trump. That's because it's faux outrage. You hate Trump, and just use any excuse you can to vent it.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Just because you are wrong about the law doesn't make the law inaccurate. It just means you are.

Which is why Congress still doesn't have what they want.;)
OK, here the reality on Congress getting confidential from a grand jury, which you falsely say they can't:
Yes. Committees of the House and Senate possess the power to issues subpoenas for documents held by the executive branch or other subjects in investigations. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government alongside the executive branch and judiciary...

Under U.S. law, grand jury testimony generally must be kept secret. But if a grand jury matter involves “grave hostile acts of a foreign power” or other intelligence information, the information can be shared with appropriate government officials. The law also lets a judge release grand jury information when strong public interest is at stake.
-- Explainer: Can Democratic subpoenas force the release of Mueller's Trump-Russia report? - Reuters

So, you are clearly wrong on this count. Next post will deal with Mueller's report dealing with "obstruction" that you have also been false on:
Volume II of the report addresses obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime. The Mueller team refrained from charging Trump because investigators abided by an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president cannot stand trial, and they feared that charges would affect Trump's governing and possibly preempt his impeachment...

As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him", as investigators were not confident that Trump was innocent after examining his intent and actions. The report describes ten episodes where Trump could potentially have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected, noting he privately tried to "control the investigation" in multiple ways, but mostly failed to influence it because his subordinates or associates refused to carry out his instructions. The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice, as Congress has the authority to take action against a president in reference to potential impeachment proceedings...
-- Mueller Report - Wikipedia

Simply put, you don't know what you're talking about on these matters.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Nope, here's your pose in its entirety.



You think nobody cares cause it's rich people who cheat. Rich has nothing to do with it. Nobody cares because its taxes. It's not like its violent crime. Didn't hear you wanting to string up Willie Nelson when he didn't pay his taxes. So stop pretending like it's the horrible travesty when in fact you don't care that deeply about the issue. Its faux outrage because you hate Trump, and that's all it is.
Ah, okay, so nobody cares about crimes being committed when it comes to not paying taxes.
Willie Nelson was forced to sell off his things to pay his back taxes. Wesley Snipes went to prison for tax evasion. What do you think would happen to you if you committed say, tax fraud?
It's a crime. Just because it's not a rape or murder doesn't make it any less of a crime. Do you think, as Trump appears to think, that he is above the law?
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Yes. Committees of the House and Senate possess the power to issues subpoenas for documents held by the executive branch or other subjects in investigations. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government alongside the executive branch and judiciary..

Incorrect

156. Disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury to Department of Justice attorneys and Assistant United States Attorneys

From the article: Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) does not authorize disclosure to attorneys for other Federal government agencies. SeeUnited States v. Bates, 627 F.2d 349, 351 (D.C.Cir. 1980). Nor is disclosure permitted under this section to attorneys for States or local governments. In re Holovachka, 317 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1963); Corona Construction Co. v. Ampress Brick Co., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 598 (N.D.Ill. 1974)

You are wrong. You are letting your bias override your objectivity.

This rule is why Congress didn't get the redacted info. Now as of yesterday Barr has been authorized to reveal some of those redactions, but at the time of Barrs testimony in front of the judiciary committee he did not have that authorization. Which means Congress asked Barr to commit obstruction of justice by revealing grand jury info during his testimony.

From the article above: The unauthorized disclosure of grand jury information can also be punished under other criminal statutes as well as pursuant to a district court's contempt powers. If an individual discloses grand jury material with the intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation, he or she may be prosecuted for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503. SeeUnited States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 675-679 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 (1986); United States v. Howard, 569 F.2d 1331, 1334-1335 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834 (1978). In addition, an individual who improperly disseminates grand jury materials may be prosecuted for the theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d at 679-682; United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 (1971); see also United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71-72 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 (1979) (theft of information from DEA computers); United States v. DiGilio, 538 F.2d 972, 976-981 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038 (1977) (theft of grand jury information from FBI files). Compare United States v. Collins, 56 F.3d 1416, 1419-1420 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 737 (1996) (§ 641 applies to intangible property) with United States v. Tobias, 836 F.2d 449, 450-452 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991 (1988) (§ 641 does not apply to intangible property).


The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime.

That is your opinion, which is wrong. But nothing new.

As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime";

Then he is innocent.

You can't be kinda innocent/guilty.

These are mutually exclusive. Either he committed a crime or he didn't.

Mueller report clears him of all crimes related to conspiracy and obstruction.

. The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice, as Congress has the authority to take action against a president in reference to potential impeachment proceedings...

Incorrect it was Barrs decision, passed down from Mueller who declined to make the decision. Barr concluded the President did not commit obstruction, and he gave his reasoning for his decision during his testimony.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Incorrect

156. Disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury to Department of Justice attorneys and Assistant United States Attorneys

From the article: Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) does not authorize disclosure to attorneys for other Federal government agencies. SeeUnited States v. Bates, 627 F.2d 349, 351 (D.C.Cir. 1980). Nor is disclosure permitted under this section to attorneys for States or local governments. In re Holovachka, 317 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1963); Corona Construction Co. v. Ampress Brick Co., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 598 (N.D.Ill. 1974)

You are wrong. You are letting your bias override your objectivity.

This rule is why Congress didn't get the redacted info. Now as of yesterday Barr has been authorized to reveal some of those redactions, but at the time of Barrs testimony in front of the judiciary committee he did not have that authorization. Which means Congress asked Barr to commit obstruction of justice by revealing grand jury info during his testimony.

From the article above: The unauthorized disclosure of grand jury information can also be punished under other criminal statutes as well as pursuant to a district court's contempt powers. If an individual discloses grand jury material with the intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation, he or she may be prosecuted for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503. SeeUnited States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 675-679 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 (1986); United States v. Howard, 569 F.2d 1331, 1334-1335 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834 (1978). In addition, an individual who improperly disseminates grand jury materials may be prosecuted for the theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d at 679-682; United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 (1971); see also United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71-72 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 (1979) (theft of information from DEA computers); United States v. DiGilio, 538 F.2d 972, 976-981 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038 (1977) (theft of grand jury information from FBI files). Compare United States v. Collins, 56 F.3d 1416, 1419-1420 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 737 (1996) (§ 641 applies to intangible property) with United States v. Tobias, 836 F.2d 449, 450-452 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991 (1988) (§ 641 does not apply to intangible property).




That is your opinion, which is wrong. But nothing new.



Then he is innocent.

You can't be kinda innocent/guilty.

These are mutually exclusive. Either he committed a crime or he didn't.

Mueller report clears him of all crimes related to conspiracy and obstruction.



Incorrect it was Barrs decision, passed down from Mueller who declined to make the decision. Barr concluded the President did not commit obstruction, and he gave his reasoning for his decision during his testimony.
I do not think that Congress counts as a "govermental agency". Historically the executive branch has not won when they denied subpoenas. History is not on your side, all that the Trumpettes can hope for is a delay. You should take a look at the history of the Nixon investigation. At least he was not a cry baby and kept doing his job.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Incorrect

156. Disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury to Department of Justice attorneys and Assistant United States Attorneys

From the article: Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) does not authorize disclosure to attorneys for other Federal government agencies. SeeUnited States v. Bates, 627 F.2d 349, 351 (D.C.Cir. 1980). Nor is disclosure permitted under this section to attorneys for States or local governments. In re Holovachka, 317 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1963); Corona Construction Co. v. Ampress Brick Co., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 598 (N.D.Ill. 1974)

You are wrong. You are letting your bias override your objectivity.

This rule is why Congress didn't get the redacted info. Now as of yesterday Barr has been authorized to reveal some of those redactions, but at the time of Barrs testimony in front of the judiciary committee he did not have that authorization. Which means Congress asked Barr to commit obstruction of justice by revealing grand jury info during his testimony.

From the article above: The unauthorized disclosure of grand jury information can also be punished under other criminal statutes as well as pursuant to a district court's contempt powers. If an individual discloses grand jury material with the intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation, he or she may be prosecuted for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503. SeeUnited States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 675-679 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1142 (1986); United States v. Howard, 569 F.2d 1331, 1334-1335 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834 (1978). In addition, an individual who improperly disseminates grand jury materials may be prosecuted for the theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d at 679-682; United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 (1971); see also United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71-72 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 (1979) (theft of information from DEA computers); United States v. DiGilio, 538 F.2d 972, 976-981 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038 (1977) (theft of grand jury information from FBI files). Compare United States v. Collins, 56 F.3d 1416, 1419-1420 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 737 (1996) (§ 641 applies to intangible property) with United States v. Tobias, 836 F.2d 449, 450-452 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991 (1988) (§ 641 does not apply to intangible property).




That is your opinion, which is wrong. But nothing new.



Then he is innocent.

You can't be kinda innocent/guilty.

These are mutually exclusive. Either he committed a crime or he didn't.

Mueller report clears him of all crimes related to conspiracy and obstruction.



Incorrect it was Barrs decision, passed down from Mueller who declined to make the decision. Barr concluded the President did not commit obstruction, and he gave his reasoning for his decision during his testimony.
Again, you moved the goalposts, so there's no need for me to go any further with this after this brief explanation.

I made it clear that the issue of "obstruction" need not involve any criminal behavior, plus on the issue of grand jury information, you cut & paste what normally happens but then blow off the simple fact the grand jury evidence can be used under certain conditions as I quoted from Reuters.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Again, you moved the goalposts, so there's no need for me to go any further with this after this brief explanation.

No goal post moved at all. This is the same argument I've been using. Which is the law.

I made it clear that the issue of "obstruction" need not involve any criminal behavior,

I never denied that. And if you are implying that I have you are misrepresenting my argument.

Trump did not commit obstruction. Here is Barr explaining why.

you cut & paste what normally happens but then blow off the simple fact the grand jury evidence can be used under certain conditions as I quoted from Reuters.

Again you misrepresent me with false allegations. Here I cited the law, and showed how it can be used under certain conditions. Those conditions being it has to be authorized or else it's a felony.

The unauthorized disclosure of grand jury information can also be punished under other criminal statutes as well as pursuant to a district court's contempt powers. If an individual discloses grand jury material with the intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation, he or she may be prosecuted for obstruction of justice

Continue to misrepresent me if you wish. But it only makes you look bad.
 
Top