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:
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sorry but that simply is false.
You seem to consider those that do care about character puritans. I just consider them decent people.
The House Democrats have no duty to accept the judgments of Barr or Mueller.
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.
Reposting inaccuracies doesn't magically make them accurate.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.
So, what I said. Thanks.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.
Reposting inaccuracies doesn't magically make them accurate.
So, what I said. Thanks.
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.
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.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.
OK, here the reality on Congress getting confidential from a grand jury, which you falsely say they can't: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.
Ah, okay, so nobody cares about crimes being committed when it comes to not paying taxes.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.
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..
The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime.
As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime";
. 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...
What do you think would happen to you if you committed say, tax fraud?
Do you think, as Trump appears to think, that he is above the law?
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.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.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".
You'd be wrong.
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,
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.
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
And you are a lawyer? Your unsupported claim that someone is wrong appears to be very strong evidence that they are right.
with one of my own.I do not think that Congress counts as a "govermental agency". H