Today, I read the following…
Despite assertions to the contrary by the president and his allies, the special counsel’s report and testimony are not the end of our investigations. We have now filed a petition in court to obtain the grand-jury documents referenced in the special counsel’s report. In that filing, we have made clear that we will utilize our Article I powers to obtain the additional underlying evidence, as well as enforce subpoenas for key witness testimony, and broaden our investigations to include conflicts of interest and financial misconduct.
Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-were-moving-forward-with-impeachment/ar-AAEVlXt?ocid=spartanntp
The House Judiciary is free to exercise its investigative authority under Article I but it comes at a price. Let’s look at the ramifications. This is important. Impacts our individual rights. You don’t have to be a lawyer to read the tea leaves.
1. First and foremost, Mueller exceeded his authority. As a prosecutor he has a binary decision: to indict or not to indict. His job isn’t to render an opinion, and by issuing Volume 2 he gave an opinion. That in itself deserves reprimand.
2. By issuing a Volume 2 Mueller exceeded his authority as “Special Counsel.” Only a General Counsel, such as Ken Starr’s, can wade into impeachment waters. That is to say, ‘kick the ball’ to the legislative on non-criminal matters. Non-criminal matters is all we’ve got because Mueller didn’t indict. Good so far.
3. In this particular case Article I is running smack dab against protections afforded us by the Fifth Amendment, which says…
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…” And so by the letter of the law, the impeachment investigation shouldn’t go any further without a constitutional amendment. In other words, it requires the vote of ¾ (38) of the states before Jerry Nadler can proceed. Otherwise, by usurping GJ rights he’s trampling over the Constitution.
4. Like a trial jury, a grand jury brings to bear the ‘perspective and the experiences of the community’ when rendering a decision. Unlike a trial jury, the decision needn’t be unanimous. A prosecutor needs only 12 jurors to charge. But Mueller couldn’t even get that!
5. So by proceeding with an impeachment INVESTIGATION Democrats who are in favor are effectively retrying a criminal case in a public forum. Why. Because of a “atmosphere of suspicion” surrounding grand juries. In other words, they don’t trust ordinary citizens to render a verdict! Do you guys understand the import of this?!
6. With certain limited exceptions GJ information must be sealed. If leaked then the prosecutor is called before a judge and asked why he shouldn’t be found in contempt. It’s that serious. Congress has shown a propensity to leak to the press. Now what do you suppose will happen when it gets possession of these GJ documents. That’s a rhetorical question to which we already know the answer.
Sources and uses…
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40420/why-is-grand-jury-testimony-secret
https://sidebarsblog.com/grand-jury-secrecy-in-defense-of-the-grand-jury-part-2/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
Conclusion-
Mueller is in violation of legal ethics. Barr can (and should) bring the hammer down on him.
Based on his testimony it’s clear he didn’t write the report. His staff did. But the press peddled Mueller as a GOP demagogue. He was supposed to serve as a ‘check and balance’ against the overt partisanship of Democrat lawyers serving on his staff, many of whom had Hillary Clinton's associates as clients! So effectively not only was the president setup by Hillary via false FISA warrants, but she tried him!
These partisan lawyers such as Andrew Weissman and Jeannie Rhee are in violation of legal ethics by way of conflict-of-interest. If there aren’t repercussions then God help us all, because if they can do this to a president then we’re all screwed.
I thank you and let’s keep it real.
Despite assertions to the contrary by the president and his allies, the special counsel’s report and testimony are not the end of our investigations. We have now filed a petition in court to obtain the grand-jury documents referenced in the special counsel’s report. In that filing, we have made clear that we will utilize our Article I powers to obtain the additional underlying evidence, as well as enforce subpoenas for key witness testimony, and broaden our investigations to include conflicts of interest and financial misconduct.
Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-were-moving-forward-with-impeachment/ar-AAEVlXt?ocid=spartanntp
The House Judiciary is free to exercise its investigative authority under Article I but it comes at a price. Let’s look at the ramifications. This is important. Impacts our individual rights. You don’t have to be a lawyer to read the tea leaves.
1. First and foremost, Mueller exceeded his authority. As a prosecutor he has a binary decision: to indict or not to indict. His job isn’t to render an opinion, and by issuing Volume 2 he gave an opinion. That in itself deserves reprimand.
2. By issuing a Volume 2 Mueller exceeded his authority as “Special Counsel.” Only a General Counsel, such as Ken Starr’s, can wade into impeachment waters. That is to say, ‘kick the ball’ to the legislative on non-criminal matters. Non-criminal matters is all we’ve got because Mueller didn’t indict. Good so far.
3. In this particular case Article I is running smack dab against protections afforded us by the Fifth Amendment, which says…
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…” And so by the letter of the law, the impeachment investigation shouldn’t go any further without a constitutional amendment. In other words, it requires the vote of ¾ (38) of the states before Jerry Nadler can proceed. Otherwise, by usurping GJ rights he’s trampling over the Constitution.
4. Like a trial jury, a grand jury brings to bear the ‘perspective and the experiences of the community’ when rendering a decision. Unlike a trial jury, the decision needn’t be unanimous. A prosecutor needs only 12 jurors to charge. But Mueller couldn’t even get that!
5. So by proceeding with an impeachment INVESTIGATION Democrats who are in favor are effectively retrying a criminal case in a public forum. Why. Because of a “atmosphere of suspicion” surrounding grand juries. In other words, they don’t trust ordinary citizens to render a verdict! Do you guys understand the import of this?!
6. With certain limited exceptions GJ information must be sealed. If leaked then the prosecutor is called before a judge and asked why he shouldn’t be found in contempt. It’s that serious. Congress has shown a propensity to leak to the press. Now what do you suppose will happen when it gets possession of these GJ documents. That’s a rhetorical question to which we already know the answer.
Sources and uses…
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40420/why-is-grand-jury-testimony-secret
https://sidebarsblog.com/grand-jury-secrecy-in-defense-of-the-grand-jury-part-2/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
Conclusion-
Mueller is in violation of legal ethics. Barr can (and should) bring the hammer down on him.
Based on his testimony it’s clear he didn’t write the report. His staff did. But the press peddled Mueller as a GOP demagogue. He was supposed to serve as a ‘check and balance’ against the overt partisanship of Democrat lawyers serving on his staff, many of whom had Hillary Clinton's associates as clients! So effectively not only was the president setup by Hillary via false FISA warrants, but she tried him!
These partisan lawyers such as Andrew Weissman and Jeannie Rhee are in violation of legal ethics by way of conflict-of-interest. If there aren’t repercussions then God help us all, because if they can do this to a president then we’re all screwed.
I thank you and let’s keep it real.
Last edited:
