Change Nadler's hearings title to Impeachment Inquery ....right now!

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
72,018
30,103
Florida
#1
That's what it is and what it needs to be.
That will give our HOR more authority to investigate and find facts.....in accordance with our constitution.

Do it now Democrats!!!
 
Likes: OldGaffer

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
72,018
30,103
Florida
#3
Works for me.

Would be more honest...




..
Do you agree that we need to see the unredacted Mueller Report rather than only those portions that barr and trump will allow us to see?
(If not, should Nixon have been allowed to redact the smoking gun tape that sealed his fate?)
 
Feb 2010
34,660
24,605
between Moon and NYC
#4
Do you agree that we need to see the unredacted Mueller Report rather than only those portions that barr and trump will allow us to see?
(If not, should Nixon have been allowed to redact the smoking gun tape that sealed his fate?)
On the grand jury testimony, i don't necessarily agree. The rules/regulations for keeping those records suppressed were put in place for a reason.

But am all for the legal process running its due course. If Nadler can present evidence to a federal judge that the grand jury testimony is critical to his investigation he should certainly get it. But there should be caveats from the courts that if anyone leaks that grand jury information to the press they will have their balls crushed...and then be sent to prison. Regardless of what party commits the leak.

That should help suppress the urge to just use the privileged testimony for political gamesmanship between the two political parties.



You with me on this one....??



..
 
May 2012
68,776
13,712
By the wall
#5
Do you agree that we need to see the unredacted Mueller Report rather than only those portions that barr and trump will allow us to see?
(If not, should Nixon have been allowed to redact the smoking gun tape that sealed his fate?)
It would be illegal.

Why don't you go get a judge to OK it first?

For all you know there is information in there that would jeopardize some of Mueller's convictions if they were seen by others.

Breach of confidentiality.

You want to see convicted people walk free due to a lack of protocol?
 

johnflesh

Former Staff
Feb 2007
27,248
19,975
.
#6
On the grand jury testimony, i don't necessarily agree. The rules/regulations for keeping those records suppressed were put in place for a reason.

But am all for the legal process running its due course. If Nadler can present evidence to a federal judge that the grand jury testimony is critical to his investigation he should certainly get it. But there should be caveats from the courts that if anyone leaks that grand jury information to the press they will have their balls crushed...and then be sent to prison. Regardless of what party commits the leak.

That should help suppress the urge to just use the privileged testimony for political gamesmanship between the two political parties.



You with me on this one....??



..
Yes.
 

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
107,541
98,957
Most Insidious
#7
On the grand jury testimony, i don't necessarily agree. The rules/regulations for keeping those records suppressed were put in place for a reason.

But am all for the legal process running its due course. If Nadler can present evidence to a federal judge that the grand jury testimony is critical to his investigation he should certainly get it. But there should be caveats from the courts that if anyone leaks that grand jury information to the press they will have their balls crushed...and then be sent to prison. Regardless of what party commits the leak.

That should help suppress the urge to just use the privileged testimony for political gamesmanship between the two political parties.



You with me on this one....??



..
Sounds good.

Kinda lets female office holders off the hook, but I'm down with the ladies.