Schiff vows lawsuit for Mueller report if it's not released

You are welcome , YR

I will read what is released under Section 600.9. investigation results not culminating in criminal charges - I am not concerned about matters redacted under the Law. .

The Senate Judiciary Committee - while I would prefer the Committee to see the entire report, but the atmosphere is so charged politically that I have no trust in Feinstein and other Minority members not to release confidential information not resulting in a criminal indictment.

What i expect if any of the report is redacted - is the the DPST's will condemn Barr for " hiding evidence" and "obstruction of justice". Schiff will be in the lead. Schiff's House Intelligence Committee might go so far as to forward a Bill of Impeachment for Barr.

The House is welcome to vote to change the law- and forward to the Senate and, if passed, to Trump's desk for signature.

I will not expect AG Barr to behave outside the Law, particularly under the scrutiny that this report and his conduct is under.
Could Schiff and his House Intelligence Comitteee subpoena Barr for the entire report - Yes!
Will it be successful - a subpoena would be opposed by DOJ attorneys in the courts, and possibly the SC.

The chance of Schiff successfully obtaining the full report during Trump's, or Schiff's term in office - debatable - and I am not an attorney.
As i see it !

Your turn, Good Sir! Happy to return civility!

LOL!

So apparently you don’t trust anybody but Trump to feed us the info.

Got it, thanks!

Wrong.
I trust AG Barr to act consistent with the law quoted above.

Trump would act with a veto if a House and Senate passed bill to change the law came before his desk - which ain't happening and Schiff knows it.

Would never get past the current Senate.



So please do not put words in my posts i did not write.

Still awaiting the links quoting Schumer and/or Pelosi advocating for drugs and gangs.

To quote, err, you....

“Look in the Mirror.”

“Look in the Mirror.” Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I wouldn't do that if I were you.


BAHHAAAA

I didn't see Benghazi mentioned in your article.

How many links would I like? Let's start with one that pertains to my post. The link you posted has nothing to do with anything I said.

Let's see some proof of anything you babbled. Let's see some specific quotes. Your fragments are worthless refuting anything I said.

Here is my post you responded to. You didn't address any of those issues.

"You mean like Benghazi investigation money was repaid? How many of those were there?
How many indictments resulted from those republican investigations?
Never mind. I know you don't know.
Just kidding you. I didn't mean to push your face in the shit of selective memory or your misunderstanding of how these things work.
An investigation is done to see if there is a reason to indict.
How many Benghazi investigations without an indictment?
Oh I already asked you that.
Have you looked it up yet?

We all know you're just guessing about your conclusions. We'll all find out when we find out if trump is indicted.
And since you seem to know less than many people about this process, that is just more evidence you're just guessing."

That investigation isn't over yet...as much as you and Hellary hoped...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-watch-1048196
How many links would you like to the denial of ALL the left wing rags that say...even if Mulehead comes back with nothing...there needs to be a further investigation...THEY"RE STAKING THEIR COMPLETE EXISTENCE ON THIS!!
Even a bi-partisan Senate committee said this is a nothing burger!!
You keep wishing chump!! Originally Posted by bb1961

The first paragraph of the first article.


"House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff on Sunday threatened to call Robert Mueller to Capitol Hill and subpoena his investigative findings if Attorney General William Barr does not make public the special counsel’s highly anticipated report."
How is it a threat to Mueller to have him show what he has spent the last 2 years on? There are no downsides for Mueller to testify about his own report.

My earlier post is confirmed by your links. Thank you.


"Mueller being throw under the bus? You never get tired of being wrong, do you?
Mueller gives the report to Barr. Barr decides how much is seen. Mueller will be called upon to testify what is in the report if Barr sits on it. Do you only look at yahoo?"

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...report-1182516


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ng-in-key-area


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...s-no-collusion


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...rumps-red-line


please don't chase the pee pee unicorn, ok?

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

He doesn't need to do better. You talk about civility while calling others names.
You offer opinion as fact and then make predictions which you make sound like certainties.
You should have no issues with responses to you with the same structure and tone. The main difference will be that opinion is not offered as fact.

Thank You for the usual illuminating, intellectually rigorous response.

Respectfully! Originally Posted by oeb11

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/02...own-collusion/


What the Department of Justice may discover is that many high ranking Democrats, including Schiff, who curiously met with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson in Aspen, Colo., in July, and also tried to block the release of Fusion’s financial records to Congress, are co-conspirators themselves alongside high-ranking FBI agents and other deep state actors who manufactured the whole Russian hoax to get Trump.

I didn't see Benghazi mentioned in your article.

How many links would I like? Let's start with one that pertains to my post. The link you posted has nothing to do with anything I said.

Let's see some proof of anything you babbled. Let's see some specific quotes. Your fragments are worthless refuting anything I said.

Here is my post you responded to. You didn't address any of those issues.

"You mean like Benghazi investigation money was repaid? How many of those were there?
How many indictments resulted from those republican investigations?
Never mind. I know you don't know.
Just kidding you. I didn't mean to push your face in the shit of selective memory or your misunderstanding of how these things work.
An investigation is done to see if there is a reason to indict.
How many Benghazi investigations without an indictment?
Oh I already asked you that.
Have you looked it up yet?

We all know you're just guessing about your conclusions. We'll all find out when we find out if trump is indicted.
And since you seem to know less than many people about this process, that is just more evidence you're just guessing."

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Your notion that "indictments" are a measure of an investigation's success is both fallacious and absurd. What the investigations established is that Odumbo, hildebeest, and others were negligent, incompetent and liars not to be trusted with the reins of government. Notice how justice was rendered in the 2016 election.

Your notion that "indictments" are a measure of an investigation's success is both fallacious and absurd. What the investigations established is that Odumbo, hildebeest, and others were negligent, incompetent and liars not to be trusted with the reins of government. Notice how justice was rendered in the 2016 election. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yes, we have that ever four years. What is your point?

Yes, we have that ever four years. What is your point? Originally Posted by WTF

Your notion that "indictments" are a measure of an investigation's success is both fallacious and absurd. What the investigations established is that Odumbo, hildebeest, and others were negligent, incompetent and liars not to be trusted with the reins of government. Notice how justice was rendered in the 2016 election.

Your notion that "indictments" are a measure of an investigation's success is both fallacious and absurd. What the investigations established is that Odumbo, hildebeest, and others were negligent, incompetent and liars not to be trusted with the reins of government. Notice how justice was rendered in the 2016 election. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yes we know what the Trump followers think it established. You guys could watch Trump kill somebody on Times Square and he could convince you otherwise. Remember> We already knew that you sheep would think.

It is the independents that matter. They will decide 2020. Not you or your opinion of this investigation.

Yes we know what the Trump followers think it established. You guys could watch Trump kill somebody on Times Square and he could convince you otherwise. Remember> We already knew that you sheep would think.

It is the independents that matter. They will decide 2020. Not you or your opinion of this investigation. Originally Posted by WTF

The Benghazi investigations established that Odumbo, hildebeest, and others were negligent, incompetent and liars not to be trusted with the reins of government.