and I suspect what they would is impeach in the House but they would fall just short in the Senate or in other words they will shield him like they shielded Bush jr, Cheney, Reagan and Bush Sr.

to do in the Senate is to tell the right ones to vote yes as well but they would withhold the one final one (probably one that is set to retire) that would be the one needed to cross the threshold and impeach him and they would then claim they really tried but because of the actions of a few they were unable to impeach him.

Holy shit.

They are not going to embarrass the party unless their seats are on the line.

then if the GOP caucus does nothing..then their seats will be in jeopardy.

FISA issues warrants, not indictments. Indictments come from federal grand juries.

As I understand it their function is to issue search warrants, period.

Jared, Ivanka...bring me two buckets of KFC.

This is going to be BIGLY. My impeachment will beat Nixon in the ratings. I PROMISE !!!

It almost seems you are accusing the OP of stupidity and lying.

What section of 28 USC grants the FISA court the authority to conduct criminal prosecutions.

This is not some kind of matter of opinion or religious belief. The jurisdiction of the court is there in black and white letters. It is limited to reviewing surveillance warrant applications.

If you believe otherwise, simply saying "taint so" doesn't cut it.

And, no, the OP is merely posting tweets saying such a thing. I have no doubt the OP accurately represents what was tweeted.

Rubles in the mail. No, sorry. Bitcoin in cloud.

It's a fabulous investment. How else could I survive, what is it --118 days without 'good shade'?

said that he has been coordinating his investigation with 2 prosecutors, including one in the Eastern District of Virginia. One of those prosecutors could have included a sealed indictment against Donald Trump along with other indictments.

We don't know how this will turn out. But Claude Taylor reported on the existence of two Grand Juries a couple weeks before , including one in the same district where Comey said he was working with a prosecutor. So this is plausible, though not proven by any means.

Do the words "sealed indictment has been issued against Trump by FISA court" appear on your screen when viewing the OP, or has my system been hacked in a most unusual way?

The blog post, noted above, is even worse.

That's a hell of a basic fact to get wrong.

for background. The 2nd tweet had just popped up and, yes, I didn't read it carefully.

And you are right, the FISA court part doesn't sound right. But I can believe here is a sealed indictment with Donald Trump's name on it, and that FBI agents are furious enough about Comey's ill-treatment to be leaking about it.

The issue isn't settled law because there is no political will to do so. The impeachment process HAS been successfully used, however.

Might that somehow make it relevant to the supremacy clause?

...in the event that the FISA reference is a mistake, my question was whether it would then be possible that the supremacy clause thing could be right, because it could be a state (rather the federal) court issuing the indictment.

...the kind of thing discussed in the link below, kindly provided by The Velveteen Ocelot elsewhere...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2016/11/09/can-a-president-trump-be-prosecuted-based-upon-allegations-of-past-misconduct/#700cf823491b

But neither do I want to allow reasonable "layman" errors to be used to rule out the possibility that the actual information (or something close to it) could possibly be true. Using an errantly worded supporting comment to "prove" the main thing is false is not proper logic either.

Sure, there may be.

But since that is not a claim subject to critical analysis, then all we got is a strong indication that these people don't know what they are talking about.

The "Supremacy Clause" thing is not a "layman's error" because it is so far from relevant that it is not even "wrong". The underlying premise - that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted - is not a settled question, so for a layman to say so in an "of course this is impossible" tone, is not a matter of some error in word selection. The premise is not even correct, and the bizarre reason for it is simply bizarre.



But if the sealed indictment is filed next to Obama's "real" birth certificate, then it doesn't help.

There are, out in the open, horrendous things this cretin has done, about which there are still idiots who do not quite grasp the enormity of the situation we are in.

I just happened to see that OP right after reading your reply to me and thought it was relevant. Sorry for the distraction.

You just have to have faith!

That is all.

Link to tweet

You don't have all of the answers.

And this is all bullshit LOL-

Speculation on fucking Twitter about the Twitler


Louise Mensch is trolling you

Link to tweet

I don't tweet but I'm an attorney. And I say a FISA court cannot convene a grand jury. And unlike Mr. Laufer, a personal injury lawyer in a two person firm with no apparent expertise in anything remotely connected to FISA (his website identifies the following as his areas of practice: Auto Accidents; Construction Accidents;Slip & Fall Accidents; Elevator Accidents; Civil Rights Law; Employment Law; Malpractice Law; Personal Injury; Wrongful Death; Real Estate Litigation; Wrongful Imprisonment; Police Brutality Cases), I'll point to the statute that authorizes the creation and defines the jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and which nowhere gives this court the authority to do anything but act on surveillance warrants: 18 USC 1803.

in Virginia. How do you know that evidence from a FISA search wasn't used by one of those prosecutors in a Grand Jury proceeding?

Louise Mensch's blog post said nothing about a FISA court, by the way. Only Taylor said that in one of his tweets.

Do you seriously think Dana Boente has been supervising a grand jury investigating Donald Trump? The same Dana Boente who accepted the appointment as acting attorney general when Sally Yates was fired. The guy who was willing to defend the immigration ban. The guy who two weeks ago was appointed, BY JEFF SESSIONS, to be the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division while still serving as US Attorney for the Eastern District. The guy that Sessions named to replace Mary McCord, who many here believed was forced out at DOJ because she knew too much.

Link to tweet

If the grand jury had a question of law, that question could be heard by FISC or FISCR.

So federal grand jury issues indictments, but FISA courts are involved via certified question jurisdiction. That is possible.

But yes fair point.

Link to tweet

Woodward and Bernstein sorta?

can claim federal immunity from state laws, I believe.

The triad of reliable news

Makes me wonder if DU has been visited by the disinformation squad.

Though I will admit that, until verified, this new information is nothing more than internet conjecture.

BUT DAMN. This is exciting nonetheless. Are we getting closer? Finally???

which he also signed.

and that the only way to get rid of a President is to impeach him and convict him in the Senate.

"Supremacy Clause" has an actual meaning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

"The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied."

You are talking about what every schoolchild knows to be "Separation of Powers".

The blog authors are using "fancy legal phrases" at random, to persuade dumb people they know what they are talking about.

The question of whether a sitting president can be the subject of a federal criminal prosecution has NOTHING to do with the Supremacy Clause, and is not even a settled question with a definite answer.

Edited.

If their "sources" don't know basic criminal procedure, I can only conclude that they aren't legitimate sources. The FISA court isn't issuing indictments, not now or ever. It's just attention grabbing blather.

=https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/14/exclusive-sealed-indictment-granted-against-donald-trump/

By Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor

Separate sources with links to the intelligence and justice communities have stated that a sealed indictment has been granted against Donald Trump.

While it is understood that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that, until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted, sources say that the indictment is intended by the FBI and prosecutors in the Justice Department to form the basis of Mr. Trump’s impeachment. The indictment is, perhaps uniquely, not intended or expected to be used for prosecution, sources say, because of the constitutional position of the President.

These super secret sealed indictments are presumably coming from federal grand juries, so the Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with anything. It's like the old Damon Wayans character on "In Living Color" that tried to sound smart by saying all the big words he knew, but most of them turned out to be bodily functions.

who are feeding them a crock of sh#t.

FISA court can convene a grand jury who can issue a true bill.

Link to tweet

Maybe Cheato was right about Trump Tower eh?

Prosecutors convene grand juries. The only thing the could does is provide the pool of jurors and a room and the court reporter. When the US attorney convenes a grand jury it is in Federal District Court. It would never be in the FISC. That court has a specific role, to approve warrants for surveillance of foreign agents inside the United States. There are no FISA grand juries and no FISA indictments. This is nonsense.

Mensch is a click-baiting carnival barker. There really is absolutely nothing to see here.

He's the US Attorney for the Eastern District. He also is the guy who accepted the appointment as acting attorney general when Sally Yates was fired. The guy who was willing to defend the immigration ban. The guy who two weeks ago was appointed, BY JEFF SESSIONS, to be the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division while still serving as US Attorney for the Eastern District. The guy that Sessions named to replace Mary McCord, who many here believed was forced out at DOJ because she knew too much.

The claim that there is an indictment against Trump is nowhere in the vicinity of the bullshit that the birther lie Trump championed is.

I can't face-palm you enough. If I or anyone else wants to read Mensch and Taylor, it's really NOYDB.

I personally hope their right even if they get the details all squirrelly. In the meantime, I follow them on twitter just as I follow Maddow and O'Donnell. I'm a big girl, all grown up and capable of deciding for myself what I think is possible and what's not. Has nothing to do with it being "helpful for some purpose."

I would imagine I'm not alone on this.

I'll try again.

It's. None. Of. Your. Damn. Business. - if people like me want to follow L&M and speculate on whether they may be correct or may be tripping on the same batch of acid.

I'm not arguing your insistence that it's all a big ol' pile of horseshit, okay? I'm just pointing out to you that your overzealous, grandiose attack on the horseshit spreaders has run amok.

We hear you...over and over and over again. Got it. Horseshit - all of it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going pop on twitter to see what Claude's up to now. After that, I may mosey on over to Jake Tapper's TL.

I'm speaking in general and I think you know that. I'm also trying to make a point to you. Your screaming this down isn't going to change minds or stop the Claudes and Louises of the Twitterspheres.

Maybe not take it so seriously. It's just our democracy at stake and a madman at the wheel intent on cliff surfing. Some of us are enjoying the fantasy of him being dragged out of the White House in shackles whether that is legal per the constitution or not, okay?

With all that's happened in the past week, with the firing of Comey and the admittance by Trump that he fired Comey to obstruct the investigation into Russian collusion, that there is no chance in hell of an indictment to start impeachment?

You think Comey was lying under oath when he mentioned prosecutors and EDVA in his recent hearing?


You think that's all just a big nothing-burger?

...by your answer to my first question. Has nothing to do with Mensch or Taylor and more to do with what amped-up in the past week. Clapper was just on CNN talking openly about Trump assaulting our institutions. The dems are sounding the alarms and starting to threaten a refusal to vote on an FBI Director until a special prosecutor is brought in. Emergency meetings are taken place. The rhetoric is building.

If you want to keep hammering on about two Twitter folks, go for it. But to flat out think that there could be no indictment for impeachment is naive, IMHO. I'm not saying there is. But I'd never say there isn't - especially now that Trump admitted on national television that he flat out fired Comey to get rid of the Russian investigation. The smoke alarm has officially gone off and I refuse to believe that our country is just going to sit back and allow that piece of shit to install an authoritarian banana republic.

Not happening.

So, I'll believe in aliens, big foot and the tooth fairy before I'll not believe that impeachment is coming. I don't know the process, I will willingly admit. Hell, I never even heard of a FISA or EDVA or Supremacy Clause before now. I am no expert. But the winds have changed. It's coming.

That's not even what my answer to your question was.

Your question:

"With all that's happened in the past week, with the firing of Comey and the admittance by Trump that he fired Comey to obstruct the investigation into Russian collusion, that there is no chance in hell of an indictment to start impeachment?"

Now, given the grammatical problems with that question in the first place, I assume there is a missing "do you think" before the word "that".

You are asking if there is "no chance". That was your question.

I answered the question "No". I do not agree there is "that there is no chance in hell" of an indictment.

If you are going to ask a "yes or no" question, please try to understand what you are asking, or what the answer means.

I do not agree with your proposition that there is "no chance" of a sealed indictment, filed somewhere, naming someone, of doing something. Accordingly, I answered "no".

Then you come back and and say that I "flat out think that there could be no indictment". That's not even what my answer to your question said.

Let me give you a friendly tip that may save you a lot of problems communicating. When you ask a "yes or no question" try not to include a negative in the question, such as "no chance".

Things like "Isn't it not untrue that you were not at the murder scene?" are not good questions, because of the work required to understand what "yes" or "no" even means in response to them.

You have either (a) not understood your own question, or (b) not understood the answer to it.

My typing in a hurry with such awful grammar and misunderstanding your answer to my question.

I am but a mere mortal.

"You have either (a) not understood your own question, or (b) not understood the answer to it."

B. I misunderstood your answer. Terrible, shameful. I hang my head in shame for being such a mistaken human in the presence of your anonymous awe.

If you'd like, I can go beat myself with a wet towel. Or I could write you an essay on why it so goddamn awful of me for misunderstanding a question by the honorable jberryhill on a forum on the fucking internet.

Would you like a 500 word essay or two word essay? If the latter, I already know exactly what I'm going to write to you.

I just thought the reaction was odd, and went through the detail of explaining it for clarity.

I also don't understand the "anonymous" awe thing. I'm not anonymous.

I post under my real name, and if you have any doubt about what I think of Trump, consider me early:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/03/i-bought-the-website-trump-org-then-donald-trump-came-after-me/?utm_term=.529a1b59dab2

Please note the attorney who told Trump to fuck off.

or, Dick Cheney for that matter:

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-06-cheney-error_x.htm

...in another thread, it's your delivery.

You could have simply pointed out that I must have misunderstood your answer (clearly). I would have apologized graciously. But you felt the need to "school" me. I guess that's your nature since you're a lawyer, but it doesn't read well.

As for anonymous, I don't know who you are. Why do you assume I would assume you're using your real name? And to be clear, I don't go Googling folks' names on forums.


I didn't have any doubt that you don't care for Trump. I also have no doubt that you don't care for Louis Mensch and Claude Taylor...none whatsoever.

You've made your point.

This! I am just gonna quote you:

Actually, I guess there is a place for everything otherwise National Enquirer wouldn't still be selling off the store shelves...

Cause a shock wave throughout Washington. Smoke out the rats.

Disinformation is certainly a tool in their toolbox.

I don't quarrel with you about the ethics, however.

So, we should participate in spreading false information?

How did the "Trump Going To Trial For Rape!" thing work out?

It couldn't have been that it was a scheme originally promoted by a Cruz backer and a Jerry Springer producer.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation

This spring, a man called “Al Taylor” sent a video of a woman with a blurred face and blonde wig (allegedly Johnson) recounting the allegations against Trump to news outlets, saying he wanted $1 million for it. Taylor, the Guardian reported, was actually Norm Lubow, a former producer on the Jerry Springer show who has a history of using fake names and disguises to make juicy, false claims about celebrities.

The lawsuit was promoted to the media by an anti-Trump, anti-abortion activist named Steve Baer, a conservative activist and donor with a very influential email list that he uses to relentlessly spam reporters and conservative power players. Baer, too, has a history of passing around “whoa if true” rumors: Last year, he was a key figure in spreading the notion that US Rep. Kevin McCarthy was having an extramarital affair with a woman in Congress when McCarthy was a candidate to become speaker of the House.

-----

Because, you see, the Trump organization kept a detailed log on girls raped in the 1990's, and has followed them ever since, so that if they ever made anonymous accusations later, they'd know which one it was and where to find them.

Thsi story is appearing all over the internet tonight.
We may see this as the harbinger of the end of Trump.

She might be reliable, but she's not likely to get news before CNN or another news org. The news orgs have sources everywhere far more extensive than any one person.

We all have to draw our own conclusions as to what those things mean.

In the NY Times it says this...


[img][/img]



at the bottom of this op-ed...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/opinion/what-to-ask-about-russian-hacking.html

warrant, though the BBC and the Guardian confirmed it within a couple weeks.

I'm not expecting this indictment, if it exists, to get unsealed anytime soon.

That was never corroborated by legitimate news organizations in America. That was a conservative meme, to bolster Trump's claim that Obama was wiretapping him. I just Googled that and found it "reported" on partisan websites, liberal & conservative.

When you think about it, that makes sense that a conservative news person in Britain would have intel sources in the U S that our enormous news organizations here, some of which are global news organizations like CNN, would not have.

They will neither confirm nor deny any warrants....classified.

There is no evidence of any FISA warrants having been issued in October. No big news org. has repeated that story, either. CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc.

Like this Mensch person's other stories, they appear on partisan websites. I assume because they are un-sourced and unverified. In other words, it's not verified news. It's just unsubstantiated rumor. That's not to say it isn't true. But there's nothing to say it is.

These are conservative memes put out by conservatives, as far as I can tell. Mensch is also a conservative.

For example;

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.