The Trump thread: All things Donald

[Athos_131]

APNewsBreak: Flynn details tie to data firm, transition pay

#Resist

[_priapism]

I think convening a grand jury signals this shit is getting very real, and very serious.  Will be fun to watch the Orange One lashing out like a cornered tiger.

[Lois]

Assembling a Grand Jury is a sure sign that things are serious. Even Fox is saying so for now. But I don't doubt some spin will be invented that Fox will soon parrot.

What is amazing to me is how easily the GOP has allowed factionalism to lead them down the road to supporting treasonous individuals.

[Northwest]

I've eaten root vegetables that were smarter than this guy:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/the-trumpian-dealmaker-myth-is-finally-truly-dead

[Northwest]

As I try to read the tea leaves what strikes me is not that Mueller's team empanaled a Grand Jury, but rather that this move came so early in the investigation. I would have thought his team was still in the process of forming, and that substantative actions would be half a year down the road or more. I read an article recently that reminded me that Watergate took several years to play out (whereas in my memory it happened all at once). It seems to me that Mueller is ahead of the curve.

This suggests to me that the investigative team has already uncovered substantial evidence of wrong doing. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my reaad.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/mueller-grand-jury/535875/

[joan1984]

  Washington, DC usually has at least 5 or more Grand Juries taking testimony at any one time, with more as needed. Not all, but most are seated, supervised by Federal Marshals, some with 'generic' purposes, local crimes, major crime, both local to DC and Federal in nature, others with very specific subjects.

  Grand Jury Service is fed by the pool of DC registered voters, random selects from the general city Jury Duty Pool. The Grand Jury sits for 21 weekdays, not on City or Federal Holidays, not on Saturday under normal conditions, not on Sunday. Grand Jurors may be polled by various prosecutors who's cases are heard, with the main purpose to get testimony from witnesses at the time the witness may be available. Some witnesses may be called again and again, and asked questions as a case is fleshed out, influenced by other testimony, as to the specifics asked.

  If a particular Grand Jury does not have a quorum at the time when a witness is available, then another Grand Jury may witness the questioning/testimony of that witness, and then that testimony, captured by a court reporter, is read into the record of the appropriate Grand Jury who would ideally have heard the testimony.  Grand Jurors may participate, and do, in the questioning of any witness before them, is up to the individual Grand Jurors, and all becomes a part of the record.

  After 30 Calendar Days, Grand Jurors are usually released from service, and a new 'set' of Grand Jurors is appointed, hearing generally the continuing case, with earlier important testimony read from the record as may be needed, to inform the sitting Grand Jurors.  All Grand Jurors are subject to recall by the supervising Judge, for at least one day, usually to settle questions that may arise, and their individual terms may be extended by the supervising Court.
--------

The point being, there are always live Grand Juries capable of taking sworn testimony from any available witness, and such testimony becomes a part of the record for the Grand Jury who eventually may be asked to VOTE on any charge.

[Northwest]

  Washington, DC usually has at least 5 or more Grand Juries taking testimony at any one time, with more as needed. Not all, but most are seated, supervised by Federal Marshals, some with 'generic' purposes, local crimes, major crime, both local to DC and Federal in nature, others with very specific subjects.

  Grand Jury Service is fed by the pool of DC registered voters, random selects from the general city Jury Duty Pool. The Grand Jury sits for 21 weekdays, not on City or Federal Holidays, not on Saturday under normal conditions, not on Sunday. Grand Jurors may be polled by various prosecutors who's cases are heard, with the main purpose to get testimony from witnesses at the time the witness may be available. Some witnesses may be called again and again, and asked questions as a case is fleshed out, influenced by other testimony, as to the specifics asked.

  If a particular Grand Jury does not have a quorum at the time when a witness is available, then another Grand Jury may witness the questioning/testimony of that witness, and then that testimony, captured by a court reporter, is read into the record of the appropriate Grand Jury who would ideally have heard the testimony.  Grand Jurors may participate, and do, in the questioning of any witness before them, is up to the individual Grand Jurors, and all becomes a part of the record.

  After 30 Calendar Days, Grand Jurors are usually released from service, and a new 'set' of Grand Jurors is appointed, hearing generally the continuing case, with earlier important testimony read from the record as may be needed, to inform the sitting Grand Jurors.  All Grand Jurors are subject to recall by the supervising Judge, for at least one day, usually to settle questions that may arise, and their individual terms may be extended by the supervising Court.
--------

The point being, there are always live Grand Juries capable of taking sworn testimony from any available witness, and such testimony becomes a part of the record for the Grand Jury who eventually may be asked to VOTE on any charge.

Where is your information coming from? What's your source? How do you know that what say is accurate (your comments about how aspects of government works, are not, based on past posts, always accurate)?

The impression you are giving is not in line with what I am reading in the comments of others in the media, although, no one is taking the position that the empaneling of a grand jury means that we are nearing prosecution,  or as direct evidence of criminal behavior. But neither, as I'm reading, is it as casual as you imply.

So I'd like to know where your information is coming from so that I can assess the likely accuracy of the source.

[Athos_131]

Northwest,

joan1984 is a hypocrite.  While screaming fake news at other people's credible, verifiable sources, many times she fails to provide credible, veriable sources to support her own positions.

#Resist

[Northwest]

Yup. Well, it might be an oversight on her part. So by framing it as a question, I allow for that possibility.

I doubt it, based on past experience, but I'm open to being surprised.

[staci]

Why she have to provide a source?

A week old slice of bread will go moldy.

When the refill gas light comes on, one has approximately 25 to 30 miles worth left in the "empty" tank.

Some women follow a spaghetti sauce recipe to a T and others swear by an extra pinch of salt.

My source = Experience

Could Joan not have shirked her civic responsibility, and served on a Grand Jury or two, thus gaining the experience to share with the skeptics?

[Athos_131]

Why she have to provide a source?

Because joan1984 chooses to challenge other people's sources.  Of course, he could just enjoy being an unethical, lying, racist hypocrite.

#Resist

[Northwest]

Why she have to provide a source?

A week old slice of bread will go moldy.

When the refill gas light comes on, one has approximately 25 to 30 miles worth left in the "empty" tank.

Some women follow a spaghetti sauce recipe to a T and others swear by an extra pinch of salt.

My source = Experience

Could Joan not have shirked her civic responsibility, and served on a Grand Jury or two, thus gaining the experience to share with the skeptics?

Joan doesn't "have to" do anything. I explained why I wanted to know her source(s); because of her past comments about government function which proved to be inaccurate, and because what she is implying is different from the general read I'm getting from perusing several publications. Those are legitimate reasons to inquire, and I'm not just picking on her, or automatically assuming she's wrong (read back what I wrote).

Joan is not under any obligation to answer (she ignores most questions I ask anyway) but I'm certainly free to ask where she gets her facts. And if the answer is that she "served on a couple of grand juries" then I would take that as significant experience -- certainly more significant than any that I have had. But I have no way of knowing how seriously to take her comments because I don't know upon what they are based.

When I speak from hunch, or experience or intuition, for example (and I do at times speak from all three) I make it clear that that's what I'm doing. I'm simply asking how she knows what she knows. Hopefully, for Joan's sake, she will realize that when you use a source (presuming it's one which will stand up to scrutiny) you strengthen your writing. Good writers refer to sources because it makes their writing more credible.

[Athos_131]

This Trump real estate deal looks awfully like criminal tax fraud

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Secret Service vacates Trump Tower command post in lease dispute with president’s company

#Resist

[staci]

NW, I understand your stance based on previous subjects with her. I don't really belong in here anyway as I tend to be too opinionated which means it is just that, an opinion and thus not substantiated by backup sources, I guess this part of the forum has generated to be factual.
For what it's worth, Joan and I are on opposite political sides and I know she loves digging at some of the more sensitive patrons. source = Joan

[Athos_131]

I know she loves digging at some of the more sensitive patrons. source = Joan

joan1984 has admitted he's a troll.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

What Is a Grand Jury and How Does It Impact the Russia Investigation?

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Special Counsel Seeks White House Documents on Flynn

#Resist

[Northwest]

NW, I understand your stance based on previous subjects with her. I don't really belong in here anyway as I tend to be too opinionated which means it is just that, an opinion and thus not substantiated by backup sources, I guess this part of the forum has generated to be factual.
For what it's worth, Joan and I are on opposite political sides and I know she loves digging at some of the more sensitive patrons. source = Joan

For what it's worth, Staci, I don't think that having opinions is a problem. I'm very opinionated as well. The only time that having an opinion becomes an issue, as I see it, is when people mistake an opinion for a fact.

I may, in fact, believe something, but if I want to claim that my belief is the truth, I'd better have something more to back it up than just my feelings.

[_priapism]

No one has ever changed anyone's opinion about anything in this forum. This is merely a place to exchange information and scream at each other. The truth is, as a lawyer, and a political junkie, I can tell you that a grand jury would not be convened, unless there was something for a grand jury to review. I agree with your assessment NW, that Mueller's team must be uncovering some serious shit.