Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry

fdgku.png
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
This Lt. Col. Vindman by his own admission has violated his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

He came right out and admitted that he counseled Ukrainian officials on how to frustrate Trump's policies. That's pretty close to treason.

He apparently has no grasp of the concept of civilian control of the military, instead admitting that his concern was that controversial military aid, ie taxpayer funding, for Ukraine would be imperiled by Trump's policy. (Wonder how much of that finds it way to him thorough his Ukraine contacts?) So he set out to frustrate Trump's policy, a clear violation of his duty as a military officer.

He also showed reprehensible disloyalty and insubordination to his Commander in Chief. He was detailed to the White house as a national security aide, not sent there to pursue his own objectives and policy. Whether his motivations were based on loyalty to his homeland, hatred of Trump or financial gain, are irrelevant. He has violated the most basic obligation of a military officer and should be dishonorably discharged and probably prosecuted.
More...


They should check his bank accounts because I am sure they would find a paper trail somewhere. His Ukrainian cohorts would be dumb not to have anything on him if he decides to cross them!
 
The House is launching this impeachment process in a manner that will take the Senate hearing out to about March. Hope that works for the dems.

Trump might be able to eventually hire Trey Gowdy afterall at some point. He wanted to bring him on board but it was determined that he would not be eligible until sometime in January. Yeh, I can see January from where we are headed with this.
 
Buy1Sell2 said:
HUNGARIAN BORN? NAZI PIN??
FALSE ON BOTH COUNTS
More...


Buy1, you made a post a little while ago about McCabe being indicted or not by Nov. 15 and I wanted to reply but can't find the damn thing. So I will reply here. Probably piss a couple anal types off.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that - yes, that was an interesting development- but I dont think the reporting on that development was legally tidy.

McCabe has been trying to get certain documents from the DOJ to help his defense and with various lawsuits he has/had going. The DOJ has been refusing to release them saying that the info is classified because it would jeopardize other current ongoing investigations if released and that they are still investigating McCabe too.

Whereupon the judge more less said, okay, but you have played that card long enough. You need to either indict McCabe and show that you have an ongoing investigation or I am going to release the documents he wants by Nov. 15.

Such that the DOJ, can either indict him and maintain control of some of the documents or they can stand down and not indict him and watch the documents be released. BUT they could, I believe release the documents and still indict him on their own timetable, based on the information in those documents and/or upon other evidence still being developed through Horowitz/Durham follow-ups for example.

I dont think the judge has the power to tell a prosecutor that they cannot seek an indictment on someone (unless maybe the person was already tried and was acquitted or a dismissal from the bench has already been ordered or like that). And the fact that a defendant wants to know if they are still being investigated or could be indicted does not create a basis for ordering a prosecutor to shiite or get off the pot. But if a prosecutor is interfering with something that the defendant wants (such as those documents) the judge can set limits on that. But telling a prosecutor they cannot bring charges against someone after a certain date? Ahh, no. Nor do I think that releasing the info to him by Nov. 15 is a confirmation that he will not ever be charged on anything- even though I can see the press reporting that. Not so.

They may announce then that they are not going to prosecute him for various reasons but for reasons other than the judges deadline on the documents. McCabe needs to sweat a while longer.

Methinks.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Buy1, you made a post a little while ago about McCabe being indicted or not by Nov. 15 and I wanted to reply but can't find the damn thing. So I will reply here. Probably piss a couple anal types off.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that - yes, that was an interesting development- but I dont think the reporting on that development was legally tidy.

McCabe has been trying to get certain documents from the DOJ to help his defense and with various lawsuits he has/had going. The DOJ has been refusing to release them saying that the info is classified because it would jeopardize other current ongoing investigations if released and that they are still investigating McCabe too.

Whereupon the judge more less said, okay, but you have played that card long enough. You need to either indict McCabe and show that you have an ongoing investigation or I am going to release the documents he wants by Nov. 15.

Such that the DOJ, can either indict him and maintain control of some of the documents or they can stand down and not indict him and watch the documents be released. BUT they could, I believe release the documents and still indict him on their own timetable, based on the information in those documents and/or upon other evidence still being developed through Horowitz/Durham follow-ups for example.

I dont think the judge has the power to tell a prosecutor that they cannot seek an indictment on someone (unless maybe the person was already tried and was acquitted or a dismissal from the bench has already been ordered or like that). And the fact that a defendant wants to know if they are still being investigated or could be indicted does not create a basis for ordering a prosecutor to shiite or get off the pot. But if a prosecutor is interfering with something that the defendant wants (such as those documents) the judge can set limits on that. But telling a prosecutor they cannot bring charges against someone after a certain date? Ahh, no. Nor do I think that releasing the info to him by Nov. 15 is a confirmation that he will not ever be charged on anything- even though I can see the press reporting that. Not so.

They may announce then that they are not going to prosecute him for various reasons but for reasons other than the judges deadline on the documents. McCabe needs to sweat a while longer.

Methinks.
More...
I think you are probably correct that they could indict on their own timetable but it is advantageous they believe to do it by Nov 15. One other item---the public is getting tired of no action against these people so Nov 15 would be better. Thank you for the clarification.--Much appreciated
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Buy1, you made a post a little while ago about McCabe being indicted or not by Nov. 15 and I wanted to reply but can't find the damn thing. So I will reply here. Probably piss a couple anal types off.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that - yes, that was an interesting development- but I dont think the reporting on that development was legally tidy.

McCabe has been trying to get certain documents from the DOJ to help his defense and with various lawsuits he has/had going. The DOJ has been refusing to release them saying that the info is classified because it would jeopardize other current ongoing investigations if released and that they are still investigating McCabe too.

Whereupon the judge more less said, okay, but you have played that card long enough. You need to either indict McCabe and show that you have an ongoing investigation or I am going to release the documents he wants by Nov. 15.

Such that the DOJ, can either indict him and maintain control of some of the documents or they can stand down and not indict him and watch the documents be released. BUT they could, I believe release the documents and still indict him on their own timetable, based on the information in those documents and/or upon other evidence still being developed through Horowitz/Durham follow-ups for example.

I dont think the judge has the power to tell a prosecutor that they cannot seek an indictment on someone (unless maybe the person was already tried and was acquitted or a dismissal from the bench has already been ordered or like that). And the fact that a defendant wants to know if they are still being investigated or could be indicted does not create a basis for ordering a prosecutor to shiite or get off the pot. But if a prosecutor is interfering with something that the defendant wants (such as those documents) the judge can set limits on that. But telling a prosecutor they cannot bring charges against someone after a certain date? Ahh, no. Nor do I think that releasing the info to him by Nov. 15 is a confirmation that he will not ever be charged on anything- even though I can see the press reporting that. Not so.

They may announce then that they are not going to prosecute him for various reasons but for reasons other than the judges deadline on the documents. McCabe needs to sweat a while longer.

Methinks.
More...
Buy1Sell2 said:
I think you are probably correct that they could indict on their own timetable but it is advantageous they believe to do it by Nov 15. One other item---the public is getting tired of no action against these people so Nov 15 would be better. Thank you for the clarification.--Much appreciated
More...

Get a room, funboys. Your little deviant fantasy of seeing McCabe indicted ain’t happening.

Losers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top