[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #661 lets ask McCabe

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 september 2019 23:14 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1172616955611766784?s=21

President Trump: "I hit Pocahontas way too early. I thought she was gone, she's emerged from the ashes. And now it looks like she could beat Sleepy Joe. He's falling asleep, he has no idea what the hell he's doing or saying."

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 september 2019 23:22 schreef Jojoke het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat Sanders het Warren gaat gunnen als hij ziet dat zij een reële kans maakt. Dat lijkt mij ook verstandig.

quote:

Op vrijdag 13 september 2019 23:14 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1172616955611766784?s=21

President Trump: "I hit Pocahontas way too early. I thought she was gone, she's emerged from the ashes. And now it looks like she could beat Sleepy Joe. He's falling asleep, he has no idea what the hell he's doing or saying."

twitter:

steve_vladeck twitterde op zaterdag 14-09-2019 om 02:31:33 This #thread from @K8brannen is _deeply_ alarming. Under 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(C), the Acting DNI is _required_ to transmit details on such "urgent complaints" to the congressional intelligence committees within 7 days. Acting DNI Maguire hasn't done so, and hasn't explained why. https://t.co/Pk96ZteCbD reageer retweet

twitter:

K8brannen twitterde op zaterdag 14-09-2019 om 02:00:43 According to @RepAdamSchiff, a whistleblower lodged an urgent complaint about wrongdoing within the Intelligence Community. https://t.co/9yUhLLtFuh reageer retweet

quote:

[..]

Chairman Schiff stated:

“A month ago, a whistleblower within the intelligence community lawfully filed a complaint regarding a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law, or deficiency within the responsibility or authority of the Director of National Intelligence. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community found that complaint not only credible, but urgent. More than ten days since the Director was obligated to transmit the complaint to the intelligence committees, the Committee has still not received the disclosure from the Director, in violation of the law.

“A Director of National Intelligence has never prevented a properly submitted whistleblower complaint that the IC IG determined to be credible and urgent from being provided to the congressional intelligence committees. Never. This raises serious concerns about whether White House, Department of Justice or other executive branch officials are trying to prevent a legitimate whistleblower complaint from reaching its intended recipient, the Congress, in order to cover up serious misconduct.

“After Watergate exposed significant intelligence abuses, a critical bargain was struck: in exchange for the Intelligence Community’s willingness to reveal closely guarded national security secrets, the congressional intelligence committees and leadership promised to handle that information responsibly. It was also of vital importance that intelligence officials have a lawful and protected means of bringing misconduct to the attention of Congress and the public. By withholding a credible whistleblower complaint that potentially deals with executive branch wrongdoing, the DNI is in violation of the applicable statute and has made itself a party to the concealment of potentially serious misconduct.”

[..]

On September 13, 2019, the Committee received a letter from the ODNI declining the Chairman's request and stating that the DNI, contrary to an unambiguous statutory command, is withholding the complaint from the Committee because, in part, it involves confidentially and potentially privileged communications by persons outside the Intelligence Community.

In Schiff's September 13, 2019 letter to the DNI accompanying the subpoena, Schiff writes:

[..]

"The Committee can only conclude, based on this remarkable confluence of factors, that the serious misconduct at issue involves the President of the United States and/or other senior White House or Administration officials. This raises grave concerns that your office, together with the Department of Justice and possibly the White House, are engaged in an unlawful effort to protect the President and conceal from the Committee information related to his possible "serious or flagrant" misconduct, abuse of power, or violation of law.

twitter:

K8brannen twitterde op zaterdag 14-09-2019 om 02:27:00 What is the acting director of national intelligence hiding?What is the wrongdoing the whistleblower witnessed? Why won't Maguire share the complaint with the committee? And what does @SenatorBurr, chairman of the Senate intel committee, have to say? Stay tuned ... reageer retweet

quote:

"If the grand jury voted not to approve charges, it did not find probable cause. Therefore, it is simply not reasonable to believe that a trial jury would find Mr. McCabe guilty of any charges employing a far more rigorous and exacting standard--beyond a reasonable doubt," Mr. Bromwich wrote.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the grand jury had been released Thursday with no immediate signs of an indictment.

quote:

If prosecutors did seek an indictment from a different grand jury despite a no true bill, it would raise further concerns about a Justice Department already under suspicion. Consider the recent prosecution of former Obama White House counsel Gregory B. Craig. Prosecutors in New York had declined to bring that case, but prosecutors at the Justice Department picked it up and indicted him. It only took the jury a few hours to find Craig not guilty after his recent trial, and some have suggested politics played a role in reviving the prosecution. Attorney General William P. Barr has come under severe criticism himself for his apparent efforts to "spin" the report of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III to make it sound more favorable to the president. Trump routinely calls for the investigation and prosecution of political opponents, and his supporters still chant "lock her up" at his rallies.

Using criminal prosecution as a political weapon is the stuff of totalitarian regimes. If the Justice Department develops that kind of reputation, the damage may be irreversible. If there was a no true bill, that should be the end of the case.

twitter:

NatashaBertrand twitterde op vrijdag 13-09-2019 om 17:38:10 Now, they’re asking whether the grand jury indeed declined to bring charges, and argue that if it did, “the justice manual compels you not to resubmit the case to the same or a different grand jury.” reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 september 2019 01:55 schreef Tweek het volgende:
Tump zijn presidentschap zit er bijna op. Maar er is geen één ding dat zijn naam draagt.

Kan je nog harder falen als dat? Alle macht hebben en niets voor elkaar krijgen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 september 2019 00:47 schreef Tweek het volgende:

[..]

Wel weer typisch dat je racistische uitspraken niet veroordeeld maar gewoon kopieert. Hele dag lullen erover, maar zodra je grote voorbeeld het doet is het slechts een twitter dumpje.

Straks weer door gaan met je gelul als of er niets aan de hand is?

Chivaz waarom haat je mensen die er anders uit zien als jij?

Waarom denk je dat jij zo geweldig bent, dat er wetten gemaakt moeten worden zodat niemand zo geweldig kan zijn als jij? Wat heb jij gedaan dat je dat verdient? en niemand anders?

Kan je me dat uitleggen, waarom jij beter bent als andere? Als ieder mens?

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 september 2019 08:01 schreef Montov het volgende:
Wie is de favoriete dictator van Trump? Ik zou zeggen Putin of Kim Jung Un.
Trump zelf zegt el-Sisi, maar dat lijkt me een leugen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 september 2019 09:03 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk Mussolini.

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 september 2019 10:39 schreef zarGon het volgende:

[..]

Geen idee? Ben je de mass shootings in Texas nu al vergeten, ja?

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 september 2019 11:07 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Nee hoor, ik zie alleen niet in wat voor nut het heeft om specifiek die wapens te bannen.
Als je denkt dat alleen deze 2 wapens dit soort schade kunnen uitrichten dan kom je bedrogen uit.

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 september 2019 11:07 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Nee hoor, ik zie alleen niet in wat voor nut het heeft om specifiek die wapens te bannen.
Als je denkt dat alleen deze 2 wapens dit soort schade kunnen uitrichten dan kom je bedrogen uit.

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 september 2019 11:13 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Als je denkt dat Trump supporters iemand supporten die geen racist is, kom je ook bedrogen uit.

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 september 2019 11:13 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Het is natuurlijk een stap in de goede richting. Althans, als je voorstander bent van het beperken van het wapenbezit.

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 september 2019 11:16 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Toegegeven het is wel een geweldige strategie, het pakte ook zeer goed uit in 2016.

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 september 2019 11:19 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Het is symboolpolitiek, ik zie meer in jaarlijkse controles op mentale gezondheid bijvoorbeeld.

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 september 2019 11:20 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:

[..]

Laat maar zien dat die shootings allemaal gedaan zijn door mensen die niet door een controle van mentale gezondheid hadden gekomen.