BREAKING: Mueller’s Prosecutor Abruptly Resigns From Roger Stone Case After DOJ Backs Down From Exce

The WH expressed their constitutional right challenge subpenas, and the dems made their choice...they had their chance, they decide not to go after the witnesses...that’s their choice, it was their case to make.

 

Just out of curiosity: Are you holding back/waiting for confirmation of any reports of what Bolton might have written in a book?

 

McConnell was right. There is no "choice." The House has the sole power of Impeachment and impeachment, constitutionally, demands a trial. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachment...but they get to set their own trial rules, other than calling the Chief Justice to preside, as specified in the Constitution. Both the Democrat motion to allow new witnesses and documentation and the final vote to convict or not were bi-partisan; the first motion was joined by 2-3 Republicans and the final vote to convict by one Republican. Both, of course, failed to overcome the partisan vote of the remaining Republicans. However, the reasons for voting not to convict varied among the Republicans from total rejection of the charges, to "maybe he's earned his lesson."

 

If the Republicans in the Senate wanted to hear the facts from direct witnesses, they would have voted to subpoena them. Instead, they blocked the motion altogether.

 

They didn’t want to put the Houses case on for them. The House Dems called who they wanted to. The Judge and Jury doesn’t make the case for the prosecutor in a trial

 

Virtually all jurisdictions, in the state and federal judicial systems have provisions to introduce new evidence at trial. Senate Republicans (less 2 or 3) blocked such a course in their role as both judge and jury. Roberts announced before the vote, that he would not take part in the vote, even in case of a tie.

 

Not really interested in the left trying to take the high road after the low life crap they have been pulling for the last three plus years. The left has changed the rules. Investigations are done to find out if a crime has been done and all it takes to impeach a president is a majority in the house. Don't really need a crime for either/ Yes, I as serious as the left has been.

 

Sure the prosecutors can introduce evidence at trial but it’s their job to collect it to present it. ....it’s not the role of a trial to conduct an investigation. The house had they responsibility and made the choice that they apparently had enough.

 

It was in this case. The Democrat's motion to allow additional witnesses and documentation was the equivalent of asking the judge to allow new evidence. The "judge" voted it down.

 

Read the Constitution.

 

I read it. Maybe the left should read it. FISA abuse comes to mind. You know, the "peepee tapes".

 

Yes because the prosecutor should have had the evidence if they wanted to present it. This wasn’t some new thing that just came available. They wanted Bolton, they knew of Bolton, but never attempt to get him before

 

I agree with the sentiment in general concerning the silent generation.

Words of estimative probability.



Intelligence is not an exact science Grapeape.

In the ICA of 2017 as it relates to intelligence assessments and judgments on the various components, the FBI had "high confidence", the CIA reported "high confidence" and the NSA was more skeptical willing to assert only "moderate confidence." Below I've included pg. 13 of the Intelligence Communities Assessment: Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections. As you can see the agencies did not assert certainty. They estimated their own Judgments and Assessments had the probability of being correct at 80ish% to 50ish%. Highly probable to plausible but unsure.




https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

 

If Bolton reveals incontrovertible evidence that Trump leveraged taxpayer money for personal political gain, what say ye then?

 

Did you watch them?

 

Bolton first said he'd wait for the decision on McGahn. That decision is probably going to the Supreme Court and may take another year. Then he said he's answer a supine from the Senate, but not from the House. Republicans have played delaying tactics for too long. Time to vote them all out and move on.

 

Im sorry but who was president when that happened? Who was fbi Director? Who appointed that person? Who was AG? Who appointed them?

 

Interesting...that was part of the investigation problem...counter intelligence investigations have lower levels of "probable cause" necessary to begin an investigation than do criminal investigations.

 

31 million dollars and three years later and no collusion even after the FISA abuse all based on idiotic nonexistent peepee tapes. The first investigation that had more blow back on the agency than it did on the main party being investigated.

 

After some two dozen indictments? Don't think so.

 

Against how many people? How many of the indictments were directed against Trump? The investigation that didn't go they way they thought it would. The one that Cummings demanded.

DoJ Fired/Resigned/Demoted

• John Carlin – Assistant Attorney General – Head of DOJ’s National Security Division - Resigned - FISA Abuses
• Sally Yates – Deputy Attorney General & Acting Attorney General - Fired
• Mary McCord – Acting Assistant Attorney General – Acting Head of DOJ’s National Security Division - Resigned
• Bruce Ohr – Associate Deputy Attorney General - Demoted twice
• David Laufman – DOJ National Security Division, Deputy Asst. Attorney General - Resigned
• Rachel Brand – Associate Attorney General - Resigned

FBI Fired/Resigned/Demoted

• James Comey – FBI Director - Fired
• Peter Strzok – Deputy Assistant Director of FBI’s - Demoted / Fired
• Lisa Page – FBI/DOJ Lawyer - Demoted - Resigned
• James Baker – FBI General Counsel - Demoted - Reassigned
• James Rybicki – Chief of Staff to FBI Director - Demoted - Resigned
• Andrew McCabe – Deputy FBI Director - Fired - Charges Recommended
• Josh Campbell – Special Assistant to James Comey - Resigned
• Michael Kortan – FBI Asst. Director Public Affairs - Resigned
• Bill Priestap – Assistant Director – Head of FBI Counterintelligence - Resigned - *Is likely cooperating against the DoJ/FBI in investigations

Watch List

• Rod Rosenstein (DOJ) - Deputy Attorney General
• David Bowditch (FBI) – expected to replace Andrew McCabe as Deputy FBI Director
• Trisha Anderson (DOJ) – Adviser in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel
• Greg Brower (FBI) – Assistant Director for the Office of Congressional Affairs.
• Sally Moyer (FBI) – Attorney
• Dana Boente (DOJ/FBI) – Acting Head of DOJ’s National Security Division
• Edward O’Callaghan (DOJ) – Acting Assistant Attorney General and Acting Head of DOJ’s National Security Division

• (Credit and thanks to @HB Surfer for the list)

And there are is sitll an active investigation investing the investigation.

Barr: Durham report on Russia investigation won’t be ready ‘for quite a few months’
"The scope of Durham's investigation has been characterized as wide-ranging; Barr confirmed earlier this fall that Durham has been conducting foreign outreach as part of the investigation. In October, it evolved into a criminal investigation, which Barr confirmed Thursday."


“He is looking at other agencies and also private — departments, and also private actors. So it is a much broader investigation,” Barr said of Durham's probe. “And also, he’s not just looking at the FISA aspect of it. He is looking at all the conduct, both before and after the election.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/19/bill-barr-russia-investigation-report-088416


Durham Criminal Investigation Zeros In On Brennan, Communications With Comey
"Durham has “requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry,” The New York Times reported. “He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.”

In October, The Times reported that the investigation had shifted from an administrative review into a full-fledged criminal investigation based on evidence that had allegedly been uncovered.

Durham is also reportedly taking a close look at whether Brennan made contradictory statements between his private and public remarks about the anti-Trump Steele dossier and about “any debate among the intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia’s interference.”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/brea...zeros-in-on-brennan-communications-with-comey

 

he never said anything about McGade, he said he’d wait for the care in which the dems withdrew their subpena. He also said he’d go if one was issued and was ordered to go by the Court.

sorry exercising ones constitutional right isn’t delaying tactics and not obstruction. To suggest otherwise is fascist

 

The Democrats were not seeking to present new evidence. The most generous thing that can be said, is that the Democrats were seeking new evidence.

 

Yes, it would be wrong for Ivanka to partner up with state owned businesses in China, especially the ones owned by the Chinese military.

Again, do you have a source confirming that Ivanka is partnered with a Chinese SOE?

 

You seem to be debating with your own imagination. None of that is responsive to my posts.