DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The Hamma begins to fall on the Deep State

Your definition of lack is misleading. Lack is more a deficiency than an absence of.

Definition of lack per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lack

intransitive verb

1 : to be deficient or missing
time is lacking for a full explanation

2 : to be short or have need of something

he will not lack for advisers
The area does not lack for good restaurants.

transitive verb

: to stand in need of : suffer from the absence or deficiency of
lack the necessities of life

She lacked confidence.

lack noun

Definition of lack
1 : the fact or state of being wanting or deficient
a lack of evidence
2 : something that is lacking or is needed

An appropriately sized tool for the size of the hands.

You just keep reaching. What you're saying is that after every bit of evidence that could be found was gone over, they could not find anything doesn't really mean anything.

Yet Trump and his cronies insisted the evidence was abundant. The facts were laying everywhere.

That was most certainly proven to be false.

I think the very definition of contempt of congress says otherwise.

Contempt of Congress
Primary tabs
Definition

Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.

Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.

Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate.

Generally, the same Constitutional rights against self-incrimination that apply in a judicial setting apply when one is testifying before Congress.
Caselaw

Quinn v. U.S., 349 U.S. 155, 75 S. Ct. 668, 99 L. Ed. 964, 51 A.L.R.2d 1157 (1955).

Fields v. U.S., 164 F.2d 97 (App. D.C. 1947).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_congress

The power of impeachment and investigating the grounds of impeachment lays solely in the hands of the house of congress. That's not something you can twist into a debate.

The part you bolded seems to indicate you don't believe congress has the power to investigate a president for bribing a foreign power to investigate a political rival and help interfere in our elections. That congress doesn't have the right to charge someone with interfering with a congressional investigation.

Nothing in the bold part indicates any of that.

Even the most biased Republican hacks on this board haven't attempted to do that.

You keep saying interfere in the election. The Democratic nominating process doesn't officially start until February.

He'd probably use it like he uses a glass of water.
Two hands.


Grace personified.

The timing of the democratic nominating process doesn't have a thing to do with it.... Trump tried to get a foreign leader to "say" he was going to investigate Biden for one purpose and one purpose only, Trump needed a boogie man in this election and Biden being under even a fake investigation makes him the Boogie man Trump needs.. Just like Hillary was last time...

If that's not meddling in the election, then nothing is.

Because it's already been debunked.....

Envoys pushed to oust Ukraine prosecutor before Biden

https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

Not only did our government want the prosecutor removed, but many of our allies did as well. They were working on getting him removed well before Biden did anything.

Once the assumptions have been made, it's hard to get past them.

Speaking of screw ups.

Surprise, Surprise: The DOJ’s Hillary Clinton Investigation Has Been a Bust

After more than two years, an inquiry into the Clinton Foundation and Clinton’s tenure at State is nearly done—and there’s reportedly absolutely nothing to show for it.

Back in 2017, buoyed by President Donald Trump’s calls for investigations into “Crooked Hillary & the Dems,” the Justice Department launched an inquiry into Hillary Clinton and Republicans' pet conspiracy theories about her and her career. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked U.S. Attorney John Huber to look into concerns that the FBI hadn't fully pursued cases related to the Clinton Foundation, as well as Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, including the baseless “Uranium One” conspiracy theory championed by conservatives. Now, Huber is finally almost finished with his much-vaunted Clinton investigation—and, unsurprisingly, there isn't really anything to show for it.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that after continuing on for more than two years, Huber's investigation “has effectively ended with no tangible results.” After combing through documents and conferring with federal law enforcement officials looking into the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Post reports that Huber has “found nothing worth pursuing,” let alone any criminal charges. The U.S. attorney has not yet officially reported any results to the Justice Department, however, and the inquiry is technically still ongoing. But officials cited by the Post say that Huber's years-long investigation has by this point “largely finished”—and with nothing to show for it.

Despite Republicans' long insistence on Clinton's wrongdoing—and Trump's favorite “lock her up” rallying cry—the fact that the Huber investigation has reportedly been a bust doesn't seem to come as much surprise to those inside the Justice Department itself. Senior Justice officials cited by the Post said that the investigation had largely been viewed as little more than a way to appease Trump and his Republican allies, and officials expected the inquiry was “unlikely to lead to anything of significance.” “We didn’t expect much of it, and neither did [Huber],” one source told the Post. “And as time went on, a lot of people just forgot about it.”

The news of the DOJ's fruitless investigation comes just a few months after the State Department completed its own investigation into Clinton's emails and use of a private server, which found that while 38 individuals did commit 91 security violations in emails sent to or from the private server, ultimately the server largely wasn't used for transmitting classified information. “While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations,” a report on the investigation said. “There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” Of course, Clinton being cleared of wrongdoing by Trump's own executive branch isn't about to stop the president from bashing Hillary nonetheless. (Never mind the fact that six of Trump's own associates have been convicted of crimes, or that private email use has reportedly been rampant throughout the Trump administration.) Less than an hour after the Post report came out, Trump was back on the campaign trail attacking Hillary, repeating his favorite 2016 talking points to a crowd of supporters—Clinton's innocence be damned. “Crooked Hillary—you should lock her up, I'll tell you,” Trump told supporters.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/hillary-clinton-justice-department-investigation-results

Clinton Emails: Closing The Loop On A Prominent Story

I wrote last week about what we in my office informally call "missing stories," those stories that NPR listeners and readers feel have been under-covered. Newsrooms have to set priorities, of course, and they can't cover everything. But this week's "missing story" is a particularly notable omission.

Late Friday, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley released a letter he had received from the State Department earlier in the week, in which the department said it had concluded its investigation, begun in 2016, into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails. The quick takeaway from the report, as reported by AP: The investigation found "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information." It did find that 38 current or former employees, in 91 cases, sent classified information (some of it classified after the fact) that ended up in Clinton's personal email. Some of them may face discipline.

NPR intensely covered the Clinton email issue prior to the 2016 election. And it covered this most recent development in the 3-year-old saga, but you wouldn't know that from looking at NPR.org, as a reader pointed out to the Public Editor's office. There's no digital story. No newsmagazine report. Astute listeners would have heard reports in six newscasts, at 8 p.m., 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. (all ET) on Friday, Oct. 18, and at 2 a.m., 3 a.m. and 8 a.m. on Saturday, Oct. 19. Newscast transcripts are not archived online, however.

To any NPR news consumer who didn't happen to catch a newscast, most of which were in off hours, this important development in the story is invisible.

Newsroom leaders told me they stand by the decision to cover the story only in the newscasts, given the crush of other important news and an exceedingly stretched staff.

"It was a combination of things: timing and stretched resources and in the scheme of all the news of late, it just didn't rise up to our re-allocating resources. A judgment call, but not one that we would second guess given all the other things coming over the transom," Edith Chapin, NPR's vice president and executive editor, told me in an email.

Sarah Gilbert, NPR's vice president for news programming, added (by email): "That part of the week's news agenda was dominated by reaction to [acting White House Chief of Staff Mick] Mulvaney admitting and then retracting quid pro quo on Ukraine, the Doral G7 announcement and reversal, and the crisis in Syria. In this context, newscast coverage of a 9-page State Dept. report that concluded 'there was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information' was adequate."

Are all those other stories important? Yes, and arguably far more newsworthy at this time when the president faces an impeachment inquiry. And the State Department finding perhaps felt anti-climactic, given that the FBI had already long ago closed its own investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server, saying there was no criminal act. NPR covered that at the time.

Those affected most by the new development are the senders of the now-classified emails. That said, as recently as Sept. 30, NPR had prominent reports in both Morning Edition and All Things Considered about how the State Department had revived the probe, contacting about 150 current or former employees whose emails had ended up in Clinton's private email. The net effect of that action, and NPR's reporting on it, was to keep alive an issue that President Trump has used to stir up his supporters against Clinton in particular and Democrats in general.

The end of­­­­­­ the State Department's investigation is a final period on the whole saga that got so much attention in the lead-up to the 2016 election. I think NPR has an obligation here to close the loop after three years (or at least on the newsmagazine reports from Sept. 30). Since there's no other report in the NPR online archive, this one will have to do.

https://www.npr.org/sections/publicedito...prominent-story

The witch hunt is over and even Trump's own henchmen couldn't find anything on Hillary. In fact it was Michael Flynn who was calling for the cheers of lock her up at the GOP convention in 2016.

He is now awaiting sentence.

Yes 40, the hamma is falling on the deep state. You're just having trouble understanding who the deep state is.