The Pentagon's Office of Inspector General (OIG) declined on Wednesday to launch an investigation into the decision made by the White House to hold up military aid to Ukraine, citing a desire not to interfere with the House's impeachment inquiry.
In a letter to Democratic senators, the OIG wrote that the Pentagon's investigative body would not open an investigation that duplicated or otherwise could interfere with an existing congressional inquiry.
"It is clear that there would be overlap in key witnesses and similar documents to review in any DoD OIG investigation and the House impeachment proceedings," the Pentagon's OIG wrote.
Read more ....
More News On The Pentagon Watchdog Deciding To Not Investigate Hold On Ukraine Aid
DOD watchdog will not investigate aid to Ukraine, cites impeachment inquiry overlap -- NBC
Pentagon watchdog won't investigate Ukraine aid, citing ongoing impeachment inquiry -- FOX News
US Defense Department Inspector General declines to open probe into Ukraine aid delay -- CNN
15 comments:
And that's about the only news you'll find today on the so-called impeachment hearings.
LOL - Drudge's top headline is the marital spat between Kallyanne Conway and her weird, fat Trump obsessed husband.
And there's a school shooting in SoCal.
RATINGS,
FIZZLE,
R,
SOME YOU MISSED BUT I READ
Rudy Giuliani says Trump will stay loyal to him but jokes that he has 'insurance'
-- Five Cellphones, Trump Straws, a Lot of Cash—What This Giuliani Crony Was Carrying When the FBI Arrested Him
-- Why Democrats did much better than expected in the first hearing -
-- Fox's prime time stars are telling Trump that the impeachment hearings are a 'disaster' for Democrats
--Impeachment: Donald Trump is using Facebook ads to fight back
-- Ex-GOP Congressman Slams Republicans' 'Illiterate Defense' of Trump: 'They Promise Not to Read Reports'
Sorry fred. It bombed. No bombshells, no huge reveals, no gotcha moments. No nothing.
But please do continue your she-bop wankings.
Fred is just a crazed Never Trumper and a not too bright one at that.
Harold Ford Jr. stated yesterday that Nancy Pelosi is going to pull the plug on this on Friday afternoon or soon thereafter.
I feel sorry for Mrs. L. Fred will be inconsolable.
PARDON, BUT WHAT SOME OF US LEARNED TODAY IS THAT A SECOND PERSON HAS COME FORTH
A second U.S. embassy official testified that he overheard President Trump's conversation with EU ambassador Gordon Sondland in which the president reportedly asked about Ukrainian investigations. In an impeachment hearing on Wednesday, Bill Taylor said he learned from one of his staffers, David Holmes, about a previously undisclosed phone call in which President Trump directly inquired about "investigations" into the Biden family. On Thursday, the Associated Press reported foreign service officer Suriya Jayanti had also been present and overheard Trump and Sondland's conversation, which occurred a day after Trump's controversial phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. -- ASSOCIATED PRESS
note: name calling shows you to be a CHUD
as for my wife: your marriage should be as long and as happy as mine has been
There is actually no need for a public hearing pending the decision to impeach so why would the Democrats want to hold a public hearing?
Likely they anticipate a fixed decision in the Senate and holding a public hearing is a good way to get all the information out into the public eye, enabling the people can consider the facts, so that when charge against Trump is tossed the country and the world will know the sad state of American justice and therefore the lack of respect shown to the people they represent and of course the Constitution they all swore to protect.
Bob
the public has a right to hear, no matter the outcome. that is how democrdacy works. the House will doubtless impeach; the senate dismiss. and then the voters can decide in the next election
Bob, I'd really like to hear the crimes you believe Trump is guilty of.
Please be specific.
Anon
The inquiry into wrong doing from an impeachment perspective is identical to a grand jury hearing that has the potential to end with criminal charges against the possible future defendant. Grand Jury hearings are not available to the public as general rule, if they ever have been, even when it involves serious issues relevant to the public.
The process of developing the case for impeachment is not a criminal activity although once impeached and found "guilty" of the impeachment offense the President or other member of government for whom the process was initiated is basically fired. Once they are fired they then can be charged with a criminal offense, even the fired President.
Trump and associates wanted the issues made public and pushed for it likely to cloud the issues with rhetoric in the hopes of avoiding the "trial" process in the Senate. That in itself shows serious concern that the result in the Senate could be guilty.
Russ
On day one, it didn't need to show any bomb shells but it did give the GOP a chance to look very desperate.
On the crimes of Trump you can read a lot of stuff, most of which is opinion, suggesting Trump has committed crimes which is opinion and may or may not result in charges against citizen Trump when the time comes, as is my belief as follows:
1. Trump authorized the killing of an American citizen, the seven year old grand daughter of Osama Bin Laden in Yemen as per the Seal attack. In doing so he violated the constitution by denying that little girl, an American citizen, a trial. Now some may say violating the Constitution does not necessarily mean a crime has been committed, but ordering the murder of an American citizen and especially a child who has committed no crime, is a crime. It is called murder.
Some will say that she was not the intended victim, but collateral damage. I believe she was targeted for one reason which is to eliminate someone who has the potential of becoming a rallying point for future terrorist organizations. Her father was that for sure and was ordered killed by Obama.
Interesting that Trump approved the Yemen attack when Obama had declined to do so. It is my opinion that Obama, having two young daughters, was unable to come to terms with ordering the killing of a little girl.
I believe that an investigation into that incident including the obtaining of testimony under oath, for whatever that means these days when Presidents are involved, from Obama and Trump would bring out the true purpose of that attack and show that Trump did indeed order the death of that little American girl.
2. The Ukrainian incident via the release of the transcript by Trump of the call shows clearly that he attempted to obtain information on a prospective Presidential candidate, for the purpose of benifitting himself personally, using coercion on the leader of another country. That is a crime. Now likely there was serious wrong doings by Biden, things that were known/suspected when Trump became President and yet he only sought to press for action late in his first term, to depose a potentially serious opposing candidate in the upcoming election. Timing is the key. Using his position as President to benefit himself in this manner is criminal.
3. Tax evasion, by diverting his personal and business income into the Donald J. Trump Foundation (a “charity”) and channeling the outflow for his personal benefit. He is guilty but he gets off with a fine. If it were you, you would be on you way to prison for that crime. Who controls the DOJ and in this case who benefited personally, avoiding a criminal charge, Trump.
Whether you agree with my rational or not, I believe I have answered you request.
You’re right Bob. The crimes that Trump is accused of aren’t crimes at all. They are the opinions of political rivals.
Russ
I made a big mistake Russ and I freely admit it. Indeed I learned a lot from that reply.
I thought that after pouring out my heart when responding to your request that I would receive at least a reasonable reply from you, not necessarily agreeing with what I said of course, but, some thoughtful, perhaps even bordering on intelligent response, but I didn't. Obviously you had no defense to offer, were likely in reluctant agreement with what I said, and resorted to an Anon like reply.
I was obviously wrong and will consider your recent "none response" should you again ask me to provide something, anything.
Pardoned perhaps, unless he is eradicated while in prison awaiting the pardon. I imagine Trump knows Stone has some very damaging information so maybe eradication will have to wait.
A President that doles out pardons to his convicted criminal friends? Not looking too classy America.
Bob, getting to the heart of the matter is an art of the economy of words. It doesn’t require bloviation or long pontification. (When the arguments are suppositions)
Post a Comment