Sources say Morell is a leading candidate to be Biden’s CIA director. But his defenses of the agency’s torture and drone strikes are already drawing progressive opposition.
President-elect Joe Biden is strongly considering Mike Morell, the former acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to run the CIA, according to four individuals familiar with the matter. But those familiar with the process say that other candidates are still in the mix for the position of the nation’s top spy chief.
Morell served as deputy CIA director for three years under President Barack Obama and also worked as acting director of the agency twice. According to three of the four sources familiar with the matter, the president-elect was considering both Morell and Avril Haines, another former deputy CIA director, for the position. But in an announcement Monday afternoon, Biden picked Haines, the former deputy director for the CIA and deputy national security adviser under Obama, to become director of national intelligence.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: One Democrat Senator is saying no to Mike Morell .... Key Democrat warns Biden not to nominate Mike Morell as CIA director (CNN). But there are others on the list. Bottom line. It looks like CIA Director Haspel's days are numbered.
9 comments:
President Marionette.
Biden is completely entrenched in the "Obama" past and is not capable of the slightest open-mindedness to cover the present and the future with what is happening to us.
Why not stay entrenched in the past?
Joe and Hunter made a lot of moolah in the past.
For Fred Lapides
Right to a Speedy Trial
A defendant in a criminal case has a right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While the Constitution does not define a speedy trial, the federal Speedy Trial Act and state laws provide some guidance on when the right may be violated. In some states, the prosecution has a certain number of days to bring a defendant to trial after they have been arraigned on an indictment. The prosecution may be able to work around the requirement if they can show good cause for a delay, or if the defendant agrees to waive the right. A violation of the speedy trial rule means that any conviction and sentence must be wiped out, and the charges must be dismissed if the case has not reached trial.
One of the main reasons for the right to a speedy trial is to prevent a defendant from being held in custody for a long time, only to eventually be found innocent. If the defendant is denied bail or cannot pay the bail amount, they will remain in jail until their trial date. An innocent citizen should not be required to spend many months incarcerated. Also, the right to a speedy trial reduces the stress on defendants and allows the defense to gather and present evidence while it is still fresh. A witness may struggle to recall the events leading to the charges if several months or more pass before the trial.
Determining a Violation of the Right
If no law sets a specific benchmark, a court must consider several factors in deciding whether the defendant was denied a speedy trial. The judge will take into account any reason for the delay and its impact on the defendant’s ability to present their case. If the delay did not undermine the defense, a judge may be inclined to give the prosecution some breathing room. The defendant will be more likely to get a case dismissed on this basis if they promptly asserted the right.
The clock usually starts running on the right to a speedy trial when the defendant is arrested. Or it may start running when the defendant is formally charged, if this happens before the arrest. However, the clock will not start running if law enforcement is investigating someone as a suspect but has not arrested or formally charged them. Since the clock can start running before the arrest, a defendant might think that avoiding an arrest would be a good strategy if they have already been charged. However, a judge will pause the clock during any period in which the defendant is evading law enforcement.
Speedy Sentencing
Technically, the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial does not require a defendant to be sentenced within a certain time after a conviction. Federal and state laws often provide certain time limits for sentencing, though, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a defendant is entitled to be sentenced without an unnecessary delay. There also may be due process arguments if a delay in sentencing is extreme. Death penalty cases, which involve a separate sentencing phase, may present distinctive timing issues.
Last updated May 2019
Source: www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/right-to-a-speedy-trial/
18 U.S. Code § 3161.Time limits and exclusions
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3161
(a)In any case involving a defendant charged with an offense, the appropriate judicial officer, at the earliest practicable time, shall, after consultation with the counsel for the defendant and the attorney for the Government, set the case for trial on a day certain, or list it for trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at a place within the judicial district, so as to assure a speedy trial.
(b)Any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges. If an individual has been charged with a felony in a district in which no grand jury has been in session during such thirty-day period, the period of time for filing of the indictment shall be extended an additional thirty days.
(c)
(1)In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. If a defendant consents in writing to be tried before a magistrate judge on a complaint, the trial shall commence within seventy days from the date of such consent.
(2)Unless the defendant consents in writing to the contrary, the trial shall not commence less than thirty days from the date on which the defendant first appears through counsel or expressly waives counsel and elects to proceed pro se.
(d)
(1)If any indictment or information is dismissed upon motion of the defendant, or any charge contained in a complaint filed against an individual is dismissed or otherwise dropped, and thereafter a complaint is filed against such defendant or individual charging him with the same offense or an offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, or an information or indictment is filed charging such defendant with the same offense or an offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section shall be applicable with respect to such subsequent complaint, indictment, or information, as the case may be.
(2)If the defendant is to be tried upon an indictment or information dismissed by a trial court and reinstated following an appeal, the trial shall commence within seventy days from the date the action occasioning the trial becomes final, except that the court retrying the case may extend the period for trial not to exceed one hundred and eighty days from the date the action occasioning the trial becomes final if the unavailability of witnesses or other factors resulting from the passage of time shall make trial within seventy days impractical. The periods of delay enumerated in section 3161(h) are excluded in computing the time limitations specified in this section. The sanctions of section 3162 apply to this subsection.
"The view of Haspel in the West Wing is that she still sees her job as manipulating people and outcomes, the way she must have when she was working assets in the field," one source with direct knowledge of the internal conversations told Axios. "It's bred a lot of suspicion of her motives."
Trump is also increasingly frustrated with Haspel for opposing the declassification of documents that would help the Justice Department's Durham report.
A source familiar with conversations at the CIA says, "Since the beginning of DNI's push to declassify documents, and how strongly she feels about protecting sources connected to those materials, there have been rumblings around the agency that the director plans to depart the CIA regardless of who wins the election.”
As for Wray, whose expected firing was first reported by The Daily Beast, Trump is angry his second FBI chief didn't launch a formal investigation into Hunter Biden's foreign business connections — and didn't purge more officials Trump believes abused power to investigate his 2016 campaign's ties to Russia.
Georgia secretary of state: My family voted for Trump. He threw us under the bus anyway.
4-5 minutes
The past few weeks have been difficult for the voters of the Peach State.
As the nation and the world watched, Georgia took center stage in a battle that will define our country in a very practical sense for the next four years. But also, in a larger sense, how this country will move forward into the future.
Like Americans in every other state, Georgians went to the ballot box on and in the weeks leading up to Nov. 3; to cast their vote for president, for senator, or maybe just the local town council.
A record 1.3 million voters cast ballots absentee by mail here. Another 2.7 million cast ballots in-person during Georgia’s gold-standard three weeks of early voting. Around 1 million waited on lines averaging a miniscule 3 minutes on Election Day.
By all accounts, Georgia had a wildly successful and smooth election. We finally defeated voting lines and put behind us Fulton County’s now notorious reputation for disastrous elections. This should be something for Georgians to celebrate, whether their favored presidential candidate won or lost. For those wondering, mine lost — my family voted for him, donated to him and are now being thrown under the bus by him.
It appears Fred posted an infomercial at 12:28.
It is typical of Fred.
Lapides and/or his little group seem to think they're very clever.
Post a Comment