Yesterday I learned from a Judicial Watch video on WhatFinger that Ms. Clinton’s court-ordered deposition concerning her much talked about emails awaits resolution of her appeal of that ruling with a writ of *mandamus. Since both the Departments of ** State and Justice have been opposing Judicial Watch‘s efforts to publicize the reasons for and contents of those emails, Clinton’s recent *mandamus petition to nullify the court order could make the email issue disappear.
*”If a party to a case is dissatisfied with some decision of the trial court, the party may appeal the decision to a higher court with a petition for a writ of mandamus before the trial proceeds. The order will be issued only in exceptional circumstances.” legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
**Note the April 23 date on the linked AP article via PBS
“Investigation of Clinton emails ends, finding no ‘deliberate mishandling'”
Harry The Greek said
“Bill Barr and Robert Mueller are best friends. Their wives have been in the same Bible study for over 20 years.”
“Trump withdraws Treasury nomination of former U.S. attorney for D.C. Jessie Liu”
This header titles an article in Stars & Stripes, attributed to Washington Post writer, Keith L. Alexander.
The article questions why the president would withdraw the appointment of Ms. Liu.
But according to his conservative supporters Liu as the president’s nominee was about to face interrogation by senators about her accepting a token jail term for someone in the Mueller probe whose offences normally exacted a far grater jail penalty than the 2 month token.
Though I learned of the likely reason for the withdrawal yesterday, still no one has bothered explaining why the president nominated her in the first place. Since everyone assumes he vindictively removed hostile witness Vindman from the White House; then similarly anyone like Ms Liu who treated his investigators sympathetically during the Mueller investigation, the president should not have nominated for a promotion.
“Scoop: Trump pulls nomination for former U.S. attorney for D.C. to Treasury post
Jonathan Swan, Zachary Basu“
No one needs a gun. When I was growing up in the city of Toronto not long after WWII I didn’t think anyone had one. And with several news papers publishing two or three editions a day I’m certain I’d have known if they did. I do recall that when I’d gotten in my teens there were reports that some old guy not far from where I lived shot somebody with a rifle. Years later Toronto mayor Miller reacted to a shooting that was the first of string of hand gun shootings that have been increasing in frequency to the present. I recall fifteen years ago after a young person had been shot a few miles away a neighbour asking “Does that mean every kid has a gun?” Well less than 2 weeks ago a 15 year old left his school and was shot dead by another 15 year old.
What’s become of congressman Nunes’ 8 criminal referrals?
Online there are no articles about the referrals dated after April 9, 2019.
I just learned of the referrals today December 20, 2019; 10 months after Mr. Nunes was reported to have been planning to send them to the Department of Justice, and nearly six months after the Attorney General had assigned a prosecutor to investigate those investigating Mr. Trump.
Are the April 2019 referrals of Nunes related to the investigation announced by the Attorney General in June 2019?
The expression whistle blower has been printed and voiced often in the last few months. When I first started being made aware of it I thought it was a colloquialism, a metaphoric expression that people use to poetically draw attention to something untoward happening in the work place, like the image of someone blowing a police whistle to get help in an emergency.
I still am not used to it. It doesn’t exist in my 1991 Oxford Dictionary, where whistle for and whistle-stop are the only expressions included after the main entry for whistle.
I did a search for its legal definition online to learn that it does seem to have a legal justification. All that I recall is that the whistle blower law seemed to be made to draw attention to anyone dishonestly adding to government expenses. Before that I used to think a whistle blower simply snitched on someone in any workplace and had the right to do so without retribution, but I always felt that there must have been a more legally accurate formal term to express the notion embodied in whistle blower.
And recently, maybe today even, because I haven’t heard that the whistle blower is drawing attention to unnecessary government or even business spending, she/ he seems like a researcher providing research to the political opponents of his employer.