CURRENT EVENTS — NOVEMBER

nycfan said:


🎁 —> The Most Nihilistic Conflict on Earth
Click to expand...


This is what Hamas/Palestinians would do to/in Israel if given the opportunity and means.

Blood spilled in Sudan can be seen from space. Nobody can feign ignorance about what’s going on​


It unfolded in plain sight over 18 months. The city of El Fasher in the Darfur region of Sudan, besieged by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), fell to the militia group last week, and what has followed is a catastrophe.

Mass killings are under way. There are reports that in one maternity hospital alone almost 500 people – patients and their families – were killed. The few that managed to escape tell of summary executions of civilians. The RSF has embarked on a killing spree of civilians so severe that images of blood saturating the ground have been picked up by satellite. The speed and intensity of the killings in the immediate aftermath of the fall of El Fasher has already been compared by war monitors to the first 24 hours of the Rwandan genocide.

This is the culmination of a campaign that had walled in the population of the city – hundreds of thousands of people – and reduced it to starvation. Those who attempted to flee risked death and rape, and those that remained were bombed and surviving on nothing more than animal feed.

.........Since then, millions have been displaced, an estimated 150,000 have been killed, and more than 30 million people now need urgent humanitarian assistance. These staggering statistics still do not fully tell the story of Sudan’s tragedy, the country’s rapid unravelling, the destruction of its infrastructure, or the particularly merciless way the RSF has conducted its campaign in Darfur.

www.theguardian.com

Blood spilled in Sudan can be seen from space. Nobody can feign ignorance about what’s going on | Nesrine Malik

The massacres carried out by the RSF in El Fasher, Darfur, with the support of its UAE sponsors, will only stop when the international community acts, says Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Last edited:
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

Jack Smith, Trump’s Target, Shifts From Defense to Counterattack​

The former special counsel has told people in his orbit he welcomes the opportunity to present the public case against the president denied to him by adverse court rulings and the 2024 election.

🎁 —> Jack Smith, Trump’s Target, Moves From Defense to Counterattack

“… Whether Mr. Smith gets the chance to confront his accusers on the biggest official stage available to him, a public House or Senate hearing, remains very much an open question. Some Republicans have privately expressed concern that Mr. Trump’s quest for vengeance could backfire by giving a credible anticorruption investigator an open mic.

… Nor do they see much political upside in rehashing an issue of searing import to the president but of little interest to voters in battleground districts, at a time when approval of Mr. Trump’s performance on the economy and immigration is sagging.

Yet they are forging ahead at Mr. Trump’s goading. On Oct. 10, the G.O.P.-controlled House Judiciary Committee summoned Mr. Smith to testify behind closed doors about what Republicans on the panel called “partisan and politically motivated prosecutions” of Mr. Trump.

… Mr. Smith, up next, has begun moving his own chess pieces. Through his lawyers, he demanded public hearings, along with asking the Justice Department to give him broad latitude to discuss evidence presented to grand juries. Neither request has thus far elicited a response.

“Name the time and place,” Lanny Breuer, one of Mr. Smith’s lawyers, said in a statement. “Jack will be there.”…”

Classic Film Politics GIF
 
nycfan said:

Jack Smith, Trump’s Target, Shifts From Defense to Counterattack​

The former special counsel has told people in his orbit he welcomes the opportunity to present the public case against the president denied to him by adverse court rulings and the 2024 election.

🎁 —> Jack Smith, Trump’s Target, Moves From Defense to Counterattack

“… Whether Mr. Smith gets the chance to confront his accusers on the biggest official stage available to him, a public House or Senate hearing, remains very much an open question. Some Republicans have privately expressed concern that Mr. Trump’s quest for vengeance could backfire by giving a credible anticorruption investigator an open mic.

… Nor do they see much political upside in rehashing an issue of searing import to the president but of little interest to voters in battleground districts, at a time when approval of Mr. Trump’s performance on the economy and immigration is sagging.

Yet they are forging ahead at Mr. Trump’s goading. On Oct. 10, the G.O.P.-controlled House Judiciary Committee summoned Mr. Smith to testify behind closed doors about what Republicans on the panel called “partisan and politically motivated prosecutions” of Mr. Trump.

… Mr. Smith, up next, has begun moving his own chess pieces. Through his lawyers, he demanded public hearings, along with asking the Justice Department to give him broad latitude to discuss evidence presented to grand juries. Neither request has thus far elicited a response.

“Name the time and place,” Lanny Breuer, one of Mr. Smith’s lawyers, said in a statement. “Jack will be there.”…”

Classic Film Politics GIF
Click to expand...
"Mr. Smith said he had “tons of evidence” that Mr. Trump had willingly retained the classified documents at his residence in Mar-a-Lago and tried “to obstruct the investigation.”

Russia investigation and this one - pretty clear obstruction, but no charges.

I don't get it.
 
ZenMode said:
I guess it's something, but still no charges related to obstruction of the russia collusion investigation
Click to expand...

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2​
​
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.​
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2​
​
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.​
Click to expand...
Yep, but there was 4 years to charge him with obstruction, related to the Russia collusion investigation, after he left office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top