Every time I read "Chalupa" I get hungry.
Can't she have a non-food related name?
/end GB post

And more.

Proc92 said:

---

And more.

---

Yep. According to his profile he's a career LEO.

Are they one and the same?

Interesting the similarities in wording between Murphy and Vindman's.

A member of the NSC being so concerned over Democratic support for a foreign policy initiative and using the same talking points is just a coinkydink, right?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Who are these brothers trying to help? The President and the USA state department, or elements in Ukraine? Are they presuming to determine how foreign policy should be carried out and under what terms?

---

They're Ukrainian patriots who somehow happen to be on Uncle Sam's payroll. They are obviously working for Ukraine and the Deep State/democrat party simultaneously while also undermining the President.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Who are these brothers trying to help? The President and the USA state department, or elements in Ukraine? Are they presuming to determine how foreign policy should be carried out and under what terms?

---

There's all kinds of questions I have, and yours are just the beginning.

Assuming A. Vindman's testimony is hogwash (legal term), then why would he put himself at risk of perjury, losing his nice government paycheck and position, and stain his twin brothers reputation?

Has anyone in intelligence ever suspected either of "irregularities"? Do we have proof he guided the Ukrainians in how to deal with Guiliani? Are either connected to Poroschenko?

No matter what the outcome, the news is going to drip like a leaky hose tonight and the rest of the week. Good move by the Dems because of the vote on Thursday, which will be broadcast as an official impeachment vote. To my knowledge, this particular vote still won't give the Republicans, or Trump, any ability to defend themselves.

IMO, since Schiff/Pelosi had Vindman in the till at the beginning, it shows how long the Dems have had this plan percolating, who was involved, and what they're willing to risk to win.

THIS move will get them to the impeachment vote, I think----at least publicly.

Quote:

---

IMO, since Schiff/Pelosi had Vindman in the till at the beginning, it shows how long the Dems have had this plan percolating, who was involved, and what they're willing to risk to win.

---

Puts a new light on the Atlantic Council/Burisma funded Congressional trip including Schiff's staffer to Ukraine to meet with Bill Taylor, doesn't it?

Vindman was assigned to embassy in Kiev for a time and Ukraine was still in his portfolio of responsibility at the NSC. No doubt Taylor and Vindman know each other.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I guess we know Roscoe is still following this thread. Even with his history on TexAgs, I felt he was a valuable contributor to this thread.

Roscoe, you should have attributed those things to your friend Dixie.

---

I have noticed he lifts my posts on occasion but if it is all the same to you, I would prefer he not give attribution to me. If I wanted to be on twitter I would be. I certainly don't want someone else inserting me by my username onto the platform.

---

I absolutely defer to your wishes on this.

I'm not a fan of claiming someone else's experiences as one's own. I suppose that's just what you get with him.

Well, at least he believes my posts are interesting enough to steal. Guess I should be flattered. LOL.

The dems are so stupid, they likely just revealed more of their own corruption.

aggiehawg said:

---

Well, at least he believes my posts are interesting enough to steal. Guess I should be flattered. LOL.

---

We believe your posts are interesting enough to steal as well, but I don't tweet.

captkirk said:

---

The dems are so stupid, they likely just revealed more of their own corruption.

---

You and I think the same Dems are "stupid".

The problem with thinking like that is their shenanigans probably gave them the House in '18. They may have won control anyway, but the Spygate issue HAD to have helped.

So while you and I (along with a hell of a lot of other Republicans) think Dems/socialists are idiots and dummies, they currently control the House, and are directly responsible for this latest Trump impeachment fiasco, with no guarantee of subpoenas, indictments, or convictions, for Spygate. So they may be stupid, but they are apparently not so stupid.

The Left has some damn good Alinsky type thinkers, and I'm certain they've run a thousand scenarios on the best way to keep, or get, control next November----none of which involves integrity, honesty, and probably staying on the good side of the law.

fasthorses05 said:

---

The Left has some damn good Alinsky type thinkers, and I'm certain they've run a thousand scenarios on the best way to keep, or get, control next November----none of which involves integrity, honesty, and probably staying on the good side of the law.

---

The end always justifies the means. Seems reasonable for a man that dedicated his book to Lucifer.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6532137/Notice-Other.pdf

New filing by the prosecution in the Flynn case. Sounds like Van Grack is worried.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

New filing by the prosecution in the Flynn case. Sounds like Van Grack is worried.

---

Agree. And Jesse Lieu should be worried too.

---

So you think the case has merit, and Flynn may very well have his plea reversed?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

New filing by the prosecution in the Flynn case. Sounds like Van Grack is worried.

---

Agree. And Jesse Lieu should be worried too.

---

Quick question: does the prosecution have a stronger case against a Brady Order after a guilty plea? He says he is guilty, how could there be exculpatory evidence?

I'm not sure how this has played out in the past...

Quote:

---

Quick question: does the prosecution have a stronger case against a Brady Order after a guilty plea? He says he is guilty, how could there be exculpatory evidence?

I'm not sure how this has played out in the past...

---

Normally if there is exculpatory evidence that the prosecution has, they don't hide it and demand a guilty plea on something they know didn't happen.

The standard boilerplate in a guilty plea includes a waiver for any further discovery owed by the prosecution. That clause has been relied on heavily by the prosecution to avoid producing additional material, despite Sullivan's standing order. Of course, it is expected that such an assertion is in good faith.

That doesn't seem to have been the case here, at all. So we'll see.

Seems to my untrained eyes that Sullivan cancelling the status hearing that it doesn't look the greatest for Flynn. Wouldn't he want to hear some arguments from the defense about all of this that they filed?

will25u said:

---

Seems to my untrained eyes that Sullivan cancelling the status hearing that it doesn't look the greatest for Flynn. Wouldn't he want to hear some arguments from the defense about all of this that they filed?

---

I think just the opposite. Van Grack asking permission to file a surreply brief after Sullivan has said no more briefs, is quite unusual.

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

Seems to my untrained eyes that Sullivan cancelling the status hearing that it doesn't look the greatest for Flynn. Wouldn't he want to hear some arguments from the defense about all of this that they filed?

---

I think just the opposite. Van Grack asking permission to file a surreply brief after Sullivan has said no more briefs, is quite unusual.

---

I had to look that up. So you are saying that the reply that they filed to the defense's 160 page filing, and after the Judge says we are done with filings?

Then again, I am probably all mixed up.

will25u said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

Seems to my untrained eyes that Sullivan cancelling the status hearing that it doesn't look the greatest for Flynn. Wouldn't he want to hear some arguments from the defense about all of this that they filed?

---

I think just the opposite. Van Grack asking permission to file a surreply brief after Sullivan has said no more briefs, is quite unusual.

---

I had to look that up. So you are saying that the reply that they filed to the defense's 160 page filing, and after the Judge says we are done with filings?

Then again, I am probably all mixed up.

---

Yes. The briefings were already complete but there was a status hearing that was already scheduled wherein parties would file additional briefs. Sullian canceled that hearing, effectively ending additional briefing.

Van Grack then has to claim "new information" in order to ask the court to allow them to file another brief, the surreply. What was filed today was the request. If granted, then Van Grack has promised the surreply will be filed within 48 hours of that. And Sidney will likely be afforded a few days to answer that.

Of course Sullivan always has the option to deny Van Grack's request.

JJMt said:

---

That's somewhat different. Somehow I had gotten the impression that he had canceled a hearing for oral argument.

---

It was a dual purpose type of hearing, some housekeeping and then oral argument on whichever pending motions Sullivan wanted to address, which at the moment it appears he's heard enough and is likely already writing his opinion on the outstanding motions. That's a guess but I'd wager a safe one.

https://m.theepochtimes.com/leaks-of-trumps-calls-with-foreign-leaders-were-intelligence-products-devin-nunes-says_3130740.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Quote:

---

The leaks of the details of the calls between President Donald Trump and the leaders of Mexico and Australia in 2017 were the products of intelligence gathering, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told The Epoch Times in an exclusive interview.

Nunes said that sources confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that the leaks of the calls between Trump and foreign leaders were based on intelligence products, prompting Nunes to investigate the matter.

"We knew right away in January that unmasking was occurring. Well, we knew the big one, the major one, was the Flynn transcript that was given out. And then you slowly had the Australian prime minister, you had the Mexican president, plus stories that we were seeing out in the mainstream news media. It was clear that somehow people were getting information from what appeared to be intelligence products," Nunes said on Oct. 28.

The revelation that the intelligence community was spying on a sitting president is the latest development in the scandal surrounding the spying on Trump's campaign. The claim by Nunes aligns with reports that U.S. Attorney John Durhamwho is investigating the spying scandalhas extended the timeline of his criminal investigation to include the early months of Trump's presidency. Fox News reported earlier this month that the timeline of Durham's inquiry now extends up until the spring of 2017.

---

I think when Nunes found this out and headed straight to tell trump (and dems went nuts), trump already knew. He told Nunes to keep it to himself and let it all play out. Two years, had to be...

Quote:

---

The revelation that the intelligence community was spying on a sitting president is the latest development in the scandal surrounding the spying on Trump's campaign. The claim by Nunes aligns with reports that U.S. Attorney John Durhamwho is investigating the spying scandalhas extended the timeline of his criminal investigation to include the early months of Trump's presidency. Fox News reported earlier this month that the timeline of Durham's inquiry now extends up until the spring of 2017.

---

Back by popular demand, it's the Evelyn and Mika show!

Secolobo said:

---

I think when Nunes found this out and headed straight to tell trump (and dems went nuts), trump already knew. He told Nunes to keep it to himself and let it all play out. Two years, had to be...

---

Even before Trump took office, Admiral Mike Rodgers (head of the NSA at the time) warned Trump that his communications were being monitored.