retour Forum

Chocoku

Do you want talk about Chocoku ?

globalwarming awareness2007

To know more information about Chocoku SEO contest,
please visit this website of the real chocoku

Administrators and moderateuse :

Official URL for chocoku :

And to talk about Chocoku :

Go back Chocoku Land

Les 10 derniers posts de de Chocoku Land

Here is few informations about no Chocoku information

  • Trump's Worst Fear: Iran Attacks U.S. Bases and Aircraft Carriers with Missiles
  • Trump's Worst Fear: Iran Attacks U.S. Bases and Aircraft Carriers with MissilesIran is continuing to develop increasingly long-range ballistic missiles -- and is firing some shorter-range missiles in combat -- despite demands from the U.S. government that the Islamic republic totally give up any weapons that could, in theory, carry a nuclear warhead.


  • Virginia Attorney General Concludes Race Information Is Not Necessary for Marriage Licenses
  • Virginia Attorney General Concludes Race Information Is Not Necessary for Marriage LicensesThe state has new forms, which let applicants ?Declined to Answer? about race


  • Why It?s Unlikely the McCabe Grand Jury Voted against Indictment
  • Why It?s Unlikely the McCabe Grand Jury Voted against IndictmentIn coverage of the Andrew McCabe investigation, there seems to be a lot of adding two plus two and coming up with five.The New York Times and Washington Post have reported that a grand jury met on Thursday in connection with a probe involving McCabe, the FBI?s former deputy director. As I write this column on Friday evening, no indictment has been returned against McCabe. From this, and what seems to be some hopeful speculation about ?hints of the case?s weakness? that could possibly have caused grand jurors to ?balk,? the Times and the Post suggest that maybe the grand jury has voted against an indictment.This supposition has prompted a letter to the Justice Department from McCabe?s attorney, Michael Bromwich -- a former colleague of mine who, besides being a skilled and shrewd attorney, is a Democrat and was last seen representing Christine Blasey Ford, Justice Brett Kavanaugh?s accuser. Bromwich says he is hearing ?rumors from reporters? about the filing of a ?no true bill? -- i.e., a grand-jury vote rejecting a proposed indictment of McCabe.While conceding that he ?do[es] not know the specific basis for the rumors,? Bromwich intuits that they must be reliable because the newspapers ran with the story. Mind you, neither the Times nor the Post claims to have been told by any grand jurors that they declined to indict McCabe; nor do they report hearing from any knowledgeable government official that a no true bill was voted. Nevertheless, McCabe?s legal team is demanding that the Justice Department disclose whether an indictment was declined and refrain from seeking an indictment in the future.This gambit, of course, floats the narrative that the case against McCabe must be crumbling -- the media reports spur the Bromwich letter, which spur more media reports, rinse and repeat. But even allowing for the erosion of standards, this is thin gruel for both news reporting and legal claims.I?ll add more detail presently. To cut to the chase, though, there is no reason at this point to infer that the grand jury has voted against indicting McCabe.Now, let?s back up.As I reiterated in a column on Thursday, the criminal probe of McCabe stems, at least in part, from an investigation by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz. That inquest centered on McCabe?s orchestration of a leak to the Wall Street Journal of investigative information -- specifically, of the fact that the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation. McCabe is alleged to have lied in several interviews by FBI agents. It is a crime to make false statements to investigators. IG Horowitz outlined the false-statements allegations against McCabe in a meticulous 35-page report, filed in February 2018.As is required when the IG turns up evidence of potential criminal conduct, the matter was referred to the Justice Department for consideration of whether charges should be filed. Because the IG probe and the alleged false statements occurred in Washington, the matter ended up in the United States attorney?s office for the District of Columbia.There, the U.S. attorney, Jesse Liu, has reportedly decided that there is enough evidence to charge felonies. Bromwich, however, was permitted to appeal Liu?s decision to the Justice Department -- specifically, to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general. According to media reports, DAG Rosen was unpersuaded; the Justice Department thus advised the McCabe defense team in an email that their appeal has been rejected, and that any further questions should be taken up with U.S. Attorney Liu?s office.It was assumed when this news broke on Thursday that the Justice Department?s rejection was the last hurdle standing in the way of charges, and therefore that an indictment must be imminent. It has now been reported that, although the grand jury met on Thursday, no indictment was filed.That, however, is no reason to conclude that an indictment was sought, much less that the grand jury declined to vote one.Let me begin with the basics. No competent federal prosecutor should ever get a no true bill from a grand jury. In nearly 20 years as a prosecutor, it not only never happened to me; I could count on one hand the number of times I heard of it happening to any other prosecutor in the office, and still have fingers to spare.This is not because of the old saw that the deck is so stacked against a suspect in grand-jury proceedings that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. To be sure, grand-jury proceedings are very one-sided. Still, there are many cases that grand juries do not like and would not charge. Nevertheless, these cases do not result in no true bills. Instead, there is steady dialogue between the prosecutors and the grand jurors over each case. The latter ask questions and, when they are troubled, convey that fact to the former. Before submitting a proposed indictment, it is customary for the prosecutor to ask whether the grand jurors believe they have heard enough evidence, whether they would like to hear from other witnesses, whether they have other concerns, or whether they would like to consider an indictment. The prosecutor is well aware if the grand jury has doubts about the case; if there are indications that the grand jury is not inclined to vote for charges, the prosecutor simply refrains from presenting an indictment.Bear in mind, moreover, that a grand jury, unlike a trial jury, is not being asked to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its modest task is to determine whether a significantly lower proof hurdle -- probable cause -- has been met. Also unlike a trial jury, the grand jury need not be unanimous; federal grand juries have up to 23 members, and only 12 need assent for an indictment to be approved. The grand jurors know they are not being asked to convict anyone; just to determine that there is enough evidence to warrant having a trial, at which the defendant will be given all the due-process protections the Constitution ensures. And double-jeopardy principles are not in play at the grand-jury stage as they are at trial: On the rare occasion that a federal grand jury votes a no true bill, prosecutors are free to re-present the case to the same or another grand jury.Assuming that the false statements capably outlined in the Horowitz report are the only potential crimes under consideration, it is hard to believe any grand jury could find insufficient probable cause to indict. Even McCabe is not claiming that what he told investigators was true; he seems to be saying he didn?t mean to lie (multiple times). When a suspect has committed all the acts necessary for a penal offense, and the only question is whether he had criminal intent, probable cause is usually a given.Of course, we do not know that the false statements are the only matters under consideration, or even that McCabe is the only subject of the grand jury?s investigation. It is entirely possible that the grand jury has not yet been asked to indict because relevant conduct is still under consideration -- conduct related to McCabe, related to other suspects, or both.And then there is the matter of prejudice to consider.Besides the ongoing grand-jury investigation of McCabe?s alleged false statements, the former deputy director is also among the current and former officials who are subjects of another IG probe of abuses of power in the Russia investigation. On Friday evening, IG Horowitz wrote a letter to leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, explaining that his report is substantially complete and is undergoing a classification review to determine what portions may be disclosed. We can safely assume, then, that the release of that report, which is apt to be explosive, is imminent. Meanwhile, Connecticut U.S. attorney John Durham also has an ongoing investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation. There have been reports that Durham is using a grand jury to gather evidence and testimony.Why are these other investigations germane to what is happening with the Washington grand jury? Well, sometimes, when a suspect is under scrutiny in multiple investigations, the Justice Department will ask the court to seal any indictments returned by the grand jury. That way, there can be no credible claim that the grand jurors in one case were swayed by allegations filed by another grand jury. Relatedly, sometimes if a grand jury?s investigation has not yet been completed, but a major development in another investigation involving the subject -- such as an IG report -- is about to occur, the Justice Department will ask the grand jury to file charges, but then seal the indictment. That way, it cannot credibly be said that the grand jury?s decision to indict was swayed by negative publicity surrounding developments in the other investigation.That is to say, there could be a dozen or more good explanations for why there has been no public announcement of a McCabe indictment. The other investigations could be complicating things. It could be that the Washington grand jury?s investigation is broader in scope than we?ve been led to believe. It could be something as simple as the availability of necessary witnesses, the availability of enough grand jurors to constitute a quorum, or the happenstance that the case is taking more time to present than the defense lawyers and media think it should.It is certainly possible that, if there were a trial, the false-statements case against McCabe would seem less compelling than Horowitz?s report makes it appear. It is conceivable that the U.S. attorney will decide against charges. Note that in the email to McCabe?s lawyers, the Justice Department said only that his appeal was rejected; DAG Rosen does not appear to have instructed U.S. Attorney Liu to file an indictment, but rather to have left that call up to her. For all we know, Liu could decide not to seek an indictment: Maybe she?ll calculate that a trial jury in Trump-hostile Washington might be too sympathetic to McCabe?s claim that he is being investigated because of a political vendetta; or maybe she?ll prove to be risk-averse regarding a case in which an acquittal would be embarrassing.Such developments would surprise me, but I wouldn?t be shocked. What would shock me, though, is if the experienced federal prosecutors handling McCabe?s case bungled their way into a no true bill. If I had to bet, I think it?s unlikely McCabe escapes indictment. If he does, though, it will be because his lawyers talked prosecutors out of seeking one, not because the grand jury declined to charge him.


  • Scores of tigers rescued from infamous Thai temple have died: media
  • Scores of tigers rescued from infamous Thai temple have died: mediaMore than half of the tigers that Thai authorities confiscated in 2016 from an infamous Tiger Temple tourist attraction have died from a viral disease because their immune systems were weakened by inbreeding, media reported. The Buddhist temple west of Bangkok was a tourist destination where visitors took selfies with tigers and bottle-fed cubs until authorities removed its nearly 150 tigers in 2016 in response to global pressure over wildlife trafficking.


  • Aramco attacks show company entanglement in Saudi politics
  • Aramco attacks show company entanglement in Saudi politicsThe weekend drone attack on the world's largest crude oil processing plant in Saudi Arabia that dramatically cut into global oil supplies is the most visible sign yet of how Aramco's stability and security is directly linked to that of its owners ? the Saudi government and its ruling family. The strikes, which U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed on Iran despite staunch denials by Tehran, led to suspension of more than 5% of the world's daily crude oil production, bringing into focus just how vulnerable the company is to Saudi Arabia's conflicts outside the country's borders, particularly with regional rival Iran.


YvY chocoku  XavFun chocoku 

  • Trump's Worst Fear: Iran Attacks U.S. Bases and Aircraft Carriers with Missiles
  • Trump's Worst Fear: Iran Attacks U.S. Bases and Aircraft Carriers with MissilesIran is continuing to develop increasingly long-range ballistic missiles -- and is firing some shorter-range missiles in combat -- despite demands from the U.S. government that the Islamic republic totally give up any weapons that could, in theory, carry a nuclear warhead.


  • Virginia Attorney General Concludes Race Information Is Not Necessary for Marriage Licenses
  • Virginia Attorney General Concludes Race Information Is Not Necessary for Marriage LicensesThe state has new forms, which let applicants ?Declined to Answer? about race


  • Why It?s Unlikely the McCabe Grand Jury Voted against Indictment
  • Why It?s Unlikely the McCabe Grand Jury Voted against IndictmentIn coverage of the Andrew McCabe investigation, there seems to be a lot of adding two plus two and coming up with five.The New York Times and Washington Post have reported that a grand jury met on Thursday in connection with a probe involving McCabe, the FBI?s former deputy director. As I write this column on Friday evening, no indictment has been returned against McCabe. From this, and what seems to be some hopeful speculation about ?hints of the case?s weakness? that could possibly have caused grand jurors to ?balk,? the Times and the Post suggest that maybe the grand jury has voted against an indictment.This supposition has prompted a letter to the Justice Department from McCabe?s attorney, Michael Bromwich -- a former colleague of mine who, besides being a skilled and shrewd attorney, is a Democrat and was last seen representing Christine Blasey Ford, Justice Brett Kavanaugh?s accuser. Bromwich says he is hearing ?rumors from reporters? about the filing of a ?no true bill? -- i.e., a grand-jury vote rejecting a proposed indictment of McCabe.While conceding that he ?do[es] not know the specific basis for the rumors,? Bromwich intuits that they must be reliable because the newspapers ran with the story. Mind you, neither the Times nor the Post claims to have been told by any grand jurors that they declined to indict McCabe; nor do they report hearing from any knowledgeable government official that a no true bill was voted. Nevertheless, McCabe?s legal team is demanding that the Justice Department disclose whether an indictment was declined and refrain from seeking an indictment in the future.This gambit, of course, floats the narrative that the case against McCabe must be crumbling -- the media reports spur the Bromwich letter, which spur more media reports, rinse and repeat. But even allowing for the erosion of standards, this is thin gruel for both news reporting and legal claims.I?ll add more detail presently. To cut to the chase, though, there is no reason at this point to infer that the grand jury has voted against indicting McCabe.Now, let?s back up.As I reiterated in a column on Thursday, the criminal probe of McCabe stems, at least in part, from an investigation by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz. That inquest centered on McCabe?s orchestration of a leak to the Wall Street Journal of investigative information -- specifically, of the fact that the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation. McCabe is alleged to have lied in several interviews by FBI agents. It is a crime to make false statements to investigators. IG Horowitz outlined the false-statements allegations against McCabe in a meticulous 35-page report, filed in February 2018.As is required when the IG turns up evidence of potential criminal conduct, the matter was referred to the Justice Department for consideration of whether charges should be filed. Because the IG probe and the alleged false statements occurred in Washington, the matter ended up in the United States attorney?s office for the District of Columbia.There, the U.S. attorney, Jesse Liu, has reportedly decided that there is enough evidence to charge felonies. Bromwich, however, was permitted to appeal Liu?s decision to the Justice Department -- specifically, to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general. According to media reports, DAG Rosen was unpersuaded; the Justice Department thus advised the McCabe defense team in an email that their appeal has been rejected, and that any further questions should be taken up with U.S. Attorney Liu?s office.It was assumed when this news broke on Thursday that the Justice Department?s rejection was the last hurdle standing in the way of charges, and therefore that an indictment must be imminent. It has now been reported that, although the grand jury met on Thursday, no indictment was filed.That, however, is no reason to conclude that an indictment was sought, much less that the grand jury declined to vote one.Let me begin with the basics. No competent federal prosecutor should ever get a no true bill from a grand jury. In nearly 20 years as a prosecutor, it not only never happened to me; I could count on one hand the number of times I heard of it happening to any other prosecutor in the office, and still have fingers to spare.This is not because of the old saw that the deck is so stacked against a suspect in grand-jury proceedings that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. To be sure, grand-jury proceedings are very one-sided. Still, there are many cases that grand juries do not like and would not charge. Nevertheless, these cases do not result in no true bills. Instead, there is steady dialogue between the prosecutors and the grand jurors over each case. The latter ask questions and, when they are troubled, convey that fact to the former. Before submitting a proposed indictment, it is customary for the prosecutor to ask whether the grand jurors believe they have heard enough evidence, whether they would like to hear from other witnesses, whether they have other concerns, or whether they would like to consider an indictment. The prosecutor is well aware if the grand jury has doubts about the case; if there are indications that the grand jury is not inclined to vote for charges, the prosecutor simply refrains from presenting an indictment.Bear in mind, moreover, that a grand jury, unlike a trial jury, is not being asked to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its modest task is to determine whether a significantly lower proof hurdle -- probable cause -- has been met. Also unlike a trial jury, the grand jury need not be unanimous; federal grand juries have up to 23 members, and only 12 need assent for an indictment to be approved. The grand jurors know they are not being asked to convict anyone; just to determine that there is enough evidence to warrant having a trial, at which the defendant will be given all the due-process protections the Constitution ensures. And double-jeopardy principles are not in play at the grand-jury stage as they are at trial: On the rare occasion that a federal grand jury votes a no true bill, prosecutors are free to re-present the case to the same or another grand jury.Assuming that the false statements capably outlined in the Horowitz report are the only potential crimes under consideration, it is hard to believe any grand jury could find insufficient probable cause to indict. Even McCabe is not claiming that what he told investigators was true; he seems to be saying he didn?t mean to lie (multiple times). When a suspect has committed all the acts necessary for a penal offense, and the only question is whether he had criminal intent, probable cause is usually a given.Of course, we do not know that the false statements are the only matters under consideration, or even that McCabe is the only subject of the grand jury?s investigation. It is entirely possible that the grand jury has not yet been asked to indict because relevant conduct is still under consideration -- conduct related to McCabe, related to other suspects, or both.And then there is the matter of prejudice to consider.Besides the ongoing grand-jury investigation of McCabe?s alleged false statements, the former deputy director is also among the current and former officials who are subjects of another IG probe of abuses of power in the Russia investigation. On Friday evening, IG Horowitz wrote a letter to leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, explaining that his report is substantially complete and is undergoing a classification review to determine what portions may be disclosed. We can safely assume, then, that the release of that report, which is apt to be explosive, is imminent. Meanwhile, Connecticut U.S. attorney John Durham also has an ongoing investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation. There have been reports that Durham is using a grand jury to gather evidence and testimony.Why are these other investigations germane to what is happening with the Washington grand jury? Well, sometimes, when a suspect is under scrutiny in multiple investigations, the Justice Department will ask the court to seal any indictments returned by the grand jury. That way, there can be no credible claim that the grand jurors in one case were swayed by allegations filed by another grand jury. Relatedly, sometimes if a grand jury?s investigation has not yet been completed, but a major development in another investigation involving the subject -- such as an IG report -- is about to occur, the Justice Department will ask the grand jury to file charges, but then seal the indictment. That way, it cannot credibly be said that the grand jury?s decision to indict was swayed by negative publicity surrounding developments in the other investigation.That is to say, there could be a dozen or more good explanations for why there has been no public announcement of a McCabe indictment. The other investigations could be complicating things. It could be that the Washington grand jury?s investigation is broader in scope than we?ve been led to believe. It could be something as simple as the availability of necessary witnesses, the availability of enough grand jurors to constitute a quorum, or the happenstance that the case is taking more time to present than the defense lawyers and media think it should.It is certainly possible that, if there were a trial, the false-statements case against McCabe would seem less compelling than Horowitz?s report makes it appear. It is conceivable that the U.S. attorney will decide against charges. Note that in the email to McCabe?s lawyers, the Justice Department said only that his appeal was rejected; DAG Rosen does not appear to have instructed U.S. Attorney Liu to file an indictment, but rather to have left that call up to her. For all we know, Liu could decide not to seek an indictment: Maybe she?ll calculate that a trial jury in Trump-hostile Washington might be too sympathetic to McCabe?s claim that he is being investigated because of a political vendetta; or maybe she?ll prove to be risk-averse regarding a case in which an acquittal would be embarrassing.Such developments would surprise me, but I wouldn?t be shocked. What would shock me, though, is if the experienced federal prosecutors handling McCabe?s case bungled their way into a no true bill. If I had to bet, I think it?s unlikely McCabe escapes indictment. If he does, though, it will be because his lawyers talked prosecutors out of seeking one, not because the grand jury declined to charge him.


  • Scores of tigers rescued from infamous Thai temple have died: media
  • Scores of tigers rescued from infamous Thai temple have died: mediaMore than half of the tigers that Thai authorities confiscated in 2016 from an infamous Tiger Temple tourist attraction have died from a viral disease because their immune systems were weakened by inbreeding, media reported. The Buddhist temple west of Bangkok was a tourist destination where visitors took selfies with tigers and bottle-fed cubs until authorities removed its nearly 150 tigers in 2016 in response to global pressure over wildlife trafficking.


  • Aramco attacks show company entanglement in Saudi politics
  • Aramco attacks show company entanglement in Saudi politicsThe weekend drone attack on the world's largest crude oil processing plant in Saudi Arabia that dramatically cut into global oil supplies is the most visible sign yet of how Aramco's stability and security is directly linked to that of its owners ? the Saudi government and its ruling family. The strikes, which U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed on Iran despite staunch denials by Tehran, led to suspension of more than 5% of the world's daily crude oil production, bringing into focus just how vulnerable the company is to Saudi Arabia's conflicts outside the country's borders, particularly with regional rival Iran.


Lurch chocoku Eclipsis chocoku

  • Trump's Worst Fear: Iran Attacks U.S. Bases and Aircraft Carriers with Missiles
  • Trump's Worst Fear: Iran Attacks U.S. Bases and Aircraft Carriers with MissilesIran is continuing to develop increasingly long-range ballistic missiles -- and is firing some shorter-range missiles in combat -- despite demands from the U.S. government that the Islamic republic totally give up any weapons that could, in theory, carry a nuclear warhead.


  • Virginia Attorney General Concludes Race Information Is Not Necessary for Marriage Licenses
  • Virginia Attorney General Concludes Race Information Is Not Necessary for Marriage LicensesThe state has new forms, which let applicants ?Declined to Answer? about race


  • Why It?s Unlikely the McCabe Grand Jury Voted against Indictment
  • Why It?s Unlikely the McCabe Grand Jury Voted against IndictmentIn coverage of the Andrew McCabe investigation, there seems to be a lot of adding two plus two and coming up with five.The New York Times and Washington Post have reported that a grand jury met on Thursday in connection with a probe involving McCabe, the FBI?s former deputy director. As I write this column on Friday evening, no indictment has been returned against McCabe. From this, and what seems to be some hopeful speculation about ?hints of the case?s weakness? that could possibly have caused grand jurors to ?balk,? the Times and the Post suggest that maybe the grand jury has voted against an indictment.This supposition has prompted a letter to the Justice Department from McCabe?s attorney, Michael Bromwich -- a former colleague of mine who, besides being a skilled and shrewd attorney, is a Democrat and was last seen representing Christine Blasey Ford, Justice Brett Kavanaugh?s accuser. Bromwich says he is hearing ?rumors from reporters? about the filing of a ?no true bill? -- i.e., a grand-jury vote rejecting a proposed indictment of McCabe.While conceding that he ?do[es] not know the specific basis for the rumors,? Bromwich intuits that they must be reliable because the newspapers ran with the story. Mind you, neither the Times nor the Post claims to have been told by any grand jurors that they declined to indict McCabe; nor do they report hearing from any knowledgeable government official that a no true bill was voted. Nevertheless, McCabe?s legal team is demanding that the Justice Department disclose whether an indictment was declined and refrain from seeking an indictment in the future.This gambit, of course, floats the narrative that the case against McCabe must be crumbling -- the media reports spur the Bromwich letter, which spur more media reports, rinse and repeat. But even allowing for the erosion of standards, this is thin gruel for both news reporting and legal claims.I?ll add more detail presently. To cut to the chase, though, there is no reason at this point to infer that the grand jury has voted against indicting McCabe.Now, let?s back up.As I reiterated in a column on Thursday, the criminal probe of McCabe stems, at least in part, from an investigation by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz. That inquest centered on McCabe?s orchestration of a leak to the Wall Street Journal of investigative information -- specifically, of the fact that the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation. McCabe is alleged to have lied in several interviews by FBI agents. It is a crime to make false statements to investigators. IG Horowitz outlined the false-statements allegations against McCabe in a meticulous 35-page report, filed in February 2018.As is required when the IG turns up evidence of potential criminal conduct, the matter was referred to the Justice Department for consideration of whether charges should be filed. Because the IG probe and the alleged false statements occurred in Washington, the matter ended up in the United States attorney?s office for the District of Columbia.There, the U.S. attorney, Jesse Liu, has reportedly decided that there is enough evidence to charge felonies. Bromwich, however, was permitted to appeal Liu?s decision to the Justice Department -- specifically, to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general. According to media reports, DAG Rosen was unpersuaded; the Justice Department thus advised the McCabe defense team in an email that their appeal has been rejected, and that any further questions should be taken up with U.S. Attorney Liu?s office.It was assumed when this news broke on Thursday that the Justice Department?s rejection was the last hurdle standing in the way of charges, and therefore that an indictment must be imminent. It has now been reported that, although the grand jury met on Thursday, no indictment was filed.That, however, is no reason to conclude that an indictment was sought, much less that the grand jury declined to vote one.Let me begin with the basics. No competent federal prosecutor should ever get a no true bill from a grand jury. In nearly 20 years as a prosecutor, it not only never happened to me; I could count on one hand the number of times I heard of it happening to any other prosecutor in the office, and still have fingers to spare.This is not because of the old saw that the deck is so stacked against a suspect in grand-jury proceedings that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. To be sure, grand-jury proceedings are very one-sided. Still, there are many cases that grand juries do not like and would not charge. Nevertheless, these cases do not result in no true bills. Instead, there is steady dialogue between the prosecutors and the grand jurors over each case. The latter ask questions and, when they are troubled, convey that fact to the former. Before submitting a proposed indictment, it is customary for the prosecutor to ask whether the grand jurors believe they have heard enough evidence, whether they would like to hear from other witnesses, whether they have other concerns, or whether they would like to consider an indictment. The prosecutor is well aware if the grand jury has doubts about the case; if there are indications that the grand jury is not inclined to vote for charges, the prosecutor simply refrains from presenting an indictment.Bear in mind, moreover, that a grand jury, unlike a trial jury, is not being asked to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its modest task is to determine whether a significantly lower proof hurdle -- probable cause -- has been met. Also unlike a trial jury, the grand jury need not be unanimous; federal grand juries have up to 23 members, and only 12 need assent for an indictment to be approved. The grand jurors know they are not being asked to convict anyone; just to determine that there is enough evidence to warrant having a trial, at which the defendant will be given all the due-process protections the Constitution ensures. And double-jeopardy principles are not in play at the grand-jury stage as they are at trial: On the rare occasion that a federal grand jury votes a no true bill, prosecutors are free to re-present the case to the same or another grand jury.Assuming that the false statements capably outlined in the Horowitz report are the only potential crimes under consideration, it is hard to believe any grand jury could find insufficient probable cause to indict. Even McCabe is not claiming that what he told investigators was true; he seems to be saying he didn?t mean to lie (multiple times). When a suspect has committed all the acts necessary for a penal offense, and the only question is whether he had criminal intent, probable cause is usually a given.Of course, we do not know that the false statements are the only matters under consideration, or even that McCabe is the only subject of the grand jury?s investigation. It is entirely possible that the grand jury has not yet been asked to indict because relevant conduct is still under consideration -- conduct related to McCabe, related to other suspects, or both.And then there is the matter of prejudice to consider.Besides the ongoing grand-jury investigation of McCabe?s alleged false statements, the former deputy director is also among the current and former officials who are subjects of another IG probe of abuses of power in the Russia investigation. On Friday evening, IG Horowitz wrote a letter to leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, explaining that his report is substantially complete and is undergoing a classification review to determine what portions may be disclosed. We can safely assume, then, that the release of that report, which is apt to be explosive, is imminent. Meanwhile, Connecticut U.S. attorney John Durham also has an ongoing investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation. There have been reports that Durham is using a grand jury to gather evidence and testimony.Why are these other investigations germane to what is happening with the Washington grand jury? Well, sometimes, when a suspect is under scrutiny in multiple investigations, the Justice Department will ask the court to seal any indictments returned by the grand jury. That way, there can be no credible claim that the grand jurors in one case were swayed by allegations filed by another grand jury. Relatedly, sometimes if a grand jury?s investigation has not yet been completed, but a major development in another investigation involving the subject -- such as an IG report -- is about to occur, the Justice Department will ask the grand jury to file charges, but then seal the indictment. That way, it cannot credibly be said that the grand jury?s decision to indict was swayed by negative publicity surrounding developments in the other investigation.That is to say, there could be a dozen or more good explanations for why there has been no public announcement of a McCabe indictment. The other investigations could be complicating things. It could be that the Washington grand jury?s investigation is broader in scope than we?ve been led to believe. It could be something as simple as the availability of necessary witnesses, the availability of enough grand jurors to constitute a quorum, or the happenstance that the case is taking more time to present than the defense lawyers and media think it should.It is certainly possible that, if there were a trial, the false-statements case against McCabe would seem less compelling than Horowitz?s report makes it appear. It is conceivable that the U.S. attorney will decide against charges. Note that in the email to McCabe?s lawyers, the Justice Department said only that his appeal was rejected; DAG Rosen does not appear to have instructed U.S. Attorney Liu to file an indictment, but rather to have left that call up to her. For all we know, Liu could decide not to seek an indictment: Maybe she?ll calculate that a trial jury in Trump-hostile Washington might be too sympathetic to McCabe?s claim that he is being investigated because of a political vendetta; or maybe she?ll prove to be risk-averse regarding a case in which an acquittal would be embarrassing.Such developments would surprise me, but I wouldn?t be shocked. What would shock me, though, is if the experienced federal prosecutors handling McCabe?s case bungled their way into a no true bill. If I had to bet, I think it?s unlikely McCabe escapes indictment. If he does, though, it will be because his lawyers talked prosecutors out of seeking one, not because the grand jury declined to charge him.


  • Scores of tigers rescued from infamous Thai temple have died: media
  • Scores of tigers rescued from infamous Thai temple have died: mediaMore than half of the tigers that Thai authorities confiscated in 2016 from an infamous Tiger Temple tourist attraction have died from a viral disease because their immune systems were weakened by inbreeding, media reported. The Buddhist temple west of Bangkok was a tourist destination where visitors took selfies with tigers and bottle-fed cubs until authorities removed its nearly 150 tigers in 2016 in response to global pressure over wildlife trafficking.


  • Aramco attacks show company entanglement in Saudi politics
  • Aramco attacks show company entanglement in Saudi politicsThe weekend drone attack on the world's largest crude oil processing plant in Saudi Arabia that dramatically cut into global oil supplies is the most visible sign yet of how Aramco's stability and security is directly linked to that of its owners ? the Saudi government and its ruling family. The strikes, which U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed on Iran despite staunch denials by Tehran, led to suspension of more than 5% of the world's daily crude oil production, bringing into focus just how vulnerable the company is to Saudi Arabia's conflicts outside the country's borders, particularly with regional rival Iran.


Fun chocoku Clip6 chocoku

  • Le SEO Hero peut être romantique
  • Il est possible d'être romantique pour un robot, grâce à une IA très développée, mais aussi très choyée, mais pour être un SEO Hero, il faut avoir un bon niveau, au moins deux derground !
  • Sentimancho romantique
  • Un sentimancho peut-il être romantique? Ou surtout, peut-il ne pas l'être?
  • concours barcamp black hat
  • Ce matin j'ai Tweeté un petit concours de dernière minute concernant le Barcamp Black Hat de ce week-end mais en 140 caractères c'est pas simple de bien expliquer comment jouer et qui peut jouer !
  • Barcamp Black Hat
  • Nous l'attendions tous, et bien voilà la date du Barcamp Black Hat 2012 à été annoncée et il semblerait que cette année il y ait également des Black Hat Girls qui aient reçues l'invitation. On recconnait facilement la Black Hat Girl à son chapeau noir et sa tennue qui transforme un Panda en Pingouin aux yeux de Google !
  • Pandaranol
  • Un concours organisé par un être qui aurait été digne de participé au concours chocoku, un rose dans sa tête, même s'il peut paraitre parfois étrange, bref, un concours qui respire le fun et la bonne humeur.

Modérateuse chocoku  TéOU chocoku

  • Trump's Worst Fear: Iran Attacks U.S. Bases and Aircraft Carriers with Missiles
  • Trump's Worst Fear: Iran Attacks U.S. Bases and Aircraft Carriers with MissilesIran is continuing to develop increasingly long-range ballistic missiles -- and is firing some shorter-range missiles in combat -- despite demands from the U.S. government that the Islamic republic totally give up any weapons that could, in theory, carry a nuclear warhead.


  • Virginia Attorney General Concludes Race Information Is Not Necessary for Marriage Licenses
  • Virginia Attorney General Concludes Race Information Is Not Necessary for Marriage LicensesThe state has new forms, which let applicants ?Declined to Answer? about race


  • Why It?s Unlikely the McCabe Grand Jury Voted against Indictment
  • Why It?s Unlikely the McCabe Grand Jury Voted against IndictmentIn coverage of the Andrew McCabe investigation, there seems to be a lot of adding two plus two and coming up with five.The New York Times and Washington Post have reported that a grand jury met on Thursday in connection with a probe involving McCabe, the FBI?s former deputy director. As I write this column on Friday evening, no indictment has been returned against McCabe. From this, and what seems to be some hopeful speculation about ?hints of the case?s weakness? that could possibly have caused grand jurors to ?balk,? the Times and the Post suggest that maybe the grand jury has voted against an indictment.This supposition has prompted a letter to the Justice Department from McCabe?s attorney, Michael Bromwich -- a former colleague of mine who, besides being a skilled and shrewd attorney, is a Democrat and was last seen representing Christine Blasey Ford, Justice Brett Kavanaugh?s accuser. Bromwich says he is hearing ?rumors from reporters? about the filing of a ?no true bill? -- i.e., a grand-jury vote rejecting a proposed indictment of McCabe.While conceding that he ?do[es] not know the specific basis for the rumors,? Bromwich intuits that they must be reliable because the newspapers ran with the story. Mind you, neither the Times nor the Post claims to have been told by any grand jurors that they declined to indict McCabe; nor do they report hearing from any knowledgeable government official that a no true bill was voted. Nevertheless, McCabe?s legal team is demanding that the Justice Department disclose whether an indictment was declined and refrain from seeking an indictment in the future.This gambit, of course, floats the narrative that the case against McCabe must be crumbling -- the media reports spur the Bromwich letter, which spur more media reports, rinse and repeat. But even allowing for the erosion of standards, this is thin gruel for both news reporting and legal claims.I?ll add more detail presently. To cut to the chase, though, there is no reason at this point to infer that the grand jury has voted against indicting McCabe.Now, let?s back up.As I reiterated in a column on Thursday, the criminal probe of McCabe stems, at least in part, from an investigation by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz. That inquest centered on McCabe?s orchestration of a leak to the Wall Street Journal of investigative information -- specifically, of the fact that the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation. McCabe is alleged to have lied in several interviews by FBI agents. It is a crime to make false statements to investigators. IG Horowitz outlined the false-statements allegations against McCabe in a meticulous 35-page report, filed in February 2018.As is required when the IG turns up evidence of potential criminal conduct, the matter was referred to the Justice Department for consideration of whether charges should be filed. Because the IG probe and the alleged false statements occurred in Washington, the matter ended up in the United States attorney?s office for the District of Columbia.There, the U.S. attorney, Jesse Liu, has reportedly decided that there is enough evidence to charge felonies. Bromwich, however, was permitted to appeal Liu?s decision to the Justice Department -- specifically, to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general. According to media reports, DAG Rosen was unpersuaded; the Justice Department thus advised the McCabe defense team in an email that their appeal has been rejected, and that any further questions should be taken up with U.S. Attorney Liu?s office.It was assumed when this news broke on Thursday that the Justice Department?s rejection was the last hurdle standing in the way of charges, and therefore that an indictment must be imminent. It has now been reported that, although the grand jury met on Thursday, no indictment was filed.That, however, is no reason to conclude that an indictment was sought, much less that the grand jury declined to vote one.Let me begin with the basics. No competent federal prosecutor should ever get a no true bill from a grand jury. In nearly 20 years as a prosecutor, it not only never happened to me; I could count on one hand the number of times I heard of it happening to any other prosecutor in the office, and still have fingers to spare.This is not because of the old saw that the deck is so stacked against a suspect in grand-jury proceedings that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. To be sure, grand-jury proceedings are very one-sided. Still, there are many cases that grand juries do not like and would not charge. Nevertheless, these cases do not result in no true bills. Instead, there is steady dialogue between the prosecutors and the grand jurors over each case. The latter ask questions and, when they are troubled, convey that fact to the former. Before submitting a proposed indictment, it is customary for the prosecutor to ask whether the grand jurors believe they have heard enough evidence, whether they would like to hear from other witnesses, whether they have other concerns, or whether they would like to consider an indictment. The prosecutor is well aware if the grand jury has doubts about the case; if there are indications that the grand jury is not inclined to vote for charges, the prosecutor simply refrains from presenting an indictment.Bear in mind, moreover, that a grand jury, unlike a trial jury, is not being asked to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its modest task is to determine whether a significantly lower proof hurdle -- probable cause -- has been met. Also unlike a trial jury, the grand jury need not be unanimous; federal grand juries have up to 23 members, and only 12 need assent for an indictment to be approved. The grand jurors know they are not being asked to convict anyone; just to determine that there is enough evidence to warrant having a trial, at which the defendant will be given all the due-process protections the Constitution ensures. And double-jeopardy principles are not in play at the grand-jury stage as they are at trial: On the rare occasion that a federal grand jury votes a no true bill, prosecutors are free to re-present the case to the same or another grand jury.Assuming that the false statements capably outlined in the Horowitz report are the only potential crimes under consideration, it is hard to believe any grand jury could find insufficient probable cause to indict. Even McCabe is not claiming that what he told investigators was true; he seems to be saying he didn?t mean to lie (multiple times). When a suspect has committed all the acts necessary for a penal offense, and the only question is whether he had criminal intent, probable cause is usually a given.Of course, we do not know that the false statements are the only matters under consideration, or even that McCabe is the only subject of the grand jury?s investigation. It is entirely possible that the grand jury has not yet been asked to indict because relevant conduct is still under consideration -- conduct related to McCabe, related to other suspects, or both.And then there is the matter of prejudice to consider.Besides the ongoing grand-jury investigation of McCabe?s alleged false statements, the former deputy director is also among the current and former officials who are subjects of another IG probe of abuses of power in the Russia investigation. On Friday evening, IG Horowitz wrote a letter to leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, explaining that his report is substantially complete and is undergoing a classification review to determine what portions may be disclosed. We can safely assume, then, that the release of that report, which is apt to be explosive, is imminent. Meanwhile, Connecticut U.S. attorney John Durham also has an ongoing investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation. There have been reports that Durham is using a grand jury to gather evidence and testimony.Why are these other investigations germane to what is happening with the Washington grand jury? Well, sometimes, when a suspect is under scrutiny in multiple investigations, the Justice Department will ask the court to seal any indictments returned by the grand jury. That way, there can be no credible claim that the grand jurors in one case were swayed by allegations filed by another grand jury. Relatedly, sometimes if a grand jury?s investigation has not yet been completed, but a major development in another investigation involving the subject -- such as an IG report -- is about to occur, the Justice Department will ask the grand jury to file charges, but then seal the indictment. That way, it cannot credibly be said that the grand jury?s decision to indict was swayed by negative publicity surrounding developments in the other investigation.That is to say, there could be a dozen or more good explanations for why there has been no public announcement of a McCabe indictment. The other investigations could be complicating things. It could be that the Washington grand jury?s investigation is broader in scope than we?ve been led to believe. It could be something as simple as the availability of necessary witnesses, the availability of enough grand jurors to constitute a quorum, or the happenstance that the case is taking more time to present than the defense lawyers and media think it should.It is certainly possible that, if there were a trial, the false-statements case against McCabe would seem less compelling than Horowitz?s report makes it appear. It is conceivable that the U.S. attorney will decide against charges. Note that in the email to McCabe?s lawyers, the Justice Department said only that his appeal was rejected; DAG Rosen does not appear to have instructed U.S. Attorney Liu to file an indictment, but rather to have left that call up to her. For all we know, Liu could decide not to seek an indictment: Maybe she?ll calculate that a trial jury in Trump-hostile Washington might be too sympathetic to McCabe?s claim that he is being investigated because of a political vendetta; or maybe she?ll prove to be risk-averse regarding a case in which an acquittal would be embarrassing.Such developments would surprise me, but I wouldn?t be shocked. What would shock me, though, is if the experienced federal prosecutors handling McCabe?s case bungled their way into a no true bill. If I had to bet, I think it?s unlikely McCabe escapes indictment. If he does, though, it will be because his lawyers talked prosecutors out of seeking one, not because the grand jury declined to charge him.


  • Scores of tigers rescued from infamous Thai temple have died: media
  • Scores of tigers rescued from infamous Thai temple have died: mediaMore than half of the tigers that Thai authorities confiscated in 2016 from an infamous Tiger Temple tourist attraction have died from a viral disease because their immune systems were weakened by inbreeding, media reported. The Buddhist temple west of Bangkok was a tourist destination where visitors took selfies with tigers and bottle-fed cubs until authorities removed its nearly 150 tigers in 2016 in response to global pressure over wildlife trafficking.


  • Aramco attacks show company entanglement in Saudi politics
  • Aramco attacks show company entanglement in Saudi politicsThe weekend drone attack on the world's largest crude oil processing plant in Saudi Arabia that dramatically cut into global oil supplies is the most visible sign yet of how Aramco's stability and security is directly linked to that of its owners ? the Saudi government and its ruling family. The strikes, which U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed on Iran despite staunch denials by Tehran, led to suspension of more than 5% of the world's daily crude oil production, bringing into focus just how vulnerable the company is to Saudi Arabia's conflicts outside the country's borders, particularly with regional rival Iran.


chocoku  and chocoku  doesn't realise chocoku if websites is dead chocoku

  • UPDATE 1-Venezuela's opposition says Norway-mediated dialogue with Maduro "is finished"
  • UPDATE 1-Venezuela's opposition says Norway-mediated dialogue with Maduro "is finished"Venezuela's opposition said on Sunday a dialogue mediated by Norway to try to resolve a political crisis had ended, six weeks after President Nicolas Maduro's government suspended participation. The talks, most of which took place in Barbados, began after opposition leader Juan Guaido led a failed military uprising in April against Maduro, who is accused of rights violations and has overseen an economic collapse prompting millions to flee. Maduro's representatives walked away from the table in August to protest U.S. President Donald Trump's tightening of sanctions on the OPEC nation.


  • North Carolina woman forced to be sex slave and tortured in front of her children
  • North Carolina woman forced to be sex slave and tortured in front of her childrenA North Carolina woman was held as a sex slave and repeatedly beaten and tortured in front of her two children. The woman -- who remains unnamed -- was allegedly held against her will at two separate hotels in Pineville, North Carolina where police say ?she was forced into sexual acts with random men,? according to a statement from the Pineville Police Department. The suspects, Thomas Antoine Miller and Shakeeta Lasha Adams, then allegedly physically and mentally punished the woman if she did not meet certain financial quotas.


  • Spain rejects extraditing Venezuela's ex-spymaster to US
  • Spain rejects extraditing Venezuela's ex-spymaster to USSpain's National Court has rejected the extradition to the United States of a former Venezuelan military spy chief accused of drug smuggling and other charges. A court spokesman said that retired Maj. Gen. Hugo Carvajal, who claimed that the extradition request was politically motivated, is due to be released immediately in the wake of Monday's decision. Carvajal headed Venezuela's military intelligence agency for more than a decade, first as a close aide to former Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chávez.


  • Afghanistan hit by blackouts after power pylons destroyed
  • Afghanistan hit by blackouts after power pylons destroyedAfghan households and businesses in about a third of the country have been hit by blackouts after electricity pylons in the northern province of Baghlan were blown up over the weekend, the main power utility said on Monday. The utility, Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat (DABS), said three pylons carrying 220 KW of electricity imported from neighbouring Uzbekistan had been destroyed on Sunday, cutting power in 11 of the country's 34 provinces, including the capital, Kabul. There was no claim of responsibility for the attacks, which come as fighting has intensified in northern provinces including Baghlan amid stalled efforts by the United States and the Taliban to agree plans to withdraw thousands of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.


  • UPDATE 1-Cobham investors back takeover by U.S. private equity group Advent
  • UPDATE 1-Cobham investors back takeover by U.S. private equity group AdventBritish defence and aerospace group Cobham Plc said on Monday its investors had backed a $5 billion buyout offer from U.S. private equity firm Advent International. Advent agreed to buy Cobham, known for its pioneering air-to-air refuelling technology in July. Chairman Jamie Pike said the board did not take a short-term view, had intense talks with Advent and decided that the offer of 165 pence per share was adequate recompense for the company?s prospects.


Lucie love the Chocoku !!!

  • Se préparer à être un SEO Hero
  • Lucie sait y faire, on le sait depuis bien longtemps, bien mieux qu'Aphrodite, Damona ou encore Isis, mais ces déesses feront largement l'affaire pour un SEO Hero.
  • Lucie a toujours eu le sentimancho
  • Ceux qui connaissent Lucie ne s'étonneront pas qu'elle possède des sentiments chauds, en particulier avec les SEO rigolos et Rome antique comme à Toulouse.
  • soirée du 35 octobre 2011
  • Soriée SEOsphère le 35 octobre 2011, viendez nombreux et surtout nombreuses !!! Et surtout soyez SEO Romantique...
  • Pandaranol
  • Qu'est ce que le Pandaranol ? Ce n'est pas un médicament, mais un truc fun qui ne plairait pas à tout le monde.
  • anniversaire seosphère
  • Encore un anniversaire mais ce coup ci ce sont les 5 ans de SEOsphère qui ont été fêtés le samedi 11 décembre 2010 dans une salle en plein Paris

Do you want know more about chocoku  life ? Visit one of few chocoku websites and become a chocoku addict like this chocoku !

Go back Chocoku Land

voir les Choco potes

Et ici on met quoi ? Un smiley Siffleur ou un truc de ce genre ?