It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
ROSENSTEIN: I know what [Mueller’s] doing. I'm properly exercising my oversight responsibilities, and so I can assure you that the special counsel is conducting himself consistently with our understanding about the scope of his investigation.
originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: MiddleInsite
Well, it depends. As it pertains to a special counsel, yes, or they need to refer their unrelated findings to the DoJ to investigate. If it's not Russian interference, the special counsel has no business investigating it.
But the reason this threatens the entire special counsel probe is that the special counsel was not set up according to doj regs. They pretty much broke the rules to give someone else unlimited power and money (which they wouldn't have had) to investigate anything they wanted under the guise of Russia.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Vector99
I did champ. Also my father in law was a chief of staff for a state AG, my sister in law has three law degrees and teaches law,...
It ain't going nowhere. I would be willing to bet on it. It looks fancy and it fooled you I guess. He tries to create a legal precedence but it won't work. Mark my words. It's nearly impossible to fight vague investigative powers.
But you can hope and be impressed I can't atop you. Then complain it's rigged when it's thrown out.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: shooterbrody
Nothing. They can't use it in prosecution. He never sized anything..he asked and they handed it over.
, and there were no specific claims..
It was a publicity stunt, just like this.
originally posted by: angeldoll
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: angeldoll
perjury
it was a process crime to that investigation
much like what flynn plead to
what Manafort was indicted for was NOT a process crime
and Manforts suit claims it was OUTSIDE the SC scope, which will be an interesting debate
Nope. He perjured himself about Lewinski, not Whitewater, which was the reason for the investigation.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: shooterbrody
He didn't seize anything. He was handed the information. You can't just cite legal definitions as proof.
mobile.twitter.com...
Why don't you point for point tell me how this federal judge is wrong. You can use your statute.
By the way why did manafort file a civil lawsuit?
Wouldn't you normally file a motion to the criminal judge instead of try and circumvent the criminal court...
Oh that's right your a legal genius you probably can cite a statute from Google.