AAG Rod Rosenstein Threatened Members of Congress in January and again Today.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

You don't think a courtroom might be a better venue?
Why not? Both are private citizens now.

I have no idea which would be a better venue. Private citizens testify before Congress and (of course) in civilian courtrooms.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No its constitutional law 101.

Oh. I must have missed that day.

As I said are you ok with law enforcement investigating you in search of a crime?

I haven't committed a crime. I have nothing to hide.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: carewemust
Does Rod Rosenstein have the authority to block release of the Inspector General's report? It goes to the President and Congress at Noon (Eastern Time) on Thursday, and released to the general public at 3pm.

Nope

The OIG is essentially independent. They are appointed by the President and report directly to Congress for their oversight authority.

No kidding! Thanks for the legal/structural clarification.

a reply to: Phage

It's three o'clock in the morning where I am. You'll make me wake people up laughing all alone here.

a reply to: Xcathdra


I wonder what "violation" the DOJ/FBI dreamed up in order to investigate the Trump campaign?

a reply to: carewemust

Yeah way to stay informed. That way you can argue your views with knowledge.

Or ....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Phage

It's three o'clock in the morning where I am. You'll make me wake people up laughing all alone here.

Your clock is off. You posted at 25 minutes past the hour.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

No its constitutional law 101.

Oh. I must have missed that day.

As I said are you ok with law enforcement investigating you in search of a crime?

I haven't committed a crime. I have nothing to hide.

Apparently you did and you should brush up on it so you are on the same page.

As for your second comment that is exactly what I am talking about and for some reason you are failing to understand the point. If you didnt commit a crime law enforcement cant open an investigation into you in hopes of finding one.

The process requires -
1 - Law Enforcement receives information that John Doe has violated a law.
2 - Law Enforcement will investigate to determine if a law was in fact broken.
3 - Law Enforcement will then investigate the crime in order to find a suspect.
4 - Law Enforcement locates a suspect, meets probable cause requirements, submits charges and we go from there.

What they cant do is skip step 1.

Also it does not matter that you have nothing to hide. The fact is they cant investigate you without a law violation.

They must have a law violation to investigate.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BotheLumberJack

His daughter is hawt?

I guess.

You male pig.. can I say that?

a reply to: carewemust

Are you anal retentive?

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

I've been called a bore.

But that's incorrect spelling.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Yeah way to stay informed. That way you can argue your views with knowledge.

Or ....

You'll not find any posts with me discussing Cohen. I know nothing about him, and don't care to learn anything about him.

a reply to: carewemust

Confirmation bias is a bitch.

a reply to: Phage

Let me look.. brb

The word you're looking for is Swine.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Are you anal retentive?

That's the thanks I get for letting you know that your clock needs to be adjusted? Boy, aren't ye sensitive!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

Confirmation bias is a bitch.

New ATS profanity rules are under consideration. Watch that language Phage.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The issue is with the verbiage deary.
McCabe supplied the correct information to the media to correct a misconception.
As was his authority.
He didn't leak...

It's kind of like the way you guys confuse informant with spy. Lol

a reply to: Xcathdra

What they cant do is skip step 1.

No. It doesn't have to be John Doe.

Say, for example, a body has been discovered. A crime indeed. Who is the perp? Who is this John Doe of which you speak? Let's just investigate...everybody?

On the other hand. Let's say there is evidence that a foreign government has planted spies in the US. Should anyone in the US who those spies have been in contact with be disregarded entirely?


Let's say that something has happened. Say, an attack on an Embassy, or something. Did someone commit a crime, other than those who perpetrated the attack? Should that be investigated? Or not?

a reply to: carewemust

New ATS profanity rules are under consideration.

Source?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

The issue is with the verbiage deary.
McCabe supplied the correct information to the media to correct a misconception.
As was his authority.
He didn't leak...

It's kind of like the way you guys confuse informant with spy. Lol

The point you are missing is McCabe said Comey not only knew about it but authorized it.

Comey says that never happened.


Informant - a person who provides privileged information about a person or organization to an agency.
Spy - obtaining secret or confidential information without the permission of the holder of the information.

Definition of spy
spied; spying
transitive verb
1 : to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes
2 : to catch sight of : see
3 : to search or look for intensively —usually used with out

spy out places fit for vending … goods —S. E. Morison

intransitive verb
1 : to observe or search for something : look
2 : to watch secretly as a spy

Definition of informant
: a person who gives information: such as
a : informer
b : one who supplies cultural or linguistic data in response to interrogation by an investigator

you were saying...