Attorney General Jeff Sessions names prosecutor to probe FBI, DOJ wrongdoing

a reply to: RadioRobert

I believe you are split-the-arrow bullseye on that, RR. Just the evidence that's already out is indicative and damning, but it does take a little research to understand.

When I take the time to answer those who obfuscate, I'm NEVER looking at it as if they will start to get it but, rather, taking the time to break it down and give citation for the silent majority that might be coming a little late to the table and are just now grappling with the conflict and MSM smokescreen.

A quote that I think is applicable here:

When a person who is honestly mistaken learns the truth, they will either no longer be mistaken or they will cease to be honest ~ Unknown

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme

What manafort was charged for was ALREADY investigated by the fbi and no charges brought. The sc can bring charges from things ARISING from his investigation. Clearly this did not just ARISE from his investigation if it has already been investigated by the fbi.

Surprise!

a reply to: DJW001

yeah that is behind a pay wall
has the judge made a ruling on the filing by manafort as that did not arise from this investigation?

a reply to: DJW001

Also you think that surprise will be >or < the surprise some will get when they find out session has had huber investigating the fbi since june of 17?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: DJW001

Also you think that surprise will be >or < the surprise some will get when they find out session has had huber investigating the fbi since june of 17?

Using Department resources against potential political enemies? That would look really, really bad for this administration.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: DJW001

Also you think that surprise will be >or < the surprise some will get when they find out session has had huber investigating the fbi since june of 17?

Using Department resources against potential political enemies? That would look really, really bad for this administration.

wow
some stones you have there to make that statement
fisa shenanigans used against the trump campaign and all

a reply to: shooterbrody

It's always "Opposite Day" and self-projection from the sold-out MSM and their intellectually dishonest Parrots.

They scream at the sky and loudly shout down truth because it's their last defense against the light shining in the cracks and crevices. Fact.

Truth is they are the minority in society and shout loudest just before being stepped on like the cockroaches they are.

Once these reports start dropping they'll start devouring each other both in D.C. and on boards such as these. Steady mates, even though the intellectual dishonesty is mind-blowing and aggravating to witness, the ship is being set right and remember that it's always darkest just before the dawn. The ramp up in the MSM bears witness to this---they thought they had this until they realized what Huber joined with Horowitz means.

We didn't realize how advanced it was either. BAM! Very intelligent man in this interview (Victor Davis Hanson.) A SC at this point would've been a mistake, but there is one coming when they are needed.



Victor Davis Hanson Private Papers

originally posted by: RadioRobert
The "arising from" language is pretty interesting from a legal standpoint, though. Gives something fun and novel for lawyers to do while they rack up the billable hours. I don't know that it will prevail, but I think it's a strong argument. Wouldn't bet against it. Little words that don't seem to mean much, are actually a big deal when it comes to legalese. That's why contracts should always be carefully worded. And reviewed by a lawyer if feasible.

Looks like the Judge (Ellis) finds it interesting, too.

But after the revelation that the team is using information from the earlier DOJ probe, Ellis said that information did not “arise” out of the special counsel probe – and therefore may not be within the scope of that investigation.

“We don’t want anyone with unfettered power,” he said.

link

a reply to: RadioRobert

“We don’t want anyone with unfettered power,” he said.

Except, apparently, the president. When admitting to his bias the judge forgot that the judiciary is also impeachable.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: RadioRobert

“We don’t want anyone with unfettered power,” he said.

Except, apparently, the president. When admitting to his bias the judge forgot that the judiciary is also impeachable.

The President does not have unfettered power. If that were so the investigation would have been over long ago. I suggest you read up on your own govt structure. There are 3 branches for a reason.

a reply to: UKTruth

You must have received a terrible blow to the head that you are no longer capable of detecting sarcasm.

a reply to: UKTruth

Actually, The DOJ falls under the executive branch and part of his cabinet. The POTUS could fire the FBI director and the AG with no recourse if he wanted.


Just like the SCOTUS is only supposed to 'rule' on cases and not offer speculative views on anything which has occurred against Trump.