Devin Nunes: AG Jeff Sessions should be held in contempt of Congress

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How do you know it's verbal?

I don't know what's written.

I do know the person in charge of Mueller, who trump appointed, has publicly stated they have discussed the aspects in question.

Discussions are in fact verbal. So if you do not know what is written then how do you know this is covered in the written scope? Kind of illogical.

Because I have no idea, my concerns are bred from Mueller doing everything possible to keep the JUDGE (not Manafort or his lawyer) from seeing the written scope.

a reply to: Phage

As it should be, isn't transparency what we as Americans want?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: The GUT

Tomorrow the mouthy judge will side for mueller. Count on it or they'll call for a mistrial. These guys often take an opportunity to put the feds in their place. It's not a setback yet. But I'm pretty sure that's what will happen.

😀

MUELLER MAYHEM: Federal Judge REJECTS Special Counsel’s Request for Delay

A second federal judge flat-out rebuked special counsel Robert Mueller over the weekend; rejecting his request to delay a court hearing in a criminal case surrounding Russian election meddling using social media.

According to Politico, Judge Dabney Friedrich issued a “brief order” Saturday that denied Mueller’s request to delay the scheduled hearing Friday evening; offering no explanation and setting the stage for a high-stake showdown between the special counsel’s office and 13 Russian nations indicted for interfering in the 2016 election.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How do you know it's verbal?

I don't know what's written.

I do know the person in charge of Mueller, who trump appointed, has publicly stated they have discussed the aspects in question.

Discussions are in fact verbal. So if you do not know what is written then how do you know this is covered in the written scope? Kind of illogical.

Because I have no idea, my concerns are bred from Mueller doing everything possible to keep the JUDGE (not Manafort or his lawyer) from seeing the written scope.

You have no idea if there a written records or what the mandatory says. The part we do is is very vague. Like scooter libby"s case was.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How do you know it's verbal?

I don't know what's written.

I do know the person in charge of Mueller, who trump appointed, has publicly stated they have discussed the aspects in question.

Discussions are in fact verbal. So if you do not know what is written then how do you know this is covered in the written scope? Kind of illogical.

Because I have no idea, my concerns are bred from Mueller doing everything possible to keep the JUDGE (not Manafort or his lawyer) from seeing the written scope.

You have no idea if there a written records or what the mandatory says. The part we do is is very vague. Like scooter libby"s case was.

EXACTLY my point. EXACTLY why I want the Judge to look at it. YOU have no idea and are perfectly fine with no one but Mueller knowing.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How do you know it's verbal?

I don't know what's written.

I do know the person in charge of Mueller, who trump appointed, has publicly stated they have discussed the aspects in question.

Discussions are in fact verbal. So if you do not know what is written then how do you know this is covered in the written scope? Kind of illogical.

Because I have no idea, my concerns are bred from Mueller doing everything possible to keep the JUDGE (not Manafort or his lawyer) from seeing the written scope.

You have no idea if there a written records or what the mandatory says. The part we do is is very vague. Like scooter libby"s case was.

EXACTLY my point. EXACTLY why I want the Judge to look at it. YOU have no idea and are perfectly fine with no one but Mueller knowing.

Sure am. That's how it usually works.

Both sides use every trick to win.

Perhaps you know nothing of law.

Maybe you didn't follow Ken star, or the libby case?

Now I don't think it's particularly ethical. But it's certainly what happens regularly. Heck look at the scotus rulingso on prosecutors immunity. They can basically lie to witnesses to get testimony.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How do you know it's verbal?

I don't know what's written.

I do know the person in charge of Mueller, who trump appointed, has publicly stated they have discussed the aspects in question.

Discussions are in fact verbal. So if you do not know what is written then how do you know this is covered in the written scope? Kind of illogical.

Because I have no idea, my concerns are bred from Mueller doing everything possible to keep the JUDGE (not Manafort or his lawyer) from seeing the written scope.

You have no idea if there a written records or what the mandatory says. The part we do is is very vague. Like scooter libby"s case was.

EXACTLY my point. EXACTLY why I want the Judge to look at it. YOU have no idea and are perfectly fine with no one but Mueller knowing.

a reply to: luthier

I don't care about him doing it, I care about you and other liberals cheering him on as he breaks the law and tramples our rights.

I don't care what is found as long as it's not politically motivated and follows the law.

a reply to: xuenchen

Very interesting. Mueller better have good evidence or he's going to look mighty dumb.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

I don't care about him doing it, I care about you and other liberals cheering him on as he breaks the law and tramples our rights.

I don't care what is found as long as it's not politically motivated and follows the law.

Lol. Not a liberal.

And I do care but since you don't hold republicans like nunes accountable they provide more power to the government to do these things.

Because these laws came from republicans in the drug war prosecutions they are used through legal precedent.

I don't like special councils.

But Mueller is doing exactly what they all do is my point.

Republicans loved it when it was Ken Star.

a reply to: luthier

Sorry Liberal I hold everyone accountable. You are welcome to point out anytime I cheered on wrongdoing like you are doing.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Lol. Well in a debate you would do poorly even with a conservative moderator.

First of ego man no one cares what we think. It's our reps votes that count. You need to hold them accountable.

And I don't condone it. However, Mueller is doing what your reps allowed him to do.

In fact I would bet this judge does nothing. I would literally place a bet on it.

Because there is legal precedence.

My point is it has nothing to do with Mueller. It's what his JOB is. Just like I don't blame poorly trained cops for messing up. They were hired and poorly trained and given immunity.

I do blame Congress..including those who pretend to be "exposing" the deep state.

a reply to: luthier

You already admitted you condone it and you can't find any instance of me condoning wrongdoing. Unless the moderator is from CNN I don't need help.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Lol you would need cliff notes.

What you are doing is argueing the speed limit shouldn't be 25 on this road after you get a ticket.

You forgot to vote against the guy who made the speed limit 25 because he said he would give you tax break.

a reply to: luthier

Sorry I am arguing that you can't post a sign saying it's 35 and then pull me over saying it's 25 and then tell the Judge to just trust you are doing the right thing. Follow the law.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Lol. Not even close.

What you are doing is stating things in ignorance of the actual laws and what legal precedence is.

What is you bet this gets thrown out and Mueller did something illegal (even though his oversight says different)?

a reply to: luthier

Yawn. You already admitted you don't care about Mueller breaking the law. Fact is you have no clue what will happen and do not want Judicial oversight. It's disgusting.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Mueller is not only dirty as hell, he is going there soon. He had better snap it it. He had better hurry, and pull up all the stops, because one night his heart will stop, and he will wake up dead, and we will have to put him into a grave hole. His end of life pawnmanship was a bad idea from the start.

Is that a threat? Do you know something about a threat to Mueller's life? Or, is this just good ole Christian wishful thinking, dreaming of seeing your perceived enemies dead and burning in Hell at the same time?

Oh shut up.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

Yawn. You already admitted you don't care about Mueller breaking the law. Fact is you have no clue what will happen and do not want Judicial oversight. It's disgusting.

Nope. Schooled you it isn't breaking the law do to your legislators. .

What was Ken star hired for again?

What did he come up with?

by the way Mueller won that motion. The judge did not rule for the defence in their motion and most likely will not.

Also expalined I don't agree with it. But I am also not an idiot and complain the speed limit shouldn't be 25. I blame the legislators making the laws.

Hey scotus ruled Mueller can lie. Because the conservatives wanted to put drug dealers in jail.

But why talk about reality. Fox news is more fun.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Why would Rosenstein make any determination lol. Mueller will do that.

I'm not worried about my knowledge. You shouldn't be either. I have a proven record.
And I'm not really interested in what your opinion on the subject is anyway.

Proven record? As what?

Not as a knowledgeable poster that's for sure. Far and away the worst and least knowledgeable leftist in this site. Even when facts are presented you keep shilling and lying for the Democrat Party.

Have you EVER acknowledged ANY wrongdoing by the Democrats on any subject? I don't remember seeing it if it happened.