JEFF SESSIONS Has Appointed TWO PROSECUTORS To Investigate Obama Admin and Hillary.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Again. I didn't say it didn't. I'm just not sure what there is to be afraid of. You have a bigger chance of slipping and busting your head open on the bathroom sink than you do dying in a terrorist action.

Frankly. I see nothing to be afraid of when it comes to terrorist plots. At least no more so than any other crime in this country. I also think that right wing politicians, including Trump, who use it to promote added national security are lying to us to strip rights away from us.

To the OP, you know you have hit a nerve when the Hillary gang show up to spout off one line elementary playground style retorts like “you smell” and “your mom is ugly” just to muddy up a thread so that it is hard to follow.

On topic—even if these investigations come to naught, It’s good to see that some pressure is being kept on the Clinton Cabal so they have to keep an eye on the rear view mirror. I’m behind hoping they will ever be caught up in their web of lies, treason, and murder, but at least Sessions is trying—maybe—I am still not sure what Sessions intentions really are.

a reply to: carewemust

Two prosecutors to investigate Hilary and Obama, you say? I’m seeing a vision of the future. Ah yes, a headline.

“TWO FEDERAL PROSECUTORS FOUND DEAD”

In all seriousness though, when will our government stop being so stupid? They send in people to investigate the Clintons, and they mysteriously wind up dead.

www.zerohedge.com...

When will the government stop writing these deaths off as coincidence?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Again. I didn't say it didn't. I'm just not sure what there is to be afraid of. You have a bigger chance of slipping and busting your head open on the bathroom sink than you do dying in a terrorist action.

Frankly. I see nothing to be afraid of when it comes to terrorist plots. At least no more so than any other crime in this country. I also think that right wing politicians, including Trump, who use it to promote added national security are lying to us to strip rights away from us.

It’s not just myself I care about, but also other innocents. I also think it is foolish to Pooh Pooh terrorist plots as just as scary as preventable accidents, as if a wet floor was as nefarious as people scheming to commit as many deaths and injuries as possible. A slip and fall is nowhere near as evil as terrorism.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: carewemust

Trump as a good and seasoned executive,he let's people do their job he picked best person for job,so let them do it their way,good job

Donald Trump's been planning this for a long time. Not gonna screw-up right out the starting gate. I can see Trump/Sessions traveling together on the campaign trail, planning their moves, if he won.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It's not like I'm saying that the FBI and various local police forces should stop investigating alleged terror plots and stopping ones they can. I'm more or less referring to the fearmongering you are doing where you are trying to suggest that terrorism is a threat to our country merely because terrorist actions have been committed on our soil. Terrorism works when you fear it, but it stops working when you look at the numbers outside of a vacuum and compare them to other numbers to see that the threat isn't as dire as the news and politicians like to paint it as.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: carewemust

Where allegations of impropriety exist within government investigation should be made , I think it a good move for Sessions to show there is a level playing field when it comes to the investigation.

It also makes Jeff Sessions a little more fireproof against his detractors.

As a Democrat Congressman said last week, he's introducing a measure to "Protect Sessions" job. Not because he feels that Sessions is going a good job with Immigration, etc.., but because Trump doesn't like him.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It's not like I'm saying that the FBI and various local police forces should stop investigating alleged terror plots and stopping ones they can. I'm more or less referring to the fearmongering you are doing where you are trying to suggest that terrorism is a threat to our country merely because terrorist actions have been committed on our soil. Terrorism works when you fear it, but it stops working when you look at the numbers outside of a vacuum and compare them to other numbers to see that the threat isn't as dire as the news and politicians like to paint it as.

And it’s not as safe and merry as you suggest it is. There are people actively plotting to commit mass casualties for reasons of religion and ideology. It’s just a point of fact. You can either stand against it or pretend it isn’t happening.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

If I feared terrorism on a regular basis then I'd be too scared to leave my living room because there are FAR more things that are FAR deadlier to worry about before I ever get to terrorism. You are literally playing the media's propaganda and fearmongering game for them. I posted facts and statistics putting terrorist numbers in proportion and you've ignored all of them to keep telling me I should be scared of terrorism.

You can either stand against it or pretend it isn’t happening.

False equivalency. I stand against it, don't pretend it isn't happening, and don't fear it. Though this point was silly anyways. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who stands WITH terrorism.

originally posted by: xtradimensions
To the OP, you know you have hit a nerve when the Hillary gang show up to spout off one line elementary playground style retorts like “you smell” and “your mom is ugly” just to muddy up a thread so that it is hard to follow.

Not everyone can have a MILF for a mom, this is a fact.

a reply to: Deetermined

And, in fact, we did not find no bias with regard to the October events.

Very interesting. Double negative there. They did not find "no bias." So he is literally saying they did find bias.

I actually checked the transcript to make sure this is accurate -- and it is. Unless the transcript itself is incorrect to the audio.

a reply to: carewemust

This is Sessions caving to political pressure.

Believe me, if Trump wasn't cautioned by his entire staff he would have fired Sessions already. If Trump were to fire him, Trump would look guilty as hell.

As far as Billary and Obama...if they find something prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. By the same token if they find something on Trump they should prosecute him as well.

Justice should be blind, not partisan.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: xtradimensions
To the OP, you know you have hit a nerve when the Hillary gang show up to spout off one line elementary playground style retorts like “you smell” and “your mom is ugly” just to muddy up a thread so that it is hard to follow.

Not everyone can have a MILF for a mom, this is a fact.

That depends on how low your standards are doesn't it?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: carewemust

Where allegations of impropriety exist within government investigation should be made , I think it a good move for Sessions to show there is a level playing field when it comes to the investigation.

It also makes Jeff Sessions a little more fireproof against his detractors.

As a Democrat Congressman said last week, he's introducing a measure to "Protect Sessions" job. Not because he feels that Sessions is going a good job with Immigration, etc.., but because Trump doesn't like him.

It would be typical of Trump to have goaded the Dems into this action. Trump might be hard on Sessions because if he did the opposite and kept complimenting him on a good job, the Dems would be trying to get rid of him. Maybe Trump is using reverse psychology - as he often does. If Sessions comes up with charges, they can't blame Trump for influencing him as if they had been working together on this.

Although... Dems turned it around on him with Comey. They are so hypocritical that actions defy logic. They blamed Comey for Hillary's loss and hated him, until Trump fired him. Then they supported Comey.

LOL remember the new rules..

Everything is fair game. Raiding layers, crimes from decades ago , NDA agreements .

I bet they find alot more then a hooker.

a reply to: carewemust

an act in the play

They need a better producer and some script edits if your statement is even remotely true.

One would think that if they were seeking justice then this would have been a day one event instead of an attempted deflection of other investigations.

Looks like they only deep thought they have is to try and hold hillary and the gang investigation as a bargaining tool against mueller.

That is not justice that is simple cya.

a reply to: carewemust

Ahhh carewemust, darn you for getting my hopes up. I got excited to read that finally we have something, checked all the news sites and no one is reporting on this. FOX has nothing at all, and Fox would be all over this.

Then I looked at the dates these prosecutors started these investigations and the first one, as your quote says, started this investigation in November 2017. The other one, grand jury in Little Rock started in January this year. At the very best these news are close to a year old. For # sake, the Breitbart article in your OP is from March this year.

Here is your own article from two months ago saying Turley was appointed in November:
SEALED INDICTMENTS - Their Number is Exploding Across America in 2018

Your other article from newswire is from January 13 of this year. They must have done an edit on it to show recent date but if you Google it there is an archived version that is identical with a January 13 date.

This is why using questionable propaganda websites should be a no-no for any critical thinker and reader.

________________________


I came here to comment and say -- Good! It's about time!

Now I am sorely disappointed that so many readers will be deceived and repeat this to their friends, when all this started a year ago and we already knew and read about it then.

False hope.



Edit to add: For someone like you, who has been around for at least 11 years, writing a longer post like this -- I would expect you to check dates and not misinform people like this. Was this a mistake? Or did you know this was old news and repackaged it as new?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

And therefore without a doubt Obama & Hillary are going down for being the terrorist supporting, foreign government overthrowing, war mongering, domestic election tampering, brownshirt deploying (okay fine they wear black shirts not brown shirts), psychopathic mass deception mongers that they are.

Yep. About as much chance as Trump going down for """Russian 'collusion'"""

a reply to: Boadicea

Very interesting. Double negative there. They did not find "no bias." So he is literally saying they did find bias.

I actually checked the transcript to make sure this is accurate -- and it is. Unless the transcript itself is incorrect to the audio.

No transcript errors. There have been articles written about Horowitz using these double negatives too...

All the times Horowitz contradicted Wray — but nobody seemed to notice

thehill.com...

Horowitz thought there was definite bias coming from Peter Strzok. This may be their way of focusing on him instead of the entire investigation. I'm betting he has recommended charges against Strzok along with McCabe now, but he's only shared that with the DOJ for now.

a reply to: Deetermined

Thank you! I really need to up my game here... I hadn't noticed the double negatives before, and now that I am -- thank you for the link, it's a good read -- my mind is spiraling. I'm going to have to re-visit much of this, and read about it in this new light.

Thank you!!!