Posted on 01/29/2018 6:49:09 AM PST by mononymous
Answers to the following questions should be of interest to every American, regardless of their political beliefs.
(1) Why does Comey get to illegally disclose classified info (his memos) for his stated purpose of precipitating the hiring of a SC and voila; it happens. But when elected members of the HOR call for a SC to investigate the many allegations of corruption within the DOJ, FBI and the Obama admin, in general, nothing happens?
(2) What prevents POTUS from hiring a SC, a DOJ-czar, perhaps?
(3) Do Strzok, Page, McCabe, Ohr still have security clearances and if so, why?
(4) Was anyone at the FBI/DOJ aware of the Strzok/Page affair and if so, why wasn’t this enough of a reason to demote and strip them both of their security clearance?
(5) If the many connections to Democrats/Clintons in the Mueller team do not form a prima facie case for dismissing these people on conflicts of interest and ethical grounds, why does the AG need to recuse himself from any of these investigations? In other words, why is he not given the same benefit of the doubt on being ethical? In the one instance, it appears that we have this cadaverous c*%k (Mueller) and his team answerable to absolutely no one and in the other we have an AG who, theoretically anyway, is. So, why is it okay for the person without any proper oversight (yes, there’s Rosenstein but he may well be part of a conspiracy as well as being friends with both Comey and Mueller) allowed to have these ethical issues and the person who is subject to all kinds of oversight can’t even have the “appearance” of an ethical problem? While one of these persons can be “corrected,” the other is free to be a totally unchecked zealot?
(6) How was Mueller allowed to stack his team with a sundry, sordid list of Democrat party affiliates and hacks? Is there anyone at DOJ who had oversight of this? If yes, how did these people get past the obvious conflicts of interest? Who is in charge of the “Senior Ethics Committee” at the DOJ?
(7) If Rosenstein is named in the House memo as being part of the cabal that was involved with the Steele dossier, would AG Sessions still proclaim him to be, "a man of integrity and ability"?
(8) Since the AG has been cleared of any wrongdoing in “meeting” with Russians, what prevents him from unrecusing himself and taking control over the out-of-control DOJ?
(9) Is there an ongoing investigation, in light of released text messages, into violations of the Hatch Act, at minimum? If not, why not?
(10) Why doesn’t some HOR committee subpoena Chuck Schumer and ask him, in an open session, to explain to the American people what he meant when he said, “You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” If this is true, exactly what country is this anymore? This is the Senate Minority Leader speaking about the Intel Community and POTUS! (Note: (a) we’d expect some journalist to ask Schumer this question but it will obviously never happen and (b) he said this on national TV so, it should be fair game to ask him to explain what he meant.)
(11) Imagine that AG Sessions is still a Senator, what does anyone believe he’d say about: (1) releasing the House memo and (2) the apparent corruption at the DOJ/FBI? Would a principled, ethical man, which I believe he is, not have the exact same position as AG? He apparently doesn’t, why?
(12) There should be no doubt that the lack of proper oversight by the Republican held Congress over the DOJ/FBI and the Obama admin, in general, led to the abuses we are now seeing a glimpse of; this, because these people are nothing but posturing pu$$ies who were scared s*%$less because of Obama’s skin color and the potential onslaught of the despicable media. Now, this collection of balls-less buffoons have suddenly rediscovered their power, launching various Russia- collusion investigations (still finding nothing) and are protective of the aforementioned cadaverous c*%k. Is it not also likely that key members of Congress, if not all, were compromised by the politicized DOJ/FBI? This would certainly explain item 9 and Mad Maxine Waters’ statement that Obama had (or has) a database on everyone. Why hasn’t she been asked to explain this, as well? (By the way, does anyone know if this woman can spell the word “impeach”?). Who else in Congress knows about this supposed database? Would anyone ever ask Mueller what he knows about blackmailing CJ John Roberts? As he was FBI Director under Eric Holder and Obama, Mueller probably knows and has the goods to blackmail many in Congress because the source of the material would have been the FBI – those who now vocally support him (particularly in the Republican party) are most suspect.
(13) How is it that the CIA was able to hack the computers of the Senate Intelligence Committee and what if anything was the consequence for this?
(14) When Mueller asked to “interview” POTUS, shouldn't his lawyers have argued that he would agree to the interview if the DOJ rules that Mueller is actually performing an investigation ethically, per CFR §600.7(c)*? In the current climate, given what’s known about the activities of the FBI/DOJ and in light of item 5 (above), it’d be astonishing if they make this claim. It’s interesting to note that while no one looked into or asked about Mueller’s conflicts of interest with respect to Comey, he was cleared of any potential conflicts with respect to Manafort and Kushner as his law firm represents (or represented) these folks.
(15) It’s now clear that the Obama DOJ/FBI went rogue because it’s what the prick-tator wanted; the question is, would it be allowed to remain so? It certainly will if Sessions doesn’t assert control over the Department. To do this, he ought to undertake an immediate review of all communications, on all government issued equipment, three or four levels down at both the DOJ and FBI and he ought to either request the help of the IG or Chris Christie to get this done. If any violations of the Hatch Act or the DOJ’s guidelines on ethics and standards are found then the person(s) involved must be disciplined according to existing DOJ guidelines. Hopefully, being terminated, asked to resign or be reassigned to some remote location are all possibilities.
(16) Is the DOJ not a part of the Executive Branch of our government? The Senate’s role is to “advise and consent” on nominees to the AG position but they don’t get to decide on whom shall remain in the position. In the present circumstances, several key Senators have indicated that they will not perform their “advise and consent” role if AG Sessions is fired. Why? Is this not tantamount to aiding and abetting the DOJ’s recalcitrant behavior with respect to cooperating with Congress’ investigations? Don’t RINOs always tell us that the President gets to decide on whom he’d like to serve him/the country and that these people are entitled to a vote, blah, blah, blah? Why then, in this particular case, do they choose to hobble the President?
* https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=752d8a7e7010c0671a9e36136f925167&mc=true&node=se28.2.600_17&rgn=div8
It has proven to be a disastrous amendment that gave rise to a professional political class. The politicians were able to rig the system to essentially permit senators for life. Although the same can happen in the House, at least there is enough turnover in the House to keep bringing in fresh faces. The senate has become a de facto House of Lords, but worse, because they need to raise enormous sums to run statewide every six years.
Whatever corruption the progressive reformers of 100 years ago thought they were eliminating with the 17th is a thousand times worse now.
Evidently not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.