“But somehow your opinion if digenova is proof. Pffft..”
Proof of what?
Digenova’s wife is the lawyer, the very concerned lawyer, for the FBI witness, and she is the one who says Huber has not interviewed her client.
My favorable opinion of Digenova does not alter that fact, and that fact seems to point out that Huber is not even doing the obvious. Now, would you, yourself, not want to interview the FBI agent just out of curiosity?
“Now, would you, yourself, not want to interview the FBI agent just out of curiosity?”
So your contention is that Huber and only Huber interviewing someone determines the validity and/or seriousness of the investigation? By that logic should Sessions and only Sessions do all interviews for the DOJ? Does your local DA do every interview or do other members of his/her team do some of them? Asking for a friend.
it also proves you have no reading comprehension skills try again,
The “Experts”
But… SESSIONS should appoint a 2nd SC in DC aka THE CORRUPT SWAMP
But… SESSIONS should appoint a 2nd SC in DC aka THE CORRUPT SWAMP [team of less than 20 typically] & wait 2-4 years [take a gamble]
But… SESSIONS should appoint a 2nd SC in DC aka THE CORRUPT SWAMP because unlike the CLINTON EMAIL CORRUPT CASE [as demonstrated by the FBI/DOJ people FIRED/REMOVED] this will be conducted faithfully and honestly [like MUELLER]
>>>>>But… HUBER has not ‘directly’ interviewed several witnesses therefore the appointment of HUBER by SESSIONS [and therefore the IG] is not genuine<<<<
But… SESSIONS & HUBER are following standard DOJ open/ongoing investigation policy by not discussing [making public] so therefore nothing must be happening [FIRE SESSIONS!]
But… HUBER [ability to prosecute + empanel a grand jury outside of DC [90%+ voted HRC (2016)], who already began the investigation(s) late last year w/ assigned team of 470 investigators (attorneys) + IG + legal jurisdiction across all 50 states, is not a ‘special counsel’ so therefore nothing is being done
But… POTUS is attacking SESSIONS via TWITTER so therefore he is not working on behalf of the people’s interest (or POTUS’)
what do you think the ‘directly’ means? or just stick with your lame theory that because you don’t know what is happening that means nothing is happening bye now...