Replies

> “’Where is the Attorney General’ = ‘trust sessions’ ? “

Good question. The President did not tweet “Where is Sessions?”.

But we know who the AG is, or do we?

The tweet was in reference to Page not showing up. She and Strzok were part of the Russian interference investigation. Sessions is recused from that.

My personal belief is that Sessions made promises during his confirmation to defer the Russia matter. Much to the consternation of the President, the Deputy AG stepped in and sat on aspects that show a plan had been hatched to implicate the President or the President’s campaign in collusion with Russians.

The Deputy AG had recommended the firing of Comey. But what people don’t know is that HRC hated Comey for what he had done and blamed him for her loss. When this info is coupled with knowledge of the Deputy AG’s wife and her strong ties to the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation, it becomes clearer that the Deputy AG is a possible agent for the Clinton camp.

“Where is the Attorney General?” On this, Sessions is missing and the Deputy AG is sitting on evidence and is not responding, presumably to run out the clock to the midterms.

“Trust Sessions” is a hopeful and supported belief that the Horowitz-Huber alliance arranged by Sessions is preparing the cuffs for those who plotted against the President of the United States.

40,000+ verified sealed indictments, a historic anomaly, lend credence to the IG-Huber effort. In a normal year, about 1000 sealed indictments are expected. There is strong belief such a large number is the result of Huber working with the IG’s 450 special investigators.

I am also mindful of Obama’s statement in 2009 that a civilian defense force equal in numbers or budget or ... to that of the military was necessary. I don’t recall Obama explaining the purpose of such a large domestic force but the policies of attacking Obama’s opposition using the IRS or the FBI in the case of the Hammonds, or the BLM in the case of the Bundys, and a string of other such cases, leads one to believe Obama was erecting a force to turn on the bitter clingers, the Tea Partiers, or any target of opportunity.

So I ask is it possible that Obama caused a ‘deep state’ to be created or expanded that would work to suppress and attack the right wing or any target thought to be a threat to the left?

And are Strzok and Page just a glimpse of the surface of this large deep state?

“Where is the Attorney General?” may be rhetorical.