Posted on 08/01/2017 9:12:48 AM PDT by PJBankard
A senior Arizona congressman is calling on Robert Mueller, special counsel for the Justice Department’s investigation into Russia’s election meddling, to resign.
Rep. Trent Franks, a Republican who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Tuesday that Mueller is in violation of the law that prohibits Mueller from serving as a special counsel if he has a conflict of interest.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Plus one
“At some point, real Americans are going to be pushed a little too far...It’s coming...”
I’ve heard this B.S. for ten years. Wake me up when it gets here.
This guy (Mule-er) has more lawyers than the DOJ...WTF
Nah...Go ahead and sleep...
The problem with senators is that they have a six year term during which they do not have to worry about being accountable to their constituents.
That’s a long time to consolidate power, make alliances and build a war chest. That’s a long time for voters to forgive and forget when the senator repents and does a flurry of last minute good deeds right before their election.
Making matters worse, their elections are state wide, so they adopt the democrat strategy of ignoring the low population density rural areas and concentrating their campaigns on the voter-rich high-density cities and suburbs within their state - which means courting urban liberals and their corrupt, big-government, redistributionist, community-organized welfare states.
It’s the same principle as tricker treaters preferring the dense housing developments to optinize their haul of candy. Why would a tricker treater want to hike up mile-long driveways that are miles apart, to dark farmhouses with barking dogs and where the farmer probably already went to bed anyway, with a shotgun leaning up against the foot of his bed?
Hope this starts a trend.
This is a fact. And I think they deserve only one term.
BTW, study “essences vs. parameters” to understand the underlying principle here.
As an example, have you ever seen “conduct,” by itself, with no one involved, as an essence by itself.... or have you only seen the “conduct” of a person or another animate being.
Think about it overnight.
To further understand, have you ever seen a smile.... by itself... or have you only seen a person or animal smile.
Trent Franks for Senate from AZ
2 AZ Senators need replacing!
Maybe he can be appointed to McCain’s seat if he does not return.
If not PRIMARY FLAKE out of office in 2018.
Remember Killary with all the FBI files on who’s who in D.C.? Who in the FBI gave them to her? I knew then that the Repubs were in trouble. Rush calls it Killary’s Testicle Lock Box.
“No DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome.” A personal relationship “means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality.”
The statute clearly defines the forbidden relationship as one with a person "substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution" which, for those of us who understand plain English, is a differentiation made about said 'relationship.' That differentiation obviously being between 'persons' who are subject to investigation and prosecution and 'persons' who are merely involved in the conduct which is the subject of the investigation or prosecution.
IOWs, you lying sack, any person involved in said conduct is a poisoned relationship (as this statute is specifically written to address) not solely those persons who themselves are subjects of investigation and prosecution for the subject conduct. If the statute were defining poisoned relationships as those who were "subjects of investigation and prosecution" it would have said that instead of saying "substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution."
---------------------------------------------------------
As an example, have you ever seen “conduct,” by itself, with no one involved, as an essence by itself.... or have you only seen the “conduct” of a person or another animate being.
Oh, that is such cute sophistry. Have you ever seen a person under investigation or prosecution sans any "conduct" on their part? Two can play misleading word games. I prefer the direct approach I used above.
What you call “sophistry,” the Courts call “law.”
If you want the Hillary Cabal jailed, and President Trump to be free of undue harassment of the SC, it would be well if you understood the law, policies and precedents involved.
I have tried to educate you in this, but you refuse to learn.... and in matters of the mind, refusal is always much worse then inability. I’m sorry, but we are not in a situation where you as Inspector Javert jails or frees who and what he wants based on his/your will alone.
We are a nation of laws. Your failure to understand them is not an excuse.... for anything.
We will never know if you have the intelligence to learn, since you have the intransigence to ensure you refuse to learn.
You will not be replied to, as you simple do not have the open-minded standing to be party to the discussion.
ROTFLOL
Wow! I really didn’t expect such an unhinged screed from you.
I guess I overestimated you.
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.