The single most important thing to consider here is that the U.S. Justice Department should not share any information that could compromise a criminal prosecution.
Posted on 10/25/2017 7:16:16 AM PDT by mandaladon
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Department of Justice needs to immediately give Congress documents related to the funding of a dossier on Donald Trump during the presidential campaign, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan said on Wednesday, saying the department and the FBI were “stonewalling.”
“We’ve had these document requests with the administration, with the FBI in particular, for a long time and they’ve been stonewalling,” Ryan told Reuters in an interview, adding that the department and the FBI needs to comply with Congress’ documents requests “and they need to do it immediately.”
Ryan was responding to a question about a Washington Post report on Tuesday that said the campaign of Trump’s Democratic rival for the White House, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee had helped fund research that became a dossier of allegations about Trump’s connections to Russia.
Several congressional panels are investigating alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign to try to tilt the election in Trump’s favor, and potential collusion by Trump aides.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Let's see how this story plays out. The cat is out of the bag, so every one of these people will ultimately have to explain their role in the prior Uranium One episode.
Clinton was inaugurated in January of 1993, not 1992.
Washington D.C. was a criminal operation long before Clinton showed up.
Comey over-stepped his authority and set himself up as Judge, jury, and prosecutor. As for talking about on-going investigations they should be made VERY public when it involves any elected member of the House, Senate, and the President and VP.
Every local news channel reports on crime and the local law enforcement agencies appeal to the public for assistance and tips. After the arrest then they clam up, as they should. Why should potential crimes that involve politicians be treated any different?
Not excusing anything but that was pre-school stuff compared to the Clintons. And thank you for the correction on the date.
Trump tweeted about his unhappiness with Rosenstein back in June.
Let's see how this story plays out.
Apparently there are two different scenarios. One would require that Mueller and Rosenstein are good guys. The other would require that Rosenstein and Mueller are bad guys.
I think it's the latter of the two scenarios.
Yes, let's see how the story plays out.
You had the U.S. government functioning as a wholly owned subsidiary of foreign interests in the Middle East long before anyone outside of Arkansas even knew who the Clintons were. That’s “pre-school stuff” to you?
And he gave an interview to the New York Times around the same time where he complained about both Rosenstein and Sessions -- and even humiliated Sessions in a bad way.
And yet both of those guys are still there today, despite the prediction of many Freepers that Sessions would be gone within 48 hours after the NYT published the Trump interview.
Trump even suggested in the interview that he didn't know who Rosenstein was before Trump nominated him for the Deputy AG post. Some of us recognized this as a tacit admission that the whole interview was a farce. LMAO.
But my point is there needs to be some confirmation from those agencies and not through the “leak process”.
Political favors and kick backs have been around forever. I’m talking about 900 FBI files, Loral industries, and right down the line.
Whenever you see a story about an investigation that is based on a "leak," you should assume that there's at least a 95% chance (probably closer to 99.9% in the Justice Department under Trump) that one of the following is the case:
1. The "leak" is from a person who is actually a target of the investigation and is leaking the information for the sole purpose of making it look like the DOJ is leaking it.
2. The "leak" was from a source inside the DOJ who is deliberately feeding misinformation to the media.
Right. Invading Iraq in 1990 to restore a royal family in Kuwait and protect another one in Saudi Arabia is such “pre-school stuff.”
You are ignoring the threats that came from the Senate and other places of impeachment and senators not supporting a new nominee.
And you are ignoring the history and all the evidence against Mueller and Rosenstein.
What "history" and "evidence" against Mueller and Rosenstein am I ignoring?
Why isn't Tump ordering Sessions to do exactly that?
Find somebody who said "Sessions would be gone within 24 hours", and address that subject with them. As I pointed out, it's the establishment Senate that has threatened Trump if Trump wanted to get rid of Sessions, Mueller and Rosenstein.
What "history" and "evidence" against Mueller and Rosenstein am I ignoring?
Mueller was directly involved with the Uranium One transaction. Rosenstein lead the 2010 FBI investigation of the matter, he helped bury the findings.
The extent of that "threat" was that they wouldn't confirm any replacements. So who cares? They could still be fired.
Mueller was directly involved with the Uranium One transaction. Rosenstein lead the 2010 FBI investigation of the matter, he helped bury the findings.
You're going to have to provide some actual evidence here. I don't know what Mueller's involvement was, and I'm not sure what role Rosenstein could have had in 2010 if he was the U.S. Attorney for the Maryland district at that time.
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.