Posted on 11/14/2017 2:53:12 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
After months of public and private pressure, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is giving President Donald Trump what he’s long demanded, going back to the days of “Crooked Hillary” and “lock her up”: an inquiry that could lead to a full-fledged investigation of his vanquished opponent and the Clinton Foundation.
At a moment where Sessions’ leadership and credibility is being questioned – the president himself has openly pondered firing him, and Democrats are accusing him of lying about his knowledge of Russian contacts with the Trump campaign – the attorney general is giving the appearance that he’s bowing to the political demands of the president.
The announcement of the new inquiry, coming on the eve of high-profile testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, had the immediate impact of subsuming news about Russia – including new information about meetings Sessions previously said he had no recollection of.
Under Sessions’ direction, the Justice Department is now examining allegations that donations to the Clinton Foundation were related to an Obama administration decision to give a Russian nuclear agency access to uranium in the United States.
Prosecutors’ findings – including a potential recommendation for a broader inquiry, led by a special counsel - will be reported to the attorney general or the deputy attorney “as appropriate,” according to a Justice Department letter sent to key House Republicans. So it’s possible Sessions’ recusal from the topic will stand.
More broadly, though, the renewed scrutiny of Clinton and the foundation reflects a political score Trump has a stated interest in settling, at a time that he would like far less interest in his own campaign’s contacts with Russia.
“Whataboutism” is now dangerously close to becoming U.S. Justice Department policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Mueller is also suspect in the uranium deal for running cover for the Obama administration. The reality is that if a special prosecutor is appointed for the uranium deal we would have a case of one special prosecutor investigating uranium sales to the Russians by the Dem administration also investigating another special prosecutor currently investigating alleged Republican administration alleged collusion with Russia to influence an election. Makes for great kabuki theatre.
All part of the plan from the beginning...
We finally have a POTUS and AG who understand the concept of operational security, and most FReepers just can’t stand it. Guess Obama with his pre-announced withdrawl dates and blabbermouth security set a pretty low bar.
__
I think you are on to something there, bigbob.
Must be a late report. Sessions has already said “no” to this - because there’s “not enough evidence of wrongdoing”????
Correct, he said he does not believe that there is enough evidence against Democrat Hillary Clinton.
BUT, he does believe there is enough 40 year old evidence against a Republican, Roy Moore.
Coward, thru and thru.
Thank you, I was just going to say the same.
Jeff Sleeping Dog Sessions stated “not enough evidence for anything.”
No inquiry, no investigation, no evidence.
Thank you, I was just going to say the same.
Jeff Sleeping Dog Sessions stated “not enough evidence for anything.”
No inquiry, no investigation, no evidence.
> Sessions is stupid <
Then so is the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. They have been demanding a SC since July.
Soon, what? "Examining" means zilch, zip, nada.
ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT, Sessions did not say “not enough evidence of wrongdoing “ Nor did he say “not enough evidence for anything. “ his exact words were “looks like is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel.” A DOJ spokesman and Sessions himself later specified that a certain protocol must be followed before naming a special counsel. Sessions said “ I did not mean to suggest I was talking a side one way or the other on that subject.” Sure looks like he is considering a special counsel don’t you agree ?
I suspect that the “progressive” wing of the Democratic party would like nothing better than to see the corrupt Clinton system and other “corporate Democrats” out of the way.
Oh, that cute little Dwarf keeps popping up ....
Sure wish he’d resign !
I believe that he got what he wanted in two headlines today:
1) He wanted to make it clear that he thinks Judge Moore is guilty of a sexual crime.
2) He wanted to make it clear that he is not on Trump’s side, that he will not do Trump’s bidding on Hillary.
Have you ever seen a modern day Republican Senator act any other way?
No offense, bigbob. That's what everyone around these parts was saying about Ken Starr's investigation. (Remember the turtle? LOL!)
In the end, instead of referring charges related to Chinagate or giving away our nuclear secrets to the Chinese, Starr gave us Monica.
If you'll recall, Starr had a willing witness in Johnny Chung, among others, but in the end, nothing came of it.
On what basis did he appoint a SC to investigate Trump's supposed Russian collusion?
A DOJ spokesman and Sessions himself later specified that a certain protocol must be followed before naming a special counsel.
Where can I see this protocol as it was applied to the supposed Trump/Russian collusion and the appointment of Mueller?
Sure looks like he is considering a special counsel don’t you agree ?
Nope. It looks like he's considering recusing himself -- again.
I answered my own question. See: Attorney General’s Special Counsel Regulations
The regulations set forth (28 C.F.R. 600.1) a three-part analysis for determining whether to appoint a special counsel. First, the Attorney General must determine that “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” Then, he or she must determine whether investigation or prosecution of the “person or matter” by a U.S. Attorney’s Office or a Justice Department litigating division would present either “a conflict of interest for the Department” or “other extraordinary circumstances.” Finally, a further question is to be asked, namely, whether “it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
First, is an investigation of SoS Hitlery and the Clinton Foundation warranted?
The answer to this question is self-evident.
Second, what conflicts of interest does AG Sessions and/or the DOJ have related to investigating Hitlery and the Clinton Foundation?
None of which I'm aware. Unless of course Sessions and the entire DOJ are completely compromised. (read: corrupt)
Third, Is it in the public's interest to investigate Hitlery and the Clinton Foundation?
The answer to this question is, also, self-evident.
So, if there are any other protocols of which I'm unaware, please post links.
But your honor, I'm innocent. I was framed.
It wasn't my fault.
I ran out of gas.
I had a flat tire.
I didn't have money for cab fare.
My suits didn't come back from the cleaners. There was an earthquake.
There was a terrible flood.
Locusts ...
It wasn't my fault.
I SWEAR !!
Thank you, Elwood Blues
Thank you for the clarification, that is not what I’d read.
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.