Posted on 04/22/2018 7:35:01 AM PDT by Brilliant
Did anyone else just watch Nunez on Bartiromos show? He was talking about how the FBIs Trump investigation got started. Apparently the evidence shows that Clinton associates Blumenthal and Shear gave opposition research on Trump to Clinton confidantes in the State Dept who then passed it onto the FBI to serve as information to begin an investigation.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I think you are exactly right.
I’m hoping that the criminal referral letter that Congress members sent Sessions is acted on by him. They specifically recommended that because Rosenstein signed at least one of the FISA warrants, that he be recused from any examination of the documents re: the FISA investigation, and that U.S. Attorney Huber not report any of his findings to Rosenstein.
Facts don’t appear to matter to you.
The DOJ personnel will report to Sessions.
But don’t bother researching anything, ‘cause it would only show you that you are wrong.
They've probably got a big hat with suggestions in it, and pull a new one out once the last one has been proven fake.
You know I patiently post tons of research, links, letters and document to you and you respond with not one cite.
You and your fantasies are a waste of time.
I just went back through your posts to me and I could find only one link you posted that I had not already commented on.
One. That’s far from “tons of research, links, letters and document(s)”
You and your alternate ego have posted several false claims against me and I challenged all of them, asking for quotes where I said what you two falsely claimed. You two have not provided any quotes to back up your wild and false claims.
I patiently took the time to explain what was in the two recusal statements, and it went right over your head, several times.
Conversely, you just make things up.
Enough of your nonsense.
As I said, I had already commented on all of those. I even posted quotes from one or two of them before you did.
There was only one link you posted that I didn’t already have.
So, the three items you are referring to is “tons”?
LOL!
I agree, enough. Enough of your false claims and outright lies. I strongly suspect you and the other poster are actually the same person.
Buh bye.
Well I certainly join you in that hope. Huber mystifies me, though. He’s a Democrat. Certainly there are many cases where Republicans work for the Uniparty/leftist interests. I’m not aware of any case where it goes the other way. Democrats are loyal to Democrats; when has it been otherwise?
I supported every one of by statements with documented letters, transcripts and memos.
Enough of your false claims and outright lies.
You lie.
I strongly suspect you and the other poster are actually the same person.
And you are acting delusional.
Again, I was polite to you the entire way (and you were polite to me), but then you had to act like an a$$.
Changed my mind. One more thing.
Just because you don’t understand the difference between a written recusal and a statement made at a Senate hearing does not for an instant give you the right to falsely claim that me disagreeing with your lack of understanding as to the controlling legal instrument of recusal is something going right over my head.
And I challenged every false accusation you made against me, and you failed to provide any quotes from me that proved your false accusations. The conclusion that is easily drawn is the you are the one making things up.
Now that I further consider this, it seems that you argue like a Democrat, accusing others of what you are guilty of. HA!
Sessions defined what he meant in the letter at the hearing. He used similar language for both and he clearly defined what that language meant at the hearing.
And it went right over your head then and it still does now.
It's not an either-or proposition. Pursuing a guilty McSlime does not logically mean other guilty parties are being let "off the hook." Unless your name is Megan McCain, this doesn't make sense.
You are wrong. He wrote the letter more than a month after that hearing. What he wrote is what he recused himself from.
Again, he did not recuse himself from everything Clinton has ever done or ever will do. He recused himself from everything related to the campaigns, regardless of what he said at the hearing more than a month earlier.
Of course. That's irrelevant to my point.
He used similar language for both the letter and the hearing, and he defined what that language meant at the hearing. His unequivocal answer at the hearing clearly goes to the intent of what he meant using similar language in the letter.
And that's if one thinks that the language in his letter is ambiguous, which it really wasn't.
The letter:
How are the dossier, the FISA abuse, Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation and the email investigation all "related in any way to the campaigns"??
The answer is Hillary.
Nope. You are wrong.
Again, if he considered himself recused from Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation, he never would have directed anyone to do anything with regard to investigating them.
But you won’t recognize that, so what’s the point?
He's assigned Rosenstein to answer for both U1 and the Clinton Foundation. What besides that can you document that Sessions is doing??
I have searched a lot but have not found anything that confirms your apparent claim that Sessions has assigned the Uranium One investigation to Rosenstein. Rather, everything I’ve seen seems to say that Sessions is directing the activities to date.
If Sessions were aware of your claim that he has recused himself from Uranium One, why would be so reckless as to do that?
Then there’s this:
http://freebeacon.com/politics/doj-sources-sessions-not-recused-potential-uranium-one-probe/
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.