For one thing, McCabe has to go. Not only the bribery but he's the one that he told his cohorts, "We're gonna get Trump" or some such at a party. . Or that's what I read somewhere. Any corroborating feedback on this story appreciated. It got my attention.
Makes for nice dreams at least!
Bump
X
Show me, I’m from Missouri.
Hope they have a 24/7 security detail in place.
Nice story...
I don’t get to read fiction very much...
There’s enough to indict Harry Reid and John Podesta as well. They used the alternative energy industry as a piggy bank.
“Christopher Wray has no choice but to take them all down.”
That’s why the senate(swamp) approved him 92-5? A lot of wishful thinking...Let’s hope it comes true.
Wray has demoted McCabe so that part is true. I hope the rest is true. Hannity has covered some of this and the “witness” is going to testify before Congress and has proof. So there is that. Tick tock, tick tock.
THIS HAS LEFT WRAY LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO ACT SOMETIME IN THE NEXT 6 MONTHS. Nice timeline! By then we’d all have forgotten this article.
Bookmark. Anything to do with the rumor of thousands of “sealed indictments”?
This is what President Trump was elected to do. If so, we are behind him!
Neither man can be bought.
And no Clinton can be indicted.
Not much new here.
Conservative Justice Fantasy.
For one thing, McCabe has to go
*****
I read the other day that Wray demoted/transferred him to another department.
Look like fake news sources trying to get us discredited.
The author of this piece knows very little about the leading “justice” related positions in the US government. Thus, I would not trust anything he asserts without much further confirmation. It will be great, of course, if there is such a barrage of prosecutions as described, but this article by itself gives me no confidence that the author has any actual knowledge of pending cases and issues.
The most obvious instance of the author’s ignorance is the discussion of the Solicitor General, who is not a “prosecutor” at all in any usual sense. The kinds of criminal prosecutions referred to in the article would NOT be conducted by the Solicitor General and would NOT be conducted before the US Supreme Court. The author does not understand the federal legal system at all. US Attorneys (regionally based) or a “Special Counsel” appointed by the Deputy Attorney General (currently Rod Rosenstein) would need to conduct such prosecutions in federal district courts. Such cases could only get before the Supreme Court if they were later appealed to and beyond a Court of Appeals and IF the Supreme Court decided to take up issues in the case (which is very rare). The Solicitor General does “litigation” involving the various federal departments, issues of federal law that arise around the country (arguments about interpretations of various statutes etc.) but not criminal prosecutions.
Thus, the focus in the article upon the Supreme Court and the Solicitor General is bizarre and misplaced. If they were to be involved it would be years later, regarding appeals arising from cases previously prosecuted.
“The task of the Office of the Solicitor General is to supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office. The United States is involved in approximately two-thirds of all the cases the U.S. Supreme Court decides on the merits each year.”