Posted on 03/14/2018 7:31:43 PM PDT by george76
I see no “secret plan” from a guy like Sessions. He’s a dupe and needs to go - quickly.
LOL, you got it.
It's not personal ...... IT'S TRUE.
What's true is Jefferson Beauregard Sessions' 2017 statement under oath about his recusal on all of these Clinton matters. What is true is Sessions leaving his "honorable" dinner buddy, Rod Barsoomian Rosenstein, in charge of these matters.
As far as I'm concerned, Jeff Sessions could remain recused until the cows come home, he just needs to dislodge Mr. RosenWeasel from his responsibilities.
_______________
Heh FReeper ........... the only thing I'm saying to you is that YOU BET (as you wrote). So therefor you are a gambling man.
Do you understand that? It's real simple. That's not too complicated. I don't care what you and others think of Jeff Sessions. It means nothing to me. ___
Now, if you don't mind, may I ask you what your screen name, FreeReign, is supposed to signify to all of us?
Does it mean, "to do as one chooses"? Or does it mean something else?
It is sort of meaningless to all of us........ and just maybe that's the way a person like you wants it.
________________
The word "reign" derives from a Latin word for kingship. To reign means to exercise the power of a king.
Be careful, FreeReign....... do you want a 'FREE KINGSHIP' here in America. Somehow I doubt it. You are not that type.
Sorry if you can’t see how complex and big this enterprise of bringing justice to the Swamp is but you can’t root out the sedition and treason on your calendar because you want it.
Doesn’t work that way. This is a massive conspiracy and requires a massive effort.
Some of this will become clearer by the end of the day tomorrow.
McCabe is toast. Rumored to be singing along with others who didn’t get subpoenas to appear before congressional committees. Not. An. Accident.
Think people, think.
Let’s address your unhappiness and break it down.
“But what I DID expect was to see SOME concrete indication that this is underway.”
See AG Sessions statements on all the investigations under review. When AG Sessions says review, it means it’s been underway for months.
He said in a video interview with Shannon Bream he’s assigned an outside DOJ Prosecutor to work with DOJ IG Michael Horowitz. What do you think a prosecutor was assigned? Prosecutors are not brought on to proofread documents. They prosecute, wait for it.... CRIMES.
“How many RAT weasels in the so-called “Justice” department has Sessions brought to task? How about NONE.”
In the famous words of Donald Trump, “WRONG!”
McCabe is toast and a number of other senior DOJ/FBI are similarly. It’s a monumental task and until the investigation is complete and ready for public indictment/actions, it remains silent. That’s why these people have made the news but make no appearance before congressional committees. Preistap, the Ohrs, Strzok, Page, etc. They are singing for their supper.
What did you think that was some kind of oversight? SMH. The evidence is staring you (and others) in the face if you will only see.
“How about the Clinton Foundation?”
Underway. Reports point to activity in Arkansas where FBI investigators were previously blocked. Investigations are not made public until completion.
“How about the e-mails?”
Underway.
“How about the RATS undermining our system and spying on Trump’s team when he was a candidate? Oh, yeah. He’s workin’ REAL hard on it and we’re all going to see the results any day now.”
Well underway.
It’s all coming together under a coherent plan and the Swamp well knows it. The public doesn’t get spoon fed each step. It’s all going down.
You will need a big plate of crow. You’ll have to share it though. Lots of others will be swallowing off that plate.
I responded using the word "bet", because you used the description "gambling man". Do you get that? Doesn't seem like you do.
Now, if you don't mind, may I ask you what your screen name, FreeReign, is supposed to signify to all of us to describe your point of view. Does it mean, "to do as one chooses"? Or does it mean something else?
Don't mind at all. It means a reign of freedom, a period during which freedom rules.
It is sort of meaningless to all of us........ and just maybe that's the way a person like you wants it. The word "reign" derives from a Latin word for kingship. To reign means to exercise the power of a king.
Ah, speaking of the "power of a king", you're using the "royal us".
Be careful, FreeReign....... do you want a 'FREE KINGSHIP' here in America. Somehow I doubt it. You are not that type.
Yup. It's not Free Rein.
You wrote this first in post #7.
Get over it.
Then why voice your opinion ar all on these threads?
If you want to comment, but not engage, post a disclaimer of some sort.
You wrote it in post # 29..........gamblin' man.
Who cares?
___________
To: bigbob
Because Jim (Jack) Hoft from the blogsite Gateway Pundit is smarter than a career lawyer, federal prosecutor, US Senator, and Attorney General. What a pant load.
It wasn't Hoft, it was Greg Jarrett who made the claim. And I would bet that the Obama holdover lawyers at DOJ, who don't have our best interesting in mind, ARE smarter than Jeff.
29 posted on 3/14/2018 10:54:50 PM by FreeReign
__________
Now ..... silence.
Actually, if you read the transcripts of his Senate confirmation hearing, Sessions recused himself from anything having to do with the 2016 election, not just the Trump campaign.
One and all have interpreted that to mean that Sessions is ethically incapable of conducting a fair and unbiased investigation of the president's rival, Hillary Clinton.
I hear what you're saying, though. Why can't he investigate any of the Clinton's other myriad crimes, like ServerGate and Uranium One? She could be serving a life sentence for the former, and hung by the neck for the latter.
Our exchange started at post 27, where I opined that Jarrett's remark wasn't helpful because he did not explain, and beyond that I stated objective facts about Sessions' recusals.
In response, at post 83, you asked me to offer an explanation why Sessions didn't resign, and offered your analysis or opinion of his failure to resign.
I tried to end our conversation at post 93, citing no benefit (without explanation), and allowing your position to stand without rebuttal.
You expanded on your positions vis-a-vis Sessions failure to resign at post 136, and asserted that there was no way I could counter them without exposing the weakness of support for Sessions recusals, or something like that:
You see my questions as being "posed in bad faith", because you can't answer them without forcing yourself to admit the obvious logical conclusion, which is: ...
I replied at post 137, again allowing your position to stand without rebuttal.
At post 140, you made a few remarks about our exchange, one of which was not wanting to challenge me on the logic behind my assertions.
At post 170, I pointed out that the observation in my initial post, the one at 27, didn't depend on logic. I linked to the confirmation hearings to support my observation. I also explained that I viewed debating our disparate opinions on Sessions' failure to resign would not have benefit, as it would be repetitive, "same old stuff" that has been appearing on "the Sessions threads" for a few months.
That brings us to your post, asking me why I voice my opinion at all on these threads.
As seen in the above summary of our exchange, I have avoided voicing and justifying my opinion of Sessions. I entered the thread to leave a couple non-contentious facts relating to the scope and existence of sessions' recusals; facts that are chronically overlooked, misrepresented, and misunderstood.
-- If you want to comment, but not engage, post a disclaimer of some sort. --
I appreciate your suggestion, but think I manage my posting style okay. In this case, as mentioned above, I posted some relevant facts. Whether participants have fact-based debate or not is on them. I had no intention to debate in this thread, just to leave facts, and to explore Jarrett's contention about "wrong law." I believe my engagement with you was frank and civil, even though (on my choice) it didn't get to the substance of our difference. It would have been easier to ignore you.
You were the one looking for an argument. Find somebody elese to argue with, the board is loaded with posters.
You are right on. All this must be dealt with in a thorough, systematic, smart way. It can’t be done haphazardly. Every t must be crossed and every i dotted.
I think it’s likely that McCabe is singing like a canary to save his hide. He knows how high up it went and it was way above him.
We're good. Just waiting for the new Trump economy to kick in in my industry. Business this winter has been the slowest we've seen in years. I can't make heads or tails of it.
Hope all's well on your end.
I honestly don't know what put a bee up your bonnet. I've been more than civil with you throughout this exchange, yet you continue to toss covertly hostile barbs at me.
I wasn't looking for an "argument" from you or anyone else. I sought to engage you with a different point of view, which you've turned into some sort of process crime.
Fine. You want to speak, but not be spoken to. I get it. Bye.
As they say...the past is prelude and combined with the present, not to mention what Trump's TWEETS, speeches, and attitude towards Seesions is concerned, I'm right.
I'll tell you what happened to the "missing' in FRmail.
We're all more or less fine. I'd be a whole LOT better if we'd stop getting struck with blizzards, though.
I feel for those who've been hit with the double and even triple whammy snow storms of late. Hopefully spring will run ol' man winter out of town soon.
Stay warm!
Talk with you soon.
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.