Posted on 05/11/2020 6:07:46 AM PDT by chief lee runamok
U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham is going “full throttle” with his review into the origins of the investigation into suspected Russia-Trump coordination in the 2016 election, with additional top prosecutors involved in looking at different components of the original probe, sources told Fox News.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Kinda late. But better late than never.
I just hope he follows thru.
Full throttle like a sloth.
A dead one.
L
It reminds me of some of those War on Terror reports; “we think we may about to get their #3 guy!”
I’m tired of hearing about investigations. I want indictments and people in orange jumpsuits.
Full throttle? LOL. Huber 2.0 has been in business near a year and his only indictment is for a threat to Schiff.
It is not late. It is right on time as scheduled
The problem here is “sources.”
This is no different than when Hoax News reports on Trump.
If something is happening, name names.
Thus saith the back row of the peanut gallery
Full throttle, only if there are multiple indictments.
STOP it......this like a plate of spaghetti to untangle. Can YOU keep all the criminals straight. NEW NAMES EVERY DAMN DAY!
Correct. And, . . . “sources.”
To this date, we do not have one person on the record actually providing any details. Barr says Durham is looking at “everything.” Really? At Comey? At Cankles & her server?
And he’s “farming work out.” When did Durham finally discover that this was big, and that one guy without a massive team like Mulehead had was not going to cut it?
Huber was named by Sessions..both worthless.
He had better hurry. If President Trump loses, the investigation will be shutdown faster than a tent in a tornado.
Instead of saying “more of the usual DOJ BS”, I will just take the scientific approach - hypothesis false until proven true.
Full throttle maybe, but the exhaust has been plugged with a big 0bama.
Full throttle in a garden snail sort of way. He’ll be finished on 4 Nov 2020... or two weeks afterward.
One of my big concerns is that this is very twisty. I'm a reasonably smart guy, and I follow this stuff reasonably closely. But if I were on a jury, I think I'd zone out and when the time came I'd just say "They're all guilty". I think it's the right conclusion. But do I fully and completely, positively without a reasonable doubt understand exactly why they are guilty? [shrug] too complicated. I say "hang 'em". I'm comfortable wit that. But I worry some juries will just give up and say "I'm lost; I guess I have doubts".
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/02/scott-brady-rudy-giuliani/
Scott Brady is no John Huber. If Brady is looking for criminal acts to prosecute, Rudy has names, proof and can cite criminal complaint, chapter and verse. Hopefully this drops AFTER Slo Joe is official.
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.