Sessions considering second special councel

[Vlad]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/13/reps-jordan-and-gaetz-special-counsel-needed-as-questions-mount-on-clinton-comey-russian-dossier-and-more.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-considering-second-special-counsel-to-investigate-republican-concerns-letter-shows/2017/11/13/bc92ef3c-c8d2-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.3326291871b9


It's time the rats in democrats are forced out of hiding.

I'm sure everyone here seeks the truth and have no objections.

The glaring questions that need answering:


Why in 2016 did FBI Director James Comey call the Clinton Investigation a “matter,” not an investigation? After all, Mr. Comey wasn’t Director of the Federal Bureau of Matters.

 


Why in 2016 did FBI Director Comey begin drafting an exoneration letter for Secretary Clinton, whom he called “grossly negligent” in an early draft of the letter, before completing the investigation?  Before interviewing several witnesses? And before interviewing Secretary Clinton?



Why in 2016 did James Comey and the Justice Department give Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff, an immunity agreement for turning over her laptop computer? Typically, the Department would issue a subpoena or get a warrant and seize it. Why in this case did the FBI agree to destroy the laptop?


Why in 2016—one day before the Benghazi report was released and five days before Secretary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI—did Attorney General Lynch meet with former President Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix?

Quote:Why did the intelligence community in the final months of the Obama Administration unmask names at a record rate?

Why in the days following the meeting, and when emailing with the public relations staff at the Justice Department, did Loretta Lynch use the pseudonym “Elizabeth Carlisle?” If your conversation with the former President was only about golf and grandchildren, then why not use your real name?



Why was the decision on whether to charge Secretary Clinton made by FBI Director Comey and not the Attorney General?


Why did James Comey publicize the Clinton Investigation?


Why in 2016 did the FBI pay for the Russian Dossier? It’s been reported that in addition to the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee paying FusionGPS for the dossier, the FBI also “reimbursed” Christopher Steele, author of the dossier.


Why was FusionGPS co-founder Glenn Simpson meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya both before and after her meeting with Donald Trump, Jr.? 


Why is the FBI so reluctant to tell Congress and the American people if the dossier was the basis for a FISA court order permitting the government to spy on

Americans associated with President Trump’s campaign? If the dossier was a legitimate intelligence document relied on by the court, then why not just tell the country?


Why on January 6, 2017 did James Comey brief President-Elect Trump on the dossier? Again, if the dossier was a legitimate intelligence document, then why wait two months after the election to inform the President-Elect?


Why did the Obama Administration leak to CNN that Mr. Comey had briefed President-Elect Trump on the dossier? [/url]Several media outlets had the dossier prior to the briefing, yet no one would print it because most of the document could not be substantiated. In his Congressional testimony, Mr. Comey himself called the dossier “[url=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cnn.com_2017_06_07_politics_james-2Dcomey-2Dmemos-2Dtestimony_index.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=cnx1hdOQtepEQkpermZGwQ&r=kaAUPcZhpO1MvBc6jwa0VBiGZWXka6ART1tFuyQjLfc&m=VfBm55pz78829hW_Cqp1BdicMJxEhyqd04pDEFrOV8M&s=wI0l50ARZjo5a_4agOuF33XYcna7TJD_5CIZVT5TLVU&e=]salacious and unverified.” As pointed out in [/url]The Federalist, did the fact that the FBI Director had briefed the President-Elect on the dossier give it the “legitimacy” the press needed to go ahead and print something they knew was not accurate?


Why did the intelligence community in the final months of the Obama Administration unmask names at a [url=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thehill.com_policy_national-2Dsecurity_331642-2Dnsa-2Dgranted-2D2k-2Dunmasking-2Drequests-2Din-2D2016-2Dreport&d=DwMGaQ&c=cnx1hdOQtepEQkpermZGwQ&r=kaAUPcZhpO1MvBc6jwa0VBiGZWXka6ART1tFuyQjLfc&m=VfBm55pz78829hW_Cqp1BdicMJxEhyqd04pDEFrOV8M&s=ziyjCVW1BJ_ImwTo162GCqqTWCecrJ9jblG0DlE20Tc&e=]record rate? 



Why, after Mr. Comey was fired on May 9, 2017, was it so critical for a Special Counsel be named to examine possible Trump/Russia collusion? So critical that James Comey leaked a government document about his conversations with President Trump through a friend to the New York Times.



Why is the Special Counsel Robert Mueller? According to The Hill and Circa News, in 2009 and 2010, the FBI through an informant learned Russian companies seeking to do business in the United States were involved in kickbacks and bribes. Yet, FBI Director Robert Mueller did not inform Congress and did not inform the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the entity responsible for the decision on whether to approve the Uranium One deal.



Why did Robert Mueller not inform CFIUS? And why did the Justice Department put a gag order on the informant?

[GMDino]

Republicans create a special counsel to investigate Trump = partisan politics!!  

Republicans create a special counsel to investigate Clinton = Legitimate!

What a joke.

[Vlad]

(11-14-2017, 09:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: Republicans create a special counsel to investigate Trump = partisan politics!!  

Republicans create a special counsel to investigate Clinton = Legitimate!

What a joke.

Now that you've got that out of the way...

Can you be as forthright as you claim and admit that there are glaring questions to be answered, or am I to expect another deflection?

[GMDino]

(11-14-2017, 09:46 AM)Vlad Wrote: Now that you've got that out of the way...

Can you be as forthright as you claim and admit that there are glaring questions to be answered, or am I to expect another deflection?

Is there a bigfoot?  Why has the government never been open about what's REALLY going on at Area 51?  When Eisenhower made his deal with the aliens were they REALLY from space or were they REALLY from the center of Earth and lying to us?

Glaring mysteries all....and all more interesting that whatever conspiracies you cited above.

[*bfine32*]

The night Trump was elected I said we will now spend the next 4-8 being the exact thing we have professed to hate over the past 8. These investigations are no different.

Comey says Clinton not guilty of crime: Each side reacts differently

Comey says there is more evidence that requires further investigation: Each side reacts differently

Special counsel created to investigate Trump: Each side reacts differently

Special counsel created to investigate Clinton: Each side reacts differently.

Benghazi, Russia, uranium, gropegate, sexual harassment, insiders, outsiders, ect....

My stance has been the same: Judge not less ye be judged and we don't always have to look behind the curtain.

[*bfine32*]

(11-14-2017, 09:46 AM)Vlad Wrote: Now that you've got that out of the way...

Can you be as forthright as you claim and admit that there are glaring questions to be answered, or am I to expect another deflection?

I think you received your answer. 

[Au165]

This is actually a really bad look for Republicans and is going to hurt the party into the future. I am a registered Republican but find myself more towards the middle on most things. The problem with this is it looks like a political witch hunt, which when you are the winner you need to move on and not look like you're trying to retroactively take out your opposition.

[CageTheBengal]

It really makes the koolaid drinkers sound legit coming up with those snappy nicknames they bounce around all of the time. It doesn't make you sound crazy or childish at all.

[GMDino]

(11-14-2017, 09:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think you received your answer. 

Well, when a serious question is asked there will be a serious answer.

Thank you.

[Belsnickel]

A couple of things. First, Sessions testified during his confirmation hearings that he would recuse himself from any investigation into Clinton. This could spell out trouble for Sessions if he does dig further into this. Second, my concern over this is that a lot of what is being mentioned in this possible investigation are things that have already been looked into. I have a feeling that what is going to happen is that federal prosecutors will come back and say they do not recommend a special counsel. I could be wrong, but that is just my gut reaction to the news.

All of that being said, with Trump having made public comments about wanting the DoJ to look into this and lamenting the fact that he isn't supposed to do such a thing as POTUS, this will become a political nightmare if it goes forward with the potential to do serious damage to our institutions.

[Vlad]

(11-14-2017, 09:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: Is there a bigfoot?  Why has the government never been open about what's REALLY going on at Area 51?  When Eisenhower made his deal with the aliens were they REALLY from space or were they REALLY from the center of Earth and lying to us?

Glaring mysteries all....and all more interesting that whatever conspiracies you cited above.

Sort of what I expected. Comparing clear and unambiguous accounts to bigfoot. Bravo.

...while after months of investigation still clinging to hopes that the Russian bigfoot is real.

[GMDino]

(11-14-2017, 10:02 AM)Vlad Wrote: Sort of what I expected. Comparing clear and unambiguous accounts to bigfoot. Bravo.

...while after months of investigation still clinging to hopes that the Russian bigfoot is real.

This has been discussed  on this board repeatedly.

Find one of those threads where the questions were answered.

[GMDino]

(11-14-2017, 10:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: A couple of things. First, Sessions testified during his confirmation hearings that he would recuse himself from any investigation into Clinton. This could spell out trouble for Sessions if he does dig further into this. Second, my concern over this is that a lot of what is being mentioned in this possible investigation are things that have already been looked into. I have a feeling that what is going to happen is that federal prosecutors will come back and say they do not recommend a special counsel. I could be wrong, but that is just my gut reaction to the news.

All of that being said, with Trump having made public comments about wanting the DoJ to look into this and lamenting the fact that he isn't supposed to do such a thing as POTUS, this will become a political nightmare if it goes forward with the potential to do serious damage to our institutions.

To be fair Matt, Sessions said a LOT of things during his confirmation hearings that he didn't mean/remember/lied about.  

[*bfine32*]

(11-14-2017, 10:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: Well, when a serious question is asked there will be a serious answer.

Thank you.

I thought is question was genuine in nature; as is his sense of foresight. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-14-2017, 10:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: A couple of things. First, Sessions testified during his confirmation hearings that he would recuse himself from any investigation into Clinton. This could spell out trouble for Sessions if he does dig further into this. Second, my concern over this is that a lot of what is being mentioned in this possible investigation are things that have already been looked into. I have a feeling that what is going to happen is that federal prosecutors will come back and say they do not recommend a special counsel. I could be wrong, but that is just my gut reaction to the news.

All of that being said, with Trump having made public comments about wanting the DoJ to look into this and lamenting the fact that he isn't supposed to do such a thing as POTUS, this will become a political nightmare if it goes forward with the potential to do serious damage to our institutions.

My only objection to this stance is that there's a chance that evidence of Clinton wrong-doing may have been uncovered in the investigation of Trump's Russian dealings. I would expect Sessions to recuse himself as much as the former AG (Lynch) did; although the conflict of interest was more glaring with Clinton-Lynch. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-14-2017, 10:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: My only objection to this stance is that there's a chance that evidence of Clinton wrong-doing may have been uncovered in the investigation of Trump's Russian dealings. I would expect Sessions to recuse himself as much as the former AG (Lynch) did; although the conflict of interest was more glaring with Clinton-Lynch. 

I do not disagree that there could be evidence of Clinton wrong-doing uncovered in the Mueller investigation, but that investigation is not just about Trump or his campaign and any potential connections to Russia. It is about overall Russian influence in our elections and ties to people here that may have been illegal. This would be why Podesta's brother is under fire. I'd be more in favor of increasing available resources to Mueller and acknowledging that his investigation is not partisan, but is about the overall issue. I want anyone that is wrapped up in this, left or right, to face consequences, but I think what Bob Goodlatte and his colleagues are doing with Sessions means that no matter what happens with two special counsel investigations both will be seen as a political witch hunt. This is as much about discrediting Mueller as it is about hitting Clinton from my perspective.

[Vlad]

(11-14-2017, 10:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: A couple of things. First, Sessions testified during his confirmation hearings that he would recuse himself from any investigation into Clinton. This could spell out trouble for Sessions if he does dig further into this. Second, my concern over this is that a lot of what is being mentioned in this possible investigation are things that have already been looked into. I have a feeling that what is going to happen is that federal prosecutors will come back and say they do not recommend a special counsel. I could be wrong, but that is just my gut reaction to the news.

All of that being said, with Trump having made public comments about wanting the DoJ to look into this and lamenting the fact that he isn't supposed to do such a thing as POTUS, this will become a political nightmare if it goes forward with the potential to do serious damage to our institutions.

Why of course, "serious damage to our institutions"... as if not already damaged by democRATS.
Poster #2 that can't bring himself to admit that an investigation is warranted. At least you didn't go the bigfoot route.

Not sure if Sessions recused himself from Clinton. What would be the reason? I know he recused himself regarding Trump/Russia for which Trump was not pleased.
Regardless it is another special counsel he's considering appointing.
The person who needed to recuse himself was Mueller...he, Clinton, Comey, Obama and others all from the same rats nest...all believing a Clinton win was in the bag..
Had Clinton won none of this corruption would have been exposed.

[Belsnickel]

(11-14-2017, 10:22 AM)Vlad Wrote: Why of course, "serious damage to our institutions"... as if not already damaged by democRATS.
Poster #2 that can't bring himself to admit that an investigation is warranted. At least you didn't go the bigfoot route.

Not sure if Sessions recused himself from Clinton. What would be the reason? I know he recused himself regarding Trump/Russia for which Trump was not pleased.
Regardless it is another special counsel he's considering appointing.
The person who needed to recuse himself was Mueller...he, Clinton, Comey, Obama and others all from the same rats nest...all believing a Clinton win was in the bag..
Had Clinton won none of this corruption would have been exposed.

Sessions pledged to recuse himself because of his behavior during the campaign, it seems.

I always find the smearing of Mueller, a Republican, to be interesting. When his name was first bandied about there was universal admiration on both sides of the aisle because of his reputation of being a straight shooting, no nonsense investigator. It didn't take long for certain segments to begin attempting to discredit this man they once held in high esteem. I'm inclined to see Mueller as the right man for the job given the reputation that precedes him and see attacks on his character and calls for his dismissal/resignation as political hackery and nothing more.

[BmorePat87]

Out of curiosity, what's the justification for a special counsel over a standard investigation? Is there a conflict of interest within the Trump DOJ?

It seems to me like they're trying to use a special counsel incorrectly to give it more weight in the media or skew the perception.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-14-2017, 10:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sessions pledged to recuse himself because of his behavior during the campaign, it seems.

I always find the smearing of Mueller, a Republican, to be interesting. When his name was first bandied about there was universal admiration on both sides of the aisle because of his reputation of being a straight shooting, no nonsense investigator. It didn't take long for certain segments to begin attempting to discredit this man they once held in high esteem. I'm inclined to see Mueller as the right man for the job given the reputation that precedes him and see attacks on his character and calls for his dismissal/resignation as political hackery and nothing more.

Mueller is questioned because he is an establishment player. The only people praising him are establishment types of both parties.