Sessions considering second special councel

[Belsnickel]

(11-14-2017, 11:35 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Mueller is questioned because he is an establishment player. The only people praising him are establishment types of both parties.

Like it or not, an establishment bureaucrat will do the job better than someone who isn't. The establishment knows how things work.

[GMDino]

(11-14-2017, 12:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Like it or not, an establishment bureaucrat will do the job better than someone who isn't. The establishment knows how things work.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-14-2017, 11:35 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Mueller is questioned because he is an establishment player. The only people praising him are establishment types of both parties.

Trump only hires the best.

[GMDino]

(11-14-2017, 12:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Trump only hires the best.

"Do you want to change your testimony where you said you had no knowledge of Russian contacts with the Trump campaign."

"I don't understand the question."

Jesus Christ, Jeff. Just resign.

— Patrick S. Tomlinson (@stealthygeek) November 14, 2017

[Belsnickel]

Interesting opinion piece on all of this: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453717/clinton-foundation-investigation-prosecutor-special-counsel

[GMDino]

http://www.newshounds.us/shepard_smith_demolish_fox_uranium_one_clinton_conspiracy_theory_111417

Quote:The only thing missing from Shepard Smith’s complete debunking of his colleagues’ Uranium One conspiracy theory was a calling out of the role that his own network has played in promoting this witch hunt into a Congressional investigation.


In case you missed it, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has announced that he is considering appointing a special counsel to investigate Fox News’ whataboutism for the Russia investigation: Hillary Clinton’s role in approving the 2010 sale of the Uranium One sale to a Russian company. Sean Hannity is apparently bound and determined to use this fake scandal to deflect from and discredit special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that is closing in on Hannity’s beloved Trump.

Sadly, Hannity’s poison has infected others at Fox and migrated over to Congress and now the DOJ.

Recently, some at Fox News have spoken publicly, albeit anonymously, about their disgust and embarrassment at their network’s Russia coverage. After watching this segment, it’s almost a certainty that Smith is in that camp.

Transcript via Media Matters:

Quote:(BEGIN VIDEO)

DONALD TRUMP: Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. 
(END VIDEO)

SMITH: That statement is inaccurate in a number of ways. First, the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction. It could do neither. Here’s how it does work. By law, when a foreign company wants to buy anything with potential national security implications, an interagency committee of the federal government must approve it. The committee was given a broad mandate under President Reagan to advise the president on foreign investment transactions. That committee is called CFIUS, or the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. It includes nine department heads. The secretary of the treasury is the chairperson. The rest are the heads of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State, and Energy, plus the office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. That’s CFIUS. The nine department heads all approved the sale of Uranium One. It was unanimous, not a Hillary Clinton approval. We don’t know definitively whether Secretary Clinton participated at all directly. The then-Secretary of State—I should say Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernando represented State on CFIUS.  He says she did not, reporting that the secretary never intervened. 

Further, neither Secretary Clinton nor the committee as a whole could stop any deal of this kind. The committee members evaluate a sale of anything potentially related to national security. By law, if one member objects, the president and only the president can veto such a transaction. No committee member of the nine objected. Federal approvals were also needed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the sale on November the 24th of 2010 and in doing so, stipulated that no uranium produced may be exported. 

So where does the uranium go? Well, the Energy Information Administration or EIA reports that unless special permission is granted by the Department of Energy or other governmental agencies, Uranium One sells the uranium that it mines in the United States to civilian power reactors in the United States. But operators of those reactors have many other sources for their uranium. Last year, 89 percent of uranium used by power plants in the U.S. came from foreign producers, according to the EIA. 

Regarding the donations to the Clinton Foundation, again, the accusation is that Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Here, the timing is inaccurate. Most of those donations were from one man, Frank Giustra, the founder of the company in Canada. He gave $131 million to the Clinton Foundation. But Giustra says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007. That is three years before the uranium/Russia deal and a year and a half before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. We can’t independently verify his statement, but if true, the donation to the Clinton
Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million. The Clinton Foundation did not disclose those donations. After a New York Times story exposed them, the foundation reported it made mistakes, saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity but did not specify the names of the donors to that charity who had associations with the uranium company. 

Even so, the accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia. That is Uranium One.

So if Fox's top news anchor says there's no there there, the question has to be asked: Why does Fox News continue to allow the rest of the network to promote what it has now acknowledged is fake news?

Watch Smith all but shout out, “Bulls***!” on his own network’s coverage below, from the November 14, 2017 Shepard Smith Reporting.

Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/shepard_smith_demolish_fox_uranium_one_clinton_conspiracy_theory_111417#duJoX8tOhb6skMGY.99

[CKwi88]

(11-15-2017, 01:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.newshounds.us/shepard_smith_demolish_fox_uranium_one_clinton_conspiracy_theory_111417




Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/shepard_smith_demolish_fox_uranium_one_clinton_conspiracy_theory_111417#duJoX8tOhb6skMGY.99

Shepard Smith must be an "establishment" guy then.

I imagine that (yet) another investigation of Clinton would reveal what we already know. Questionable practices, nothing outside the law.

[BmorePat87]

wait, so is the argument for a special counsel that Sessions has to recuse himself because Hillary was an ideological political opponent?

I still don't see how this qualifies for a special counsel

[Belsnickel]

(11-15-2017, 03:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: wait, so is the argument for a special counsel that Sessions has to recuse himself because Hillary was an ideological political opponent?

I still don't see how this qualifies for a special counsel

It doesn't.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-14-2017, 12:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Like it or not, an establishment bureaucrat will do the job better than someone who isn't. The establishment knows how things work.

I understand your sentiment. But I just believe that the establishment is the actual problem. I don’t trust them at all. I prefer vast differences in my politicians so the electorate can have a real choice. Not the big money donors squeezing out everyone that isn’t in the establishment.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-15-2017, 03:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: wait, so is the argument for a special counsel that Sessions has to recuse himself because Hillary was an ideological political opponent?

I still don't see how this qualifies for a special counsel

It doesn’t qualify for one. I have no idea why Sessions isn’t going after her and the Clinton Foundation. I don’t think she got her hands dirty .... but the foundation is where things will be found.

[ballsofsteel]

In testifying yesterday Sessions said there is no evidence that a special council to investigate Hillary is warranted. Trump will insist he do something. Anything to take away from the Russia investigation. Hey maybe the DOJ could go under cover and try to bust that pedophile ring that Hillary is running out the back of that pizza shop in DC.

[GMDino]

(11-16-2017, 04:06 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It doesn’t qualify for one.   I have no idea why Sessions isn’t going after her and the Clinton Foundation.   I don’t think she got her hands dirty .... but the foundation is where things will be found.

It was investigated.

https://www.snopes.com/tag/clinton-foundation/

Maybe you're think about the Trump foundation?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-j-foundation-dissolve-criminal-investigation-latest-eric-schneiderman-a7498816.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/us/politics/trump-foundation-money.html

[Belsnickel]

(11-16-2017, 04:04 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I understand your sentiment. But I just believe that the establishment is the actual problem. I don’t trust them at all. I prefer vast differences in my politicians so the electorate can have a real choice. Not the big money donors squeezing out everyone that isn’t in the establishment.

You must understand that when I refer to the establishment in that post, it isn't about the politicians. Mueller isn't a politician, he's a civil servant. He's a bureaucrat. Folks in civil service catch a lot of flak, some of it deserved, some of it not, and there are assuredly corrupt ones that us honest ones want to see out on their asses as much as anyone. But, bureaucrats know how to get shit done. They know how the system works and they know how it often gets abused.

Now, for elected officials, I'm on the record saying that for the lower chambers especially I like a lot of turnover. I like new blood in their to represent the people. I think establishment officials in the Senate and the White House are important, though. The role of the Senate is to bring stability to the legislature. They have been doing a shit job of it lately, but that is what they are supposed to do. The POTUS heads the largest bureaucracy in the hemisphere, if not the world. I don't see how someone that isn't establishment can do that job effectively.

All of that being said, I'm against big money in politics. However, we have the conservative court to thank for making it even more prevalent than ever before.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-16-2017, 10:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You must understand that when I refer to the establishment in that post, it isn't about the politicians. Mueller isn't a politician, he's a civil servant. He's a bureaucrat. Folks in civil service catch a lot of flak, some of it deserved, some of it not, and there are assuredly corrupt ones that us honest ones want to see out on their asses as much as anyone. But, bureaucrats know how to get shit done. They know how the system works and they know how it often gets abused.

Now, for elected officials, I'm on the record saying that for the lower chambers especially I like a lot of turnover. I like new blood in their to represent the people. I think establishment officials in the Senate and the White House are important, though. The role of the Senate is to bring stability to the legislature. They have been doing a shit job of it lately, but that is what they are supposed to do. The POTUS heads the largest bureaucracy in the hemisphere, if not the world. I don't see how someone that isn't establishment can do that job effectively.

All of that being said, I'm against big money in politics. However, we have the conservative court to thank for making it even more prevalent than ever before.

James Comey was also one of your establishment bureaucrats.

These people can not be left to their own devices.

We need non establishment people in government to pull out the weeds.

[Belsnickel]

(11-16-2017, 10:52 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: James Comey was also one of your establishment bureaucrats.

These people can not be left to their own devices.

We need non establishment people in government to pull out the weeds.

And this ignores what I said about knowing there are bad among them as well as how we have to answer to partisan forces because we are answerable to elected officials. I'll be honest, if this was a technocracy and the bureaucrats could just focus on the hard data and how to resolve issues that way, I'd be happy (not really, I believe in a government of and by the people, but I'm making a point). The majority of the country would not be, though, because they don't want decisions based on that. We have to bend to the political whims of the public and their representatives (and those they appoint). The FBI director is usually not a very political person, but they answer to people that are. there is a reason that Comey is still much beloved at the FBI, even with the mistakes he made.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-16-2017, 04:04 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I understand your sentiment. But I just believe that the establishment is the actual problem. I don’t trust them at all. I prefer vast differences in my politicians so the electorate can have a real choice. Not the big money donors squeezing out everyone that isn’t in the establishment.

Are there any former heads of the FBI who you would consider not part of the establishment?