Posted on 11/04/2017 8:59:18 AM PDT by ChocChipCookie
Amen I am with you
Not sure this is true, but the way I’ve seen it explained is this: he was ordered to keep quiet and threatened. U1 was basically why he resigned in 2013...because he couldn’t go along with it any longer. Some believe this is exactly why he was appointed a special council...because he knows the secrets and is looking for payback.
One caveat..intend is not doing
.see Loretta lynch
That said..very likely sessions followed through with recusal.
Which brings up interesting question. . Can trump fire sessions if he recused without being guilty of obstruction since he wanted sessions to do something about mueller
Dont know...but if it looks like sessions perjured himself that would be separate issue
It is possible, but it still doesn't match the theory that was originally presented, that Manafort was working for Podesta, and therefore Podesta was the bigger domino, when in truth Podesta was working for Manafort. If Tony Podesta is to be indicted, all indications are it will be for work he did at Manafort's bidding, completely separate from Hillary, since he had few ties to her.
Even in the released e-mails of John Podesta, who does have deep ties to the Clintons, the subject of most all the discussion with his brother Tony was around food, and nothing to do with Uranium One etc. According to records John left the Podesta firm in 1993.
You do realize that the more you push the story that Mueller is a good guy, the more you protect the guy who has tried to cover up Uranium One for the last eight years, right??
How great is it that Muller was in on the U1 deal and us supposedly investigating that very thing LOL Muller thought he could sit there and gatekeep and we would never know, HA Muller is in twice the trouble hellary is I LOVE IT, remember new FBI director Christopher Wray us the fox in the hen house.
.
Indicting podesta leads to manafort if he flips...not clinton...
Weissman/mueller could pressure for more than manafort
Will he ? Dont know
I could not agree with you more. An excellent example of what you speak of when you say that some folks just take what some guys comments without any research or analysis is the cultlike comments over at Conservative Treehouse. Their own small bubble has them all convinced of their current party line. Dissenters are pretty promptly kicked off the board as “trolls”. As a result they get almost unanimous opinion, regardless of how improbable and absurd it sounds. What is funny is the next week all the prior dissenters opinions now become the new party line.
The only person who could have provided this, if true, would be the as still unknown person who was supplying the FBI with information from within. When is he going to testify? Haven’t heard much from him as of late. Not since the reporting that the gag order placed on him by the FBI was lifted. Since then crickets.
The activity was passed by Congress.
To that chick who bashed me the other day for posting about flipping people for months...
You should read the fortune article from the former fbi agent. He talks about the flipping process...and how they likely flipped Papadopoulos and why
Maybe you will finally stop bashing me.
.
There are plenty of things to prosecute Hillary for, but Uranium One is not one of them.
It simply is not criminal activity.
.
Knock off the reality!
Exactly. This was one of the first indications I had their theory had no logic behind it, when it kept being repeated that Tony Podesta would lead to Hillary. Apparently they didn't even know the difference between Tony and John, but when you explain it they don't want to listen. I think the theory allows them to escape reality, so they refuse to give it up.
As for me, I'm just going by Trump's tweets, and Session's testimony, etc, and from those there's no indication Hillary is currently being investigated by Mueller at all. Maybe by Congress, and maybe by someone in the DoJ, but not by Mueller.
.
Papadopoulos worked for Podesta for a long time.
.
.
No Kidding!
.
I THINK I KNOW WHY YOU ARE PROBABLY RELUCTANT TO GO INTO SOME DETAIL ON THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT DEPUTY ATTORNEY ROSENSTEIN DIRECTLY SUPERVISED A CRIMINAL CASE WHEN HE WAS U.S. ATTORNEY IN MARYLAND.
I DO NOT THINK IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR HIM TO SUPERVISE A REVIEW OF HIS OWN CONDUCT, DO YOU?
A.G. SESSIONS:
IT WOULD BE HIS DECISION.
It's interesting as seen in the above response by Sessions, that he says that a recusal (in this case Rosenstein) is something that is one's own choice.
Contrast that to what Sessions said about his own recusal, that he had no choice.
Sessions: I recused myself not because of any asserted wrongdoing on my part during the campaign, but because a Department of Justice regulation, 28 CFR 45.2, required it....That regulation states, in effect, that department employees should not participate in investigations of a campaign if they have served as a campaign advisor.
Analysis like this is beyond most people who only deal with surface issues and underestimate Trump.
He is a mysterious figure. The story of just being coffee boy doesnt add up. He could have been a mole for clinton.
Anyone who dealt with him after he was arrested has to be going over every interaction.
And the London pic??really interested in that ploy
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.