Posted on 08/24/2017 6:30:50 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Session’s recusal caused it
Wait a minute
This is America
Is there no shame
No shame
Espionage all around them from wasserman shultz and Clinton
He’s not involved in anything.
And they treat the probable culprits with kid gloves
EXCLUSIVE: Wasserman Schultz’ ‘Islamophobia’ Claim Prompts Angered Marine To Go Public On Awans
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3580410/posts
Aka Scooter Libby...
Jeff Feckless pretends he is an honorable man, when really he is a back stabbing traitor. Trump, his family, his business associates, his political allies, and his friends are being persecuted and assaulted by the Deep State, and some are even being driven to financial ruin. And Jeff Feckless sits on the sidelines, acting like this is none of his concern. I am disgusted by him.
If he’s a lawyer and maintains an office in is home, as most do today, why would attorney-client privilege not apply?
Sessions probably commended the Very Special Agents for their compliance to The Rule of Law.
Sessions is not involved up to his jackbooted eyeballs.
Is there any real gray matter between those ears and behind those eyes???
He sure doesn’t look, or act, like it.
Looks like one of the 7 dwarfs...Dopey, maybe???
Remember when that dude stuffed classified docs in his socks? Did anyone raid his house?
THE FBI = DEEP STATE SECRET POLICE!
This country is in SOOOO much trouble!
> That’s why Japan and China have criminal prosecution conviction rates of so near 100%. Because they coerce a confession >90% of the time.
They also just convict some minor criminal of the crime if they can’t find the real criminal.
Their systems do have a major benefit: Close to zero crime. People commit crimes on the basis of how likely they’ll be caught and if the police always get their man people commit very few crimes. Even guilty people who have someone else pay for their crimes think that they got lucky and don’t tend to commit more crimes.
Many communities in the US have close to zero crime, and do so without violating unalienable rights.
I prefer the system outlined in the Constitution.
Manafort was in trouble before Sessions came along... that’s why he was dropped.
It’s only the Feebs. If the 4chan pol autists were on the case there would be cause for concern,
>Many communities in the US have close to zero crime, and do so without violating unalienable rights.
>I prefer the system outlined in the Constitution.
We didn’t really extend full criminal rights to the public at large until the 60s. Before that the rights outlines in the Constitution applied to mostly the middle and upper classes while the lower classes got more of the treatment we see in Japan and China today. Remember that constitutional rights were only really intended for land owners. People responsible enough to own land often were not extended such rights.
Note that when we did extend those full criminal rights to the public at large in the 60s and crime went through the roof. Applying a criminal system justice system designed for responsible people to irresponsible people is bad idea as our experiment with it has demonstrated. In order to get crime down in the 90s and 00s we had to lock up almost 3% of the population and even then we didn’t come anywhere near the low crime rate we had before the 60s.
So we really have 2 choices in crime control: Return to the tradition of only giving full criminal rights to middle and upper classes while applying the harsher system on the lower classes or lock up a huge chunk of the lower classes after they commit crimes and leave entire areas as burned out crime filled slums.
I choose our traditional system. Which do you choose?
Respecting natural rights did not create a crime wave. What a crackpot position to argue. The Great Society with its breakdown of welfare families and control of the educational system is the main culprit.
All of it unconstitutional, as is your contemptuous view of the natural rights of citizens.
>Respecting natural rights did not create a crime wave.
Prove it. Examine how lower class criminals were treated before the 60s.
>The Great Society with its breakdown of welfare families and control of the educational system is the main culprit.
The crime wave started in the early 60s before welfare was a major factor. And yes Welfare made it worse.
>All of it unconstitutional, as is your contemptuous view of the natural rights of citizens.
If it was unconstitutional, why wasn’t it extend to the lower classes before the 60s by activist judges?
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.