Posted on 05/09/2017 2:48:16 PM PDT by BradtotheBone
Also, how about good ole' US Code 2071 - 30,000 emails destroyed and a Felony For Each ONE!!
When he returned from Jersey on Sunday evening I read that it was about an hour before he deplaned. Kushner got off to help Ivanka load the kids up to take home, then Kushner returned to the plane. It’s in one of the FR threads - there were several stayed on the plane and I read they were meeting about something.
Open the prison door, and sweep up the bones : )
If you're a Hillary or Obama clone say in 2080, you can do whatever you want whenever you want? NO!
We have to right this wrong for out children's sake and generations unborn, as Washington said.
Yes. I think her name is Deborah.
“I’m with Hannity regarding the Hillary scandals. With the thousands of potential charges, she Just Can’t Walk! The precedent for the future would kill the country. “
The average American looks at all this and says “Justice isn’t blind, merely PURCHASED.
I actually think Tucker wins these ‘debates’ soundly - usually by cornering the leftist until he resorts to repeating his rehearsed nonsensical talking points.
The problem I have is that there are apparently no consequences for losing - the loser should be banished. Instead, he invites the same undeserving losers back on the show time and time again.
I know how it works.
The overwhelming consensus 45 years later is that Nixon would have been removed by the senate.
At the time, he was getting conflicting advice, but apparently there was sufficient concern that he would be removed to induce him to take the resignation option.
However, there were some in the Senate who declared their intention to vote for his removal, some who declared they would vote against removal, and some who did not declare their intentions. Of those who declared for removal some hoped their declaration would induce him to resign and spare them the removal vote. We’ll never know what the actual vote would have been because it never took place.
Have not read all 800 posts here,but there is a good chance that Asst. Att. Gen. Rod Rosenstein had a big impact on the decision to fire Comey.Its below:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767
Memorandum for the Attorney General
FROM: Rod J Rosenstein
SUBJECT: Restoring public confidence in the FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.
The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.
The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.
What was Clinton FBI probe about?
Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his “goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it.” But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then - if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.
Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would “speak” about the FBI’s decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or “conceal” it. “Conceal” is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.
My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Ford, wrote that “it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted.” Silberman believes that the Director’s “Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover.” Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had “chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, department from the department’s traditions.” They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend” the traditions of the Department and the FBI.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W Bush, observed the Director “stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion” because the FBI director “doesn’t make that decision”. Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorneys General under President George W Bush, called the decision “an error in judgement.” Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Clinton and Attorneys General under President Obama, said that the Director’s decision “was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season.” Holder concluded that the Director “broke with these fundamental principles” and “negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI”.
Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual event as “read-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation,” that is “antithetical to the interests of justice”.
Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President HW Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was “astonished and perplexed” by the decision to “break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.” Ayer’s letter noted, “Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions.”
We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.
Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.
Also a real part of “Draining the Swamp” and the DemocRats are now up in arms in waiting for the next shoe to drop, LOL !!!
Remember during the campaign Trump said he was never going to address or tell in advance certain moves he would execute, LOL !!!
Leni, if you missed Rush Limbaugh’s show, here’s a transcript him having a good old time !!!
The acting FBI Director is a Political hack working for the Democrats.. He needs to be fired also..
McCabe is under investigation by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for concerns that he should have recused himself from the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server because of potential conflict of interest caused by donations to his wife’s Virginia State Senate campaign.
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.