Devin Nunes: AG Jeff Sessions should be held in contempt of Congress

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm pretty sure they're investigating actions that they believe may indicate a crime. If the special counsel was illegal everybody would be balking about it but they're not because the counsel is NOT ILLEGAL. Too bad so sad.

Jobs going to get done no matter what you guys think.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm pretty sure they're investigating actions that they believe may indicate a crime. If the special counsel was illegal everybody would be balking about it but they're not because the counsel is NOT ILLEGAL. Too bad so sad.

Jobs going to get done no matter what you guys think.

Nope.

Again Rosenstein:

My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination.

Even when it's made clear to you, you still can't learn. Too bad, so sad.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Sorry, Constitutional protections. You can't investigate someone to find a crime.

People are talking, only liberals love giving up their freedom to hurt Trump.

Most of what Mueller has done isn't public knowledge because he hides it. He literally told the judge he didn't need to see the scope of his investigation.

a reply to: UKTruth

Nope again you're wrong. E
My evidence? The investigation is still going strong isn't it? Isn't it?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That's not what's happening though is it? Because the investigation is still going strong. Why do you guys not realize this fundamental fact. You can cry all day about it being illegal but facts indicate you're all wrong.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Nope again you're wrong. E
My evidence? The investigation is still going strong isn't it? Isn't it?

There are many illegal endeavors that continue.
The legality of an act does not depend on how long the law breakers can continue to break the law, obviously.
So, thanks for your 'evidence', but all we need is the very real fact that Rosenstein himself said that he had not determined there to be a crime.

There is no longer a question of whether the SC is illegal, it is. The question now is how long before it's shut down. I suspect not that long.

a reply to: UKTruth

I'm soooo sure. Hahahahahahahahaha

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Please explain how the special counsel was an illegal undertaking. I'm just dying to hear this one. Lol

There was no crime to have a SC.

What crime was committed?

There was an investigation into Russian interference in the election. Jeff Sessions being the dolt he is accepted the AG job knowing he was a witness, recussal. Rod wrote a letter recommend ding firing comey. In this case the DOJ was seen as conflicted in continuing the investigation which brought up a special council. The other issues, Trump tweeting, Comey leaking were added stresses.

If Jeff Sessions was not the AG almost 99 percent sure there would be no special council.

Now Trump picked both Rod and Jeff, as well as Flynn, manafort, etc...

The man shoots himself in the foot on a regular basis yet can never take responsibility for his own bad judgement.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm soooo sure. Hahahahahahahahaha

Well now, yes i am sure as the facts make it clear.
Your idea that if something continues for a while it must be legal is noted (with a chuckle).

a reply to: Sillyolme

I just wanna point out I’ve been called this...


You can only run a political party on conspiracy theories IF YOUR NOT THE PARTY IN POWER..


Once your in power your expected to take action on all the criminal stuff you have been attesting to on the other side..


For example...


If you’ve been saying hillary is blantantly a felon and your party runs every branch of government and law enforcement. Then there are only 2 options..

A) you have been lying the whole time and hillary is not a felon..


B) your in on it..


Some people are too stupid/jaded/angry/whatever to realize they they have been getting played. So they instead decide that she is being protected (by the very same people who accused her in the first place.. lol) by one of their own..




It causes a political faction to eat its own..



It would likely be a felony if Sessions brought charges with no evidence as part of a witch hunt.. a witch hunt Trump has been way to vocal about to fein ignorance later..


So instead of admitting it is all BS they will sacrifice one of their own on the alter.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Mueller is not only dirty as hell, he is going there soon. He had better snap it it. He had better hurry, and pull up all the stops, because one night his heart will stop, and he will wake up dead, and we will have to put him into a grave hole. His end of life pawnmanship was a bad idea from the start.

Is that a threat? Do you know something about a threat to Mueller's life? Or, is this just good ole Christian wishful thinking, dreaming of seeing your perceived enemies dead and burning in Hell at the same time?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That's not what's happening though is it? Because the investigation is still going strong. Why do you guys not realize this fundamental fact. You can cry all day about it being illegal but facts indicate you're all wrong.

What investigation is that exactly? So far I have yet to hear of any investigation involving Russian collusion.

He has thus far been able to do whatever he wants because no one knows what he's doing. Now that he has filed charges and things are going to court he has been dealt blows.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You are aware that everything you know amounts to close to nothing about the case I hope.

There is a reason prosecutors don't expose the case.

Now after its done and we end up with a bj like Ken star then yeah absolutely.

a reply to: luthier

That's my point. Silly was saying the investigation is going on which means no one is finding problems. Except no one is finding problems because the prosecutor is not exposing the case. In several of the examples they did expose some of the case they have faced problems/reprimands.

What they said is not a valid argument at this point.

a reply to: UKTruth

Why would Rosenstein make any determination lol. Mueller will do that.

I'm not worried about my knowledge. You shouldn't be either. I have a proven record.
And I'm not really interested in what your opinion on the subject is anyway.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They're not investigating to find a crime. Jesus you guys act like these folks are making up rules out in the parking lot before they go into court. They are following the law. You can think they're not but this isn't a game and these guys are not the armchair litigators this forum is full of. It''s too funny that you all think they're just breaking laws and nobody is doing a thing about it. and that stunningly y'all think you know more than them. Looking up codes and subsets on government websites to prove you do...lol... as if you have the background to interpret them.
These guys are the best of the best you can't compete with them. (disclaimer in this post you and you guys isn't you personally in particular no offense intended to you )

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't think you can read what was presented as a "problem".

Though it surely could be if the case is not comprehensive and strong enough to show how these things are linked.


I would read the case as the feds keeping there case as close as possible knowing how bad leaks are in this administration and with those opposed to it.

Unfortunately the media is in total cherade mode and we have very little to go on. We have liberal and conservative activist judges throughout the judiciary, and an all time lunacy in partisanship.

a reply to: luthier

Telling the Judge they don't need to see the scope memo is a problem. That's not a leak issue. Why wouldn't he want the Judge to see the memo?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They're not investigating to find a crime.

So what crime are they investigating and what does Flynn unintentionally (according to the FBI) lying about one thing, Stormy Daniels, and Manafort having a problem with Ukrainians tie in to that crime?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

Telling the Judge they don't need to see the scope memo is a problem. That's not a leak issue. Why wouldn't he want the Judge to see the memo?

They may not want him to see the memo because it would expose the direction of the investigation and they don't trust it won't be leaked.

Now they agreed to it and so did the judge if it were sealed for the judge only.