Why is the White House lying about Uranium one?

PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Midnightrider said:
But you are certainly ignoring that sessions, gowdey, and a bunch of others also investigated Hillary. So far no charges.
Click to expand...

And you seem to ignore the obvious fix was in on that.

  • Comey calling it a 'matter' rather than an investigation
  • Comey replacing the words "gross negligence" to “extremely careless”
  • Comey drafting up her non-recommendation for indictment before the investigation is even close to being over
  • The meeting on the tarmac
  • Lynch stating she will go with whatever Comey recommends
  • Comey rattles off a laundry list of crimes Hillary committed
  • Non-recommendation for indictment
  • All of those three things happening within days of each other
  • Comey illegally leaks his memo to the NYT in order to spur on a SC
These are all facts. If this doesn't make it clear that they were never going to indict Hillary, then you're choosing to be ignorant of the facts.
 
S

Starman

New Member
PsyOps said:
It's not Trump that's holding it up, it's Sessions. And I don't know why Sessions is waffling on this.
Click to expand...

The why is easy: Sessions has the requisite skill to keep the indirection in place.

Benghazi was no different. Put Howdy Dootie in charge because he’s been briefed in and is a sharp jurist and knows how to stall while appearing to his constituents to do otherwise.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Starman said:
The why is easy: Sessions has the requisite skill to keep the indirection in place.

Benghazi was no different. Put Howdy Dootie in charge because he’s been briefed in and is a sharp jurist and knows how to stall while appearing to his constituents to do otherwise.
Click to expand...

Note from Comey’s “she did it but we are not going to prosecute her for it” speech, he said both she and the people on the other side of the email conversations knew or should have known not to discuss the Top Secret data. I submit that the protection is at least for the people on the other side as it is to protect HRC. Note that no one in the media or investigations disclosed who those people are.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
PsyOps said:
It's not Trump that's holding it up, it's Sessions. And I don't know why Sessions is waffling on this.
Click to expand...

That would potentially remove a talking point, no? Dragging it out allows people on both sides to continue to talk about it, regardless of which side is "right". It's all a political game.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
That would potentially remove a talking point, no? Dragging it out allows people on both sides to continue to talk about it, regardless of which side is "right". It's all a political game.
Click to expand...
Dangerous game. Lots of evidence people want results, not games
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
PsyOps said:
And you seem to ignore the obvious fix was in on that.

  • Comey calling it a 'matter' rather than an investigation
  • Comey replacing the words "gross negligence" to “extremely careless”
  • Comey drafting up her non-recommendation for indictment before the investigation is even close to being over
  • The meeting on the tarmac
  • Lynch stating she will go with whatever Comey recommends
  • Comey rattles off a laundry list of crimes Hillary committed
  • Non-recommendation for indictment
  • All of those three things happening within days of each other
  • Comey illegally leaks his memo to the NYT in order to spur on a SC
These are all facts. If this doesn't make it clear that they were never going to indict Hillary, then you're choosing to be ignorant of the facts.
Click to expand...

I’m OT ignoring any of that. It was only one investigation. There were several others.

PsyOps said:
It's not Trump that's holding it up, it's Sessions. And I don't know why Sessions is waffling on this.
Click to expand...

As sessions said during his testimony, he would have to recuse himself for any investigation into Hillary because he was one trumps campaign. So if trump says to do it he pretty much would have to appoint one.

Besides, trump campaigned on locking her up. He made that one of his primary issues. Now that has all gone quiet.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Midnightrider said:
Besides, trump campaigned on locking her up. He made that one of his primary issues. Now that has all gone quiet.
Click to expand...

Um, no. His primary was building the wall. "Lock her up" was something his rally attendees shouted; I do not recall Trump himself saying anything other than her shenanigans would be investigated, and according to the news that is indeed happening.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Midnightrider said:
So why hasn’t he appointed that SC yet?
Click to expand...

He was asked that numerous times the other day during his 5 hours of Congressional testimony. He evaded answering directly but did indicate that it was under consideration.
 
Last edited:
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Dangerous game. Lots of evidence people want results, not games
Click to expand...

Absolutely. For those of us not interested in games, a continued culture of these sorts of things in Washington is disheartening, Especially after electing someone who ran on a platform of getting rid of those games.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
Um, no. His primary was building the wall. "Lock her up" was something his rally attendees shouted; I do not recall Trump himself saying anything other than her shenanigans would be investigated, and according to the news that is indeed happening.
Click to expand...
Bwhahahaha
Nice revisionist history.
Gilligan said:
He was asked that numerous times the other day during his 5 hours of Congressional testimony. He evaded answering directly but did indicate that it was under consideration.
Click to expand...

I’m talking about trump. He is the one who said he would instruct his AG to appoint a SC and he is the one who said Hillary ‘would be in jail’ if he was president.

Sessions’ answer was pretty clear. What he sees does not meet the bar if a SC for Clinton.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Midnightrider said:
Trump is sessions boss. If he wants a SC he can tell sessions to do it. Not to mention trump campaigned on doing exactly that.
Click to expand...

Never happen.

But, wait, you say. Trump is Sessions' boss! Why can't he tell him what to do?!
Because the Justice Department is -- and long has been -- seen as an independent operator within the government. And, for good reason. The job of DOJ is to investigate and prosecute crimes and potential crimes without fear or favor. Even the appearance of White House involvement in how Justice does its job is seen as a major breach of protocol. (This LA Times explainer on why the Justice Department's independence matters so much is worth reading.)
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/politics/jeff-sessions-special-counsel-clinton/index.html
 
S

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
Um, no. His primary was building the wall. "Lock her up" was something his rally attendees shouted; I do not recall Trump himself saying anything other than her shenanigans would be investigated, and according to the news that is indeed happening.
Click to expand...

You conveniently forget things almost as often a Sessions, Donald Jr and Manafort.

How coincidental
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Midnightrider said:
:killingme

Poor poor powerless Donnie.
He can fire the head of FBI while that guy is investigating his campaign, but can’t get his ag to appoint a SC.
Click to expand...

Clues continue to effectively elude you. He can fire Sessions too. So what? That does not change the established precedents regarding the appointment of a Special Counsel. ;-)

And here you are, advocating for just that. :pointsandlaughs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top