How do you know she isn't being investigated? ..and won't be further investigated in the near future? That's got absolutely nothing to do with the appointment, or not, of an SC. Your gal could still be held accountable.
Why is the White House lying about Uranium one?
- Thread starter Sapidus
- Start date
How do you know she isn't being investigated? ..and won't be further investigated in the near future? That's got absolutely nothing to do with the appointment, or not, of an SC. Your gal could still be held accountable.
Link to that specific testimony? I must have missed it.
It would be the first time in many decades that a President appointed one.
Another summary piece here:
http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/12/a-short-history-of-special-counsels-and-presidents/
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
How do you know she isn't being investigated? ..and won't be further investigated in the near future? That's got absolutely nothing to do with the appointment, or not, of an SC. Your gal could still be held accountable.
I believe the odds are about 500 to 1, that Hillary will not be indicted.
Dude, I've got that, now can you show me where the President would be explicitly forbidden from appointing one if they wanted to? You won't find it, because it doesn't exist.
You first; show me where I ever claimed that the President was explicitly forbidden from appointing one. I simply pointed to the enabling legislation and precedents for AGs or Asst. AG's to be the ones to do it. ;-)
PsyOps
Pixelated
Me first what? I never said you claimed anything, so there is nothing to show. The question I posed was rhetorical and I even included the answer that no law currently exists. What you pointed out was a no longer existing law that is still in use as a regulation by DOJ. Which begs the question, are the SC regulations in the CFR legal without statutory authorization? Without legislation can they just make sh!t up?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
You miss a lot.
How do you know she isn't being investigated? ..and won't be further investigated in the near future? That's got absolutely nothing to do with the appointment, or not, of an SC. Your gal could still be held accountable.
Because a SC hasn’t been appointed. Sessions testified in his confirmation hearings that he would have to recuse himself from investigations involving Hillary.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
acommondisaster
Active Member
You have to keep in mind, Mr Gilligan, that some are still recovering from living under the Pen and Phone Reign, where 3 branches of government was just a speed bump to the ignoring laws on the books and writing memorandums to be obeyed.
Developing....some observations on why ole Hil is going to be toast.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/uranium_one_noose_is_tightening.html
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/russia-scandal-uranium-one-clinton-foundation/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/uranium_one_noose_is_tightening.html
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/russia-scandal-uranium-one-clinton-foundation/
Last edited:
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
I wish there was a place to make a bet on this.
I have several things to place money on.
1st. Session will resign before he will indict Hillary Clinton.
2nd.Hillary will not go to trial.
3rd. nothing will come of this.
4th. It is more like this FBI informant will not last another 6 months if anything does come of it.
Hillary has nothing to worry about.
Even worse her fellow conspirator Obama has nothing to worry about