Stosh

Exactamundo , In fact, I would go a step farther and suggest that the Russians were just providing what was asked of them , and that the people doing the actual dis-informing was the DNC itself. If the Russians wanted to provide stuff harmful to Clinton , they could provide dirt on her to the FBI , and Steele report would have her pissing on a bed in Moscow ( or somewhere). It makes zero sense to provide ' dirt ' on Trump, if the target is Hillary. The DNC lawyers , Perkins Coie decided to subcontract Fusion who had Steele's commentary , and the Russians had no way to force that to happen , as an avenue from which to insert the dirt into the FBI. The Russians did help out in providing the avenue which went through Brennan.. the crown material. If the Russians were hostile to Hillary , they could take her Emails and use them to discredit her, and they don't need to pass garbage via Steele through Fusion and the DNC. Another possibility is that Hillary wanted the sensitive Info on her Email to be available to the Russians , where they could get at it. In exchange , they would help her frame Trump. ANd in fact that such traitorious connections were made with several countries. I dunno all that as fact, but one really needs to decide from whom was the basic plan originating , and IMO clearly it was the DNC. Why Barr says 'No Americans colluded with Russia ', is still a thing that I find confusing though. Is that just a comment about the findings of the Mueller report ? or is this what he would want to say is a general fact even apart from the report?

I toughed it out and watched most of the Mueller thing last night, I have to admit I fell asleep for a while. But I want to share that I thought Our Republican warriors did a great job with the questions. Hopefully that was the last gasp of trying to pretend that the Russian angle hoax was legit and they can all turn their attention to making good law , while those investigators charged with running down the bad guys do their thing. That would be great.

It may be elementary but I can't tease out your train of thought from these snippets . You say element , I say U238 ? :). Acording to the Gaetz snippet , Gaetz thinks that Mueller was enjoined to study Russian interference in general , but according to rosensteins letter , Mueller was only mandated to look at Trumps involvement in that regard. If Mueller found any connections to Clinton he had to get the OK from Rosenstein to look into it. So if Mueller testifies that its outside his purview, then he is throwing Rosenstein under the bus.. in regards to the questions on why were these other leads not followed up (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump; On page 2 and 3 of the report , Mueller carefully worded what his mandate was , and it was in regards to Trump , though it can easily be read to mean he had much broader authority. For questions about the scope of the investigation Rosenstein needs to be brought up before a grand jury. He signed the FISA application , He hired mueller , allowed mueller to hire pit bulls, and manipulated the scope of what was covered , and then like many do , he bailed out of the office. AAnd he prompted Trump to fire Comey , which was a thing that would look bad , like Trump was obstructing. Rosenstein's letter Rod Rosenstein's letter recommending Comey be fired 10 May 2017 Mueller Trump-Russia inquiry Image captionDeputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein penned the memo recommending Comey's dismissal President Donald Trump followed the recommendation of his deputy attorney general when he fired FBI boss James Comey. What did Rod Rosenstein say? This is his letter in full. 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 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 "real-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. dunno why theres a strike through

Ok , but then I do not see why The DOJ is investigating the Uranium One scandal is noted.

My posts appear to be getting delayed , and the entry box is balky again.

I am thinking that the following instructions , relating to Rosenstein's letter appointing Mueller to his task ,, means that Mueller was supposed to ask of the att gen , whether things were outside his purview or not. This then means that it was the choice of Att gen , whether Clinton's involvement , was a thing that could be investigated by Mueller. It was not at Mueller's discretion , whether to investigate into the parameters of Uranium one scandal. It was not at his discretion to investigate whether the contact at the Trump tower meeting , was working for Simpson Fusion GPS etc. Either Mueller is at fault for skewing the parameters of his investigation , or the att gen is the one deciding to limit the investigation to Trump , regardless of whether the facts led elsewhere. § 600.4 Jurisdiction. (a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted. (b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere. (c)Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General. So I am thinking it is not indicated that the Uranium one scandal is being investigated currently , nor if it was underway during Muellers assignment to nail Trump -(rather than seriously investigate Russian effect on our election via Fusion or FBI efforts.)

302 s are garbage anyway , the agent 'remembers' after the fact , and puts the confabulation on paper. ... however if the 302 doesnt hold up under scrutiny its really the agent who was making up crap.

Its quite possible that regarding her brother at least We have as much right to be here as you.” He does not in fact have any right to be here whatsoever. And so Should be at the head of the line for deportation. Laws get changed , some of which may affect these people who do not want to assimilate , but rather are proud of terrorist organizations. No one here is above the law. Heck, it may even occur to people that she thinks she is too pretty to show her hair in public, and thinks that women who do, are trollops.

My guess is that he is under witness protection in Pinellas.

That IS bizarre , what are you thinking the significance is. That the FBI shot him in the club? in front of a bunch of people , to protect the Clintons? Thats a pretty bad plan.

Ok, but that means that the majority of candidates are really still only there as tools, and they should be aware of that , and not want to be the tool of Biden or Harris.

Me playing devils advocate, If the public doesnt hold their feet to the fire , they aren't going to be concerned about backlash . They expect that in the eventuality of winning , that the enemy isnt going to allow them to do most of the things they are promoting anyway. They have no real expectation that they will live up to their words, or that they will be punished by the identity group that favors them. Pressley underlined this- 'black people should vote with a black voice'..and so forth. At the heart of identity politics is the plan that the voter should be of predicted bias , and ends up powerless unless they constitute a majority. I was reading about Cesar Chavez opinions , and his conclusion was that his identity group could not gain political power by supporting Democrats , in the face of an Anglo majority. "Later, in the ’50s, I experienced a different kind of exploitation. In San Jose, in Los Angeles and in other urban communities, we–the Mexican American people–were dominated by a majority that was Anglo. I began to realize what other minority people had discovered: That the only answer–the only hope–was in organizing. More of us had to become citizens. We had to register to vote. And people like me had to develop the skills it would take to organize, to educate, to help empower the Chicano people. The union’s power in agriculture has nothing to do with the number of farm workers under union contract. It has nothing to do with the farm workers’ ability to contribute to Democratic politicians. It doesn’t even have much to do with our ability to conduct successful boycotts."

Actually I think the Republicans have more to gain this time , although it is annoying to go back over this ground. . and hope they act in tandem , as a team , asking one question apiece , and pressing the point for the five minute increment. ( as opposed to the usual , where they are all covering the same questions , making speeches , and failing to get a sufficient response for anything )

I know what you're saying , they all appear to be selling the same insane self destructive product. They gotta know that. ... Which brings up a thing that I do not understand about these potential nominees, maybe you can offer an opinion as to why its like this.. If you are on the lower tier of 20 candidates all selling the same products , I am thinking your odds of winning just the nomination are close to zero already. They have to get past their dem competitors to move on , right? So why do they not offer a majorly different platform that might significantly sway the public? If you're Mayor Pete Yang Castro etc , that you are not going to be President , simply as a matter of Fact , even if the massive fraud expected guarantees a Dem win. They are voluntarily standing around like window dressing for the candidates that already stand out , have name recognition , and have money behind them. I don't get it.

But, on a lighter side, I love the irony of millionaire Bernie not wanting to pay his people the minimum wage he wants everybody else to pay😁 , wants it kept secret 😆 threatens to raise health care costs to them 😂 and then ,,, cuts their HOURS 🤣

Personally, I don't hate the leftists, I think they are so wrong that they have no idea what they are doing.. but it may not just be them. Our Senate played a part in this new program to release violent felons out early, including murderers and sex offenders, after selling the idea that it would be releasing only folks who did piddly victimless crimes.

Yeah, the loophole .. border has remained mostly open. They want to undermine non citizen and citizen equally. Sanders best plan for health care free for all, should cost at least 4 trillion dollars a year , doubling the entirety of our taxes. Then they are going to take that from the wealthy, and raise the min wage to 15 bucks an hours and open the borders . What we should expect , is that the wages will increase cost, the taxes will double on top of that, and all the businesses that want to make profit will have to leave. So we will have millions of people who want to work, with no job opportunities, claiming free health care as a right, and nobody around to pay the bills! This is on top of huge national debt ... Failed state.

He understood that the illegals undermined the bargaining position of the American farm workers , and perpetuated the underclass situation.

Yes bamboozling happens when someone conflates patriotism with racism .... which its not. Democratic presidential hopefuls also weighed in. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said that “unfortunately, there’s an American tradition of telling people to go back to where they came from” and that Trump was trying to “gin up his base” by keeping Americans divided.

I just checked one , Eric Himpton Holders father, is also a ,, Mr. Holder. ( according to wikp) 2) E Warrens husband is indeed Mr. Mann- ( perhaps it just would have provided too much of an ironic smear to adopt the name) 3) Maya Harris is Kamala's sister, her father is Mr. Harris. Again according to wikip - I dont know if any of these things are actually true , names may have been changed in order to keep private identities secret , Like Omar marrying her brother as an immigration scam .

I will level with you , although you refuse to do me the same respect. I am getting angry I am tired of the pure stupidity I am having to dance around . Adios

I expected you were going to do that ploy , same as CT, claim you are somehow neutral because you aren't in the US. Its bull, because you still have an opinion , a slant , which is a result of preferred exposure to a certain point of view. When you voiced your opinion , you took your side. You were asked , where you were from. Did you miss that ? I want to verbally attack and insult your leader. "If Omar is illegal then deport her, if not then it's just plain racism." Hell no , that's a ridiculous statement. She should be deported for endorsing terrorism, prosecuted for evading taxes, ridiculed for marrying her brother.

.............By the way , where are you hailing from?

Back in the good ol days ,a man was allowed his opinions , and had free speech. And it was understood that along with this freedom one would just have to suck it up, that sometimes what was said ,was not pleasing to the listener. That's what free speech is. To hear you insinuate that everyone needs to protect your little virgin ears is frankly anti American, and making a big ado about the significance of his statement, just shows the partisan spin you need to put on that which is virtually Nothing . It means it's just another bogus attack on your part ,to make anything of it. When someone ticks you off, it's possible you have said things with the express intent of 'returning the favor'. Frankly I am surprised I need to explain this to y'all , such an inability to understand this low level of subtlety ,is usually reserved for those with serious mental disabilities.

The majority of Mexicans in Mexico feel that the immigration policy there is a problem and want to deport theirs back to their countries of origin. Is that racist of them ?