This is an incredibly stupid point you are failing to make. Please continue.
What if any consequence will the corporate media face
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
This is an incredibly stupid point you are failing to make. Please continue.
I think I have already made it. It will be hard for me to continue unless you want to take a stab at telling my why it is incredibly stupid.
It’s self evident. It would be boring to explain the obvious. Pass.
You probably should have read the link before you posted it. That link is making you look dumb trying to compare the two. But I'm glad you didn't because this entertaining exchange wouldn't have happened.
The content of Barr's audition to be the AG loyal to Trump is actually of crucial importance, but I'll just take your word for it being a good audition. Trump was apparently impressed too.
You know, the more I think about this, the more similar the email and Russia investigations become. Who headed up the special counsel for the email investigation? I can't remember who it was.
Hmmmmm. So, no special counsel? How about grand jury? Surely the DOJ empaneled one for the email investigation. There was one, right?
Yes, there was a grand jury. Any guesses as to what the grand jury didn't do and why?
Since you won't bother to read Barr's opinion on obstruction but somehow see similarity between Barr's selection and Lynch's tarmac meeting, I'm walking us through the comparison of the investigations.
1/2 a day of engagement and this guy is barking orders.
There was zero testimony in front of the grand jury because, wait for it, the FBI claimed that testimony regarding the emails on Clinton's server would expose the grand jury to too much classified information. Weird.
Did Mueller allow Trump to designate what could and couldn't be looked at? Did Mueller offer immunity to all of Trump's associates that were under investigation in exchange for nothing?
We've already established a few posts ago that there was a grand jury, but since you posted it...
"The FBI...obtained grand jury subpoenas related to the Blackberry e-mail accounts, which produced no responsive materials, as the requested data was outside the retention time utilized by those providers," FBI Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division E.W. Priestap wrote in a declaration filed Monday in federal court in Washington.
Priestap did not provide details about the subpoenas, although he suggested they were served on AT&T Wireless and a firm it acquired, Cingular."
Although there was a grand jury empaneled, there was not any testimony given before that grand jury. According to the IG report...
"Conducted voluntary witness interviews to obtain testimony, including from Clinton and her senior aides, and did not require any witnesses to testify before the grand jury. We found that one of the reasons for not using the grand jury for testimony involved concerns about exposing grand jurors to classified information."
The above is from the executive summary. The report goes into a bunch more detail on how the DOJ avoided having anyone testify before the grand jury, especially Clinton.
But for some reason, your post doesn't apply to an independent special counsel's findings and the AG/DAG's summary of them?
Huh?But for some reason, your post doesn't apply to an independent special counsel's findings and the AG/DAG's summary of them?
They talked about the practice of using minimal intrusion to get what they need and that it didn't appear that the decision to not compel witnesses/targets was influenced by bias.
Did you know that the FBI showed up at Roger Stone's house in abundance to serve a warrant for lying to investigators? CNN was also there. Paul Combetta lied to investigators and was given an immunity deal in hush hush fashion away from the bright lights of the 24/7 news cycle. Combetta also destroyed evidence that was under Congressional subpoena.
Do you think Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were talking about grand jury testimony and classification when they met on the infamous tarmac?
OIG made it clear that there was a crime. Even the FBI stated there was a crime. He lied to investigators and destroyed evidence. Hence the immunity agreement to get him to finally tell the truth instead of compelling him to cooperate with incentives like lighter sentencing.
Similar threads
