12
   

Where is Jeff Sessions?

 
 
DrewDad
 
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 09:06 am
So I noticed in the announcement regarding the special prosecutor, that Rod Rosenstein referred to himself as "acting attorney general."

Quote:
In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter.


Did he misspeak? Or is something up with Sessions?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 12 • Views: 899 • Replies: 42

 
ehBeth
 
  6  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 09:20 am
@DrewDad,
Sessions has recused himself from anything to do with investigations re Russia. So- for anything to do with Russia, Rosenstein would be AAG (or at least that's how I understand it).

There is some question as to whether he handled the Comey matter correctly last week so he may be under direct investigation.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/doj_inspector_general_asked_to_probe_sessions_role_in_comey_firing_20170517#14951207375561
maxdancona
 
  5  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 09:37 am
@ehBeth,
I would have loved to be in the room when Sessions found out that Rosenstein had done this. The furious look on his little gnomish face must have been adorable.

farmerman
 
  6  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 10:09 am
@maxdancona,
Ya know, the reason his ears flap down like that is because his wife made his Klan hood out of sail canvas.

At least hes seemed to have kept his word about recusal
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 10:13 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

At least hes seemed to have kept his word about recusal


or not so much - his involvement with the Comey dismissal may come back to bit his butt
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 10:42 am
@ehBeth,
Its getting so hard to actually follow what's going on without a program.

I have to do some other stuff, like work and eat. I think somebody oughta put out a timeline going back to last August or so.



revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 10:59 am
@farmerman,
Los Angeles Times did this morning but it started in November 2016.

Everything we know so far about Trump and the Russia investigation
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 11:03 am
@revelette1,
excellent!!
Fox news (this AM) was going over their Trump licking and was complaining about the false timelines of the "Media">
WHAT THE HELL DOES FOX THINK IT IS, A USED CAR LOT??
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 01:29 pm
Will all the attention on the possible ties to Russia obscure the "obstruction of justice" implications that are, by themselves, quite important?

Will we ever get accurate data on things, or will we continue to have to rely on hearsay and leaks from un-named sources? Will anyone ever go on the record on anything?
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 01:57 pm
@rosborne979,
Pretty sure that obstruction related to the inquiry is covered by the special prosecutor, as well.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 02:19 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Pretty sure that obstruction related to the inquiry is covered by the special prosecutor, as well.

I hope so. If it's true, then I don't they should just let it slide because of the more "media worthy" story on Russia.

But I really hope we get some hard facts to work with. There's entirely too much speculation and innuendo in all this for my taste.

The public has not done itself a service by indulging in speculative media over hard reporting, and I think it's time to put an end to that cycle. And this is as good a place as any to start.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 03:05 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Will all the attention on the possible ties to Russia obscure the "obstruction of justice" implications that are, by themselves, quite important?

The obstruction charges are only important to the goal of lynching people who disagree with the Democrats.

But anyway it will be just the opposite of what you fear. The obstruction charges will obscure the Russia question, which will largely go unanswered.


rosborne979 wrote:
Will we ever get accurate data on things, or will we continue to have to rely on hearsay and leaks from un-named sources? Will anyone ever go on the record on anything?

You will not get any accurate data. The only point of this entire charade is to harm people who disagree with Democrats. There is no search for the truth here.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 03:15 pm
@rosborne979,
Here is the text of the letter appointing Mueller. Point (ii) clearly covers a charge of obstruction of justice.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726381/Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.pdf


Quote:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 06:00 pm
@maxdancona,
Yeh, Monica Lewinski was NEVER a point of Starr's original charge. When the Special prosecutor never found anything impeachable on Bill "Happy Pants" Clinton, our genius president supplied his own. All the millions wasted on Starr's staff and rental cars and meals and per diems were then justified when Monica showed up .

Meaning to say that the CFR gives wide latitude unless the focus is specifically stated. Looks like, from max's letter, its not.

I wanna see the "pay to play" facts regarding the promises of "fat track" green cards if some of the oligarchs invest 500K on a Trump investment "deal".
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 07:49 pm
@farmerman,
There was no need to justify the money spent investigating Clinton. That was just gibberish that the Democrats fed to their cult-like followers to get them to ignore the fact that Clinton had committed all those felonies.

The justification for all the money spent by the Starr investigation was the mere fact that the federal government hired Starr to conduct the investigation. There was no need for any specific result for the spending to be justified.

Special prosecutors are always limited to a narrow issue. The reason Starr's investigation shifted focus was because the federal government asked him to conduct an entirely new investigation, with entirely new legal authorization, when this new issue came up.

I'm not sure what you think you read in the authorization for this special prosecutor, but as with all special prosecutors, the scope of his investigation is indeed limited.

But thanks for admitting that the only purpose of any of this is to try to convict people in the Trump Administration for any trivial transgression that can be found.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 08:04 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)


For anyone who may be wondering, that section says:

Quote:
§ 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.


Has this been posted already? I haven't read the entire thread.

I have seen some say this includes the authorization to investigate whether Trump "obstructed justice" (which he obviously didn't) when talking to Comey. That's NOT the way I read it.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 08:19 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
Has this been posted already? I haven't read the entire thread.

I do not believe so. I looked it up myself, but upon reading it and satisfying myself as to its meaning I didn't bother to post the text of it like you did.


layman wrote:
I have seen some say this includes the authorization to investigate whether Trump "obstructed justice" (which he obviously didn't) when talking to Comey. That's NOT the way I read it.

Same here.

I'm expecting that Flynn and Manafort are going to be prosecuted for not registering as foreign agents. I'm hoping that Trump will pardon them if they are convicted since this is all clearly a witch hunt.

Manafort is a cool name. Sounds like a Blood Elf outpost in Netherstorm.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 08:22 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
I'm hoping that Trump will pardon them if they are convicted since this is all clearly a witch hunt.


This seems awfully partisan.

If the facts show that they actually committed a crime, would you still hope that Trump pardons them...

... would you even be able to admit to yourself if the facts contradict your partisan beliefs.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 08:53 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
This seems awfully partisan.

Not at all. This is an outrageous witch hunt and it should be prevented from harming people.


maxdancona wrote:
If the facts show that they actually committed a crime, would you still hope that Trump pardons them...

Yes, because they will be people who shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place.

Driving one MPH over the speed limit is an infraction. But discretion leans towards not issuing such a ticket.

That is the entire point of the Democrats' efforts to get these special prosecutors. It is all to prosecute people that a normal prosecutor would never bother to bring charges against.

Look at the Valerie Plame case. The investigation showed very clearly that the leak clearly did not come from the Bush Administration. But he still prosecuted Scooter Libby for supposedly obstructing justice even though he already knew that there was no connection to the Plame leak.

The point of that investigation was never to find out where the Plame leaks came from. The only goal was to try to score a conviction against the Bush Administration.

This special prosecutor will be the same. There will be no focus on Russia. There will only be an attempt to convict people who should never have been prosecuted in the first place. And the Democrats had exactly that malicious intent when they called for this special prosecutor.


maxdancona wrote:
... would you even be able to admit to yourself if the facts contradict your partisan beliefs.

That is quite an IF.

But yes, I always recognize facts.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 08:56 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
This special prosecutor will be the same. There will be no focus on Russia. There will only be an attempt to convict people who should never have been prosecuted in the first place. And the Democrats had exactly that malicious intent when they called for this special prosecutor.


Speaking for myself, I would not conclude that. Not at this point. If that's what happens, OK, but I'm not presuming to know that now.

Mueller has no need to "make a name for himself," and he's almost universally acknowledged to be a reasonable and fair guy.
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Where is Jeff Sessions?
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/24/2017 at 04:50:54