jimnyc
11-12-2017, 12:25 PM
But I suppose there is no credibility here, and no 'facts' and nothing improper and nothing worthy of further investigation. :rolleyes: :laugh:
---
“Brilliant Evisceration”: Former Prosecutor Explains Why Mueller Witch Hunt Epitomizes Obama-DOJ-FBI Corruption
In a thought-provoking piece penned by Andrew C. McCarthy, the former prosecutor explains why Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe sums up the moral decay suffered by the Justice Department and FBI under former President Obama.
https://i.imgur.com/0gUON5B.png
Editor of the New Criterion, Roger Kimball, calls McCarthy’s piece a “brilliant evisceration.”
Former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and National Review fellow Andrew C. McCarthy writes: (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453659/mueller-paul-manafort-investigation-hardball-tactics)
Mueller succeeded in convincing a federal judge to force an attorney for Manafort and Gates to provide grand-jury testimony against them. As Politico’s Josh Gerstein reports, just as the charges against these defendants were announced with great fanfare, the U.S. district court in Washington, D.C., quietly unsealed a ruling compelling the testimony of the lawyer — who, though not referred to by name in the decision, has been identified by CNN as Melissa Laurenza, a partner at the Akin Gump law firm.
[…]
Why do I think that, in choosing to set up shop in Washington, Mueller and his team noted the district court’s local rule that vests the chief judge with responsibility to “hear and determine all matters relating to proceedings before the grand jury”? (See here, Rule 57.14 at p. 168.) And why do I think that the Trump collusion case is not getting the kid-glove Clinton emails treatment?
Obama prejudiced the emails investigation. Long before it was formally ended, he publicly pronounced Clinton innocent. He theorized that she had not intended to harm the United States. Even if true, that fact would be irrelevant — it is not an element of the statutory offenses at issue, under which several military officials, who also had no intent to harm our country, have nevertheless been prosecuted. (It also had nothing to do with her quite intentional destruction of thousands of emails, many relating to government business — also a serious crime.)
As night follows day, the FBI and the Justice Department relied on Obama’s errant and self-interested rationale in dropping the case against Clinton and her accomplices. What did Obama’s subordinates do after he patently interfered in the investigation? Well, then-FBI director James Comey began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton months before the investigation ended — i.e., before over a dozen key witnesses, including Clinton herself, had been interviewed.
Click here to read the entire article. (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453659/mueller-paul-manafort-investigation-hardball-tactics)
Rest - http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/brilliant-evisceration-former-prosecutor-explains-fusion-gps-dossier-epitomizes-obama-doj-fbi-corruption/
---
“Brilliant Evisceration”: Former Prosecutor Explains Why Mueller Witch Hunt Epitomizes Obama-DOJ-FBI Corruption
In a thought-provoking piece penned by Andrew C. McCarthy, the former prosecutor explains why Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe sums up the moral decay suffered by the Justice Department and FBI under former President Obama.
https://i.imgur.com/0gUON5B.png
Editor of the New Criterion, Roger Kimball, calls McCarthy’s piece a “brilliant evisceration.”
Former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and National Review fellow Andrew C. McCarthy writes: (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453659/mueller-paul-manafort-investigation-hardball-tactics)
Mueller succeeded in convincing a federal judge to force an attorney for Manafort and Gates to provide grand-jury testimony against them. As Politico’s Josh Gerstein reports, just as the charges against these defendants were announced with great fanfare, the U.S. district court in Washington, D.C., quietly unsealed a ruling compelling the testimony of the lawyer — who, though not referred to by name in the decision, has been identified by CNN as Melissa Laurenza, a partner at the Akin Gump law firm.
[…]
Why do I think that, in choosing to set up shop in Washington, Mueller and his team noted the district court’s local rule that vests the chief judge with responsibility to “hear and determine all matters relating to proceedings before the grand jury”? (See here, Rule 57.14 at p. 168.) And why do I think that the Trump collusion case is not getting the kid-glove Clinton emails treatment?
Obama prejudiced the emails investigation. Long before it was formally ended, he publicly pronounced Clinton innocent. He theorized that she had not intended to harm the United States. Even if true, that fact would be irrelevant — it is not an element of the statutory offenses at issue, under which several military officials, who also had no intent to harm our country, have nevertheless been prosecuted. (It also had nothing to do with her quite intentional destruction of thousands of emails, many relating to government business — also a serious crime.)
As night follows day, the FBI and the Justice Department relied on Obama’s errant and self-interested rationale in dropping the case against Clinton and her accomplices. What did Obama’s subordinates do after he patently interfered in the investigation? Well, then-FBI director James Comey began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton months before the investigation ended — i.e., before over a dozen key witnesses, including Clinton herself, had been interviewed.
Click here to read the entire article. (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453659/mueller-paul-manafort-investigation-hardball-tactics)
Rest - http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/brilliant-evisceration-former-prosecutor-explains-fusion-gps-dossier-epitomizes-obama-doj-fbi-corruption/