quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
sounds like Sessions punted the ball yet again

Yep. He essentially refused to investigate the Clintons.

Unbelievable.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:

quote:

The wheels of justice, unlike the hot pursuit of vigilantism, turn slowly, especially when the incidents are complex.

That might once have been true, JALLEN, but just look at what went on in the Obama Justice Department, and look at what has been going on with all the Russia crap for what? More than a year now? In the midst of all of this, Sessions is timid and meek and tiptoeing along. Unless he pulls out some big surprise, he has been an utter failure, IMHO.

I take it you prefer fast and furious prosecutions.

Why not take the time to be confident you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before unleashing the oppressive power of the Federal government?

Maybe you just want the perps hassled. A conviction would be good, but hassling them now is critical.

The statutes of limitations are fairly long.

The trouble is that whether it is ordinary criminal activity or those with intense public interest, the DOJ is supposed to do its work, before indictment, out of public view, for good and valid reasons.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of potential witnesses, hundreds of thousands of documents, dates, contacts, statements, some of which are exculpatory, or potentially so, to acquire, analyse, evaluate, and untold thousands of decisions to make how to best proceed.

I hope they're waiting for everything to be wrapped up with Mueller and the entire Trump thing.

If they announce they are going after Hillary or actually do go after Hillary now, then Trump will be accused of trying to derail the investigation into his "Russian ties".

I've said this before. I believe Trump and company are letting the whole Russian investigation run out and standing as clear as possible. Sessions recused himself. Trump hasn't interfered or otherwise attempted to thwart a single thing.

Once it all plays out and there's nothing on Trump, then the left won't have anything to complain about when they receive the exact same scrutiny. Not a thing. Trump didn't have anything to hide, and welcomed the investigation. Since Clinton has nothing to hide, she can welcome hers when it's time.

I'm not so sure Sessions has punted the issue at this point. He may just be really good at keeping his mouth shut.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I'm not so sure Sessions has punted the issue at this point. He may just be really good at keeping his mouth shut.

I have no knowledge of what is going on with Jeff Sessions, but I have been holding out hope that he is quietly fashioning the noose to hang the wicked witch and making sure the knot is tight and true. Time will tell and I am not going to stress about it either way in the meantime...

While a prosecution would be nice, first you need a fair and honest investigation. Something Sessions seems unwilling to provide.

Please don't say we don't know what's going on in the DOJ. It is chock full of Obama bots. If Sessions was looking AT ALL into Clinton it would have been leaked to the NYT so they could start launching a defense.

Apparently Sessions dosen't feel anythjng that Clinton, the DNC, the IRS, Comey, hell any corruption from the last eight years rises to the level of at least needing to be investigated.

I guess the laws as written don't apply to swamp critters, of which Sessions is one.

Jeff Sessions continues to prove he’s Trump’s biggest mistake

By Michael Goodwin

Jeff Sessions is a man in search of a banana peel. When he can’t find one to step on, he supplies his own.

Sessions is not a bad man, but he is a bad attorney general, as he demonstrated again Tuesday.

By writing to Republicans in Congress just hours before he was scheduled to testify that he was open to appointing a special prosecutor to examine former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail case and the notorious Uranium One deal, Sessions primed the pump for a really big show.

Democrats arrived furious and Republicans gleefully expected an ah-ha moment. Both came away unsatisfied and unhappy.

Unfortunately for Sessions, the old conceit in journalism — that if both sides are angry at your story, you’ve done something right — doesn’t apply to being attorney general. When nobody’s happy, including your boss, you’re failing.

While Democrats and Republicans are angry at Sessions for different reasons, there’s no rule saying both can’t be right.

The litany of things he couldn’t remember or couldn’t discuss seemed calculated to frustrate rather than enlighten. The fact that he thought non-answers to big questions would be good enough reflects how poorly he fits his job.

His faulty judgment has become a calling card, which is why I’ve argued that appointing Sessions was Trump’s biggest personnel mistake; yesterday’s performance did nothing to change my view.

There’s also a new bonus reason: had Sessions stayed as a senator from Alabama, Roy Moore’s dirty history would have remained a secret instead of a national scandal that could help flip Senate control.

Sessions’ decision to recuse himself, then tell Trump, from anything related to the 2016 campaign led to the enormous cloud over the White House that has distorted the first year of the new presidency.

Consider the alternative. Imagine that Robert Mueller were still in private law practice, and there were no open-ended investigation of everybody connected to the Trump campaign.

Then all of Washington would have to accept the election as settled and deal with Trump as president, not as a pinata on a short-term lease.

So while Trump erred in naming Sessions, Sessions is responsible for taking the job when he knew he would have to sit out the most important matter before his agency, one that increasingly smells like an extension of the Democrats’ bid to overturn the election.

In that sense, it was especially galling that Sessions refused to answer direct questions about the Russian dossier prepared for Clinton’s campaign, including whether the FBI under Comey paid the author and used the document to request wiretaps on Trump associates. Sessions never gave a reason why he couldn’t answer such important questions.

Then there’s the Uranium One deal, which allowed Russia to gain control of 20 percent of America’s uranium supply. On its face, the 2010 deal made little sense but drew little attention because so little was known of it.

That was by intent, with the role of an FBI informant who blew the whistle on the crimes of an involved Russian company kept secret as the Obama administration, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, green-lighted the deal.

Soon, a gusher of money flowed the Clintons’ way, with Bill getting a $500,000 speaking gig in Moscow and as much as $145 million going to the Clinton Foundation from parties with a stake in the transaction.

That Mueller was the head of the FBI then, and Rod Rosenstein was the US Attorney in Maryland, is not incidental. Both played major roles in a case that now looks like a cover-up, yet they are now deciding the fate of the Trump presidency.

Rosenstein, as Sessions’ deputy, assumed his powers after the recusal and named his friend Mueller special counsel. Neither they nor Comey should be above scrutiny or rules governing conflicts of interest.

In obvious ways, Sessions’ letter saying he was open to a new special counsel for these issues looked like both a tit-for-tat move and a response to Trump’s demands to investigate Clinton.

Those suspicions were raised by Dems, which was both inevitable and pointless. The only test that matters is whether the former administration tried to hide facts that would have killed the uranium deal, whether the former secretary of state gave her approval in exchange for a windfall, and whether the probe of her e-mails was rigged by the Obama Justice Department.

Yet once again, Sessions quibbled with most of those questions rather than answer them directly, leaving confusion about why he wrote the letter in the first place and whether he actually intends to do anything.

Because of the Moore mess and Trump’s unhappiness with Sessions, the White House has floated the idea that Sessions might want to go back to his Senate seat. The move could simultaneously solve two problems, and though it would be tricky, Sessions’ latest flubs prove it is the best possible outcome.

http://nypost.com/2017/11/14/j...mps-biggest-mistake/

A common problem with complex investigations conducted in secret, as they should be, is that the rumor mill and media will make up answers to questions that you are not even asking. The problem with investigations that are conducted in the open is that it is impossible to conduct an investigation in the open. What I got from Sessions testimony is that there might, or might not be ongoing investigations into Clinton shenanigans but he's not going to tell us one way or another until its over. He parses his words very carefully which sometimes makes it look like he is hiding something, which is exactly what you do when guarding secrets. I do know there were a lot of FBI and Justice Department professionals who were outraged that Comey and Lynch gave Hillary a pass. There are also 27 leak investigations going on which is a signal to all branches of government to STFU. I think the Grand Jury is going to be very busy and the next 12 months will be very interesting to watch.

Believe me, I hope that you and JALLEN are right, and that Sessions is going to come through, ultimately. But that is just my hope. Otherwise, I agree with Michael Goodwin. What we have seen so far from Sessions is hugely disappointing.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The statutes of limitations are fairly long.

Yes, but election cycles are less so. Counting on 8 years is a mistake, Sessions needs to act as if he has 3 years left for any investigations and prosecutions, and given the amount of work involved, I'm not seeing any desire or urgency. In my eyes, Sessions has been a disappointment. At a minimum, if he were serious about his charge, be should be invested in a purge of the DOJ, and his Deputy should be among the first to go.

quote:

Originally posted by jigray3:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The statutes of limitations are fairly long.

Yes, but election cycles are less so. Counting on 8 years is a mistake, Sessions needs to act as if he has 3 years left for any investigations and prosecutions, and given the amount of work involved, I'm not seeing any desire or urgency. In my eyes, Sessions has been a disappointment. At a minimum, if he were serious about his charge, be should be invested in a purge of the DOJ, and his Deputy should be among the first to go.

The Attorney General, no matter it may be, given the power of that office, must heed the advice of a long ago Tennessee Congressman, “Be sure you are right, then go ahead.”

how much more information do you need to START a prosecution

what else is there to the mishandling of classified documents?

what else is there at the attempted subversion and lying to Congress about Benghazi?

thats just a start...

why wait? perhaps he is waiting for witnesses to die of old age so the first hand knowledge disappears

Sessions has been by far the biggest disappointment - he's no better than Holder or Lynch

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
how much more information do you need to START a prosecution

what else is there to the mishandling of classified documents?

what else is there at the attempted subversion and lying to Congress about Benghazi?

thats just a start...

why wait? perhaps he is waiting for witnesses to die of old age so the first hand knowledge disappears

Sessions has been by far the biggest disappointment - he's no better than Holder or Lynch

1. You don’t really know what is needed to START a successful prosecution.

2. You don’t really know whether investigations are in progress or not.

The easiest way to let them off the hook is a false start.

It may be that the “career prosecutors” we often hear about to give the gloss of political neutrality are foot dragging, or even, God forbid, seeding the process with mistakes, inconsistencies, evaluations, which will be easy pickings for defense counsels if, as, and when indictments are sought.

I really don’t know what they are doing either, but am certain of one thing. When you start this going, you had best be ready for all out war, no holds barred, a trial process that will make the Simpson murder case look like a Sunday school picnic. Preparation and careful judgment is essential.

Comparisons with Holder and Lynch are demeaning to you.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:

....

Because of the Moore mess and Trump’s unhappiness with Sessions, the White House has floated the idea that Sessions might want to go back to his Senate seat. The move could simultaneously solve two problems, and though it would be tricky, Sessions’ latest flubs prove it is the best possible outcome.

http://nypost.com/2017/11/14/j...mps-biggest-mistake/

Is this a possibility for real?

J

points taken however, what has Sessions done to make himself any different than Holder and Lynch?

is he actually working towards the agenda that Trump was voted into power on? Is he actively going after any and all corruption and helping to drain the swamp, or is he merely giving lip service to the idea of draining the swamp while appointing democrat sympathizers (and most likely criminals themselves) to whitewash the crimes of the previous administration

as far as STARTING an investigation - what else do you need? Reall, all the info is out there - all of the emails, the videos, the testimony before congress, the lying and perjury before Congress

does ANY OTHER PROCESS for anyone else take this much time? If you got caught roibbing a bank, on video with yur face shown, would it take a year to bring charges?

these people are above the law and so far the department of Just Us is making them feel right at home - they've gotten away with murder and not one person has lifted a finger to make them accountable

so tell me again why Sessions is different?

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
J

points taken however, what has Sessions done to make himself any different than Holder and Lynch?

is he actually working towards the agenda that Trump was voted into power on? Is he actively going after any and all corruption and helping to drain the swamp, or is he merely giving lip service to the idea of draining the swamp while appointing democrat sympathizers (and most likely criminals themselves) to whitewash the crimes of the previous administration

as far as STARTING an investigation - what else do you need? Reall, all the info is out there - all of the emails, the videos, the testimony before congress, the lying and perjury before Congress

does ANY OTHER PROCESS for anyone else take this much time? If you got caught roibbing a bank, on video with yur face shown, would it take a year to bring charges?

these people are above the law and so far the department of Just Us is making them feel right at home - they've gotten away with murder and not one person has lifted a finger to make them accountable

so tell me again why Sessions is different?

If you had video of HilLIARy telling her aides to send stuff to her own server, classified or not, video of her on the phone telling the military to stand off in Libya, pillow talk (sorry for the imagery!) with BJ chortling about the big dollar bribes the Ruskies were paying them to get the uranium, it would be easier and faster.

Bank robbery is a common crime, easy for jurors to understand and process evidence on, while these activities are less so. If there was a video showing OJ stabbing his victims, even Mark Fuhrman’s chutzpah, the gloves, and all the prosecutorial incompetence would not have spared him a guilty verdict.

Every piece of evidence has to be analyzed to be admissible, authentic, unambiguous or explainable. Can a defendant explain it away, justify it under other procedures, etc? It’s somewhat novel. The devil is always in the details, and that’s where defense counsel will spend the time, finding every detail, to discredit the document, impeach the witness, conjure up an argument that neutralizes its effect, etc. All the defense has to do is inject “reasonable doubt” and the defendants walk. Sometimes, with a big budget, examining every detail, you get lucky, and find a tape of Mark Fuhrman.

The fact is neither you nor I have any information about what DOJ is or is not doing on these issues, so forming opinions either way is premature at best.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
J


so tell me again why Sessions is different?

The fact is neither you nor I have any information about what DOJ is or is not doing on these issues, so forming opinions either way is premature at best.

Could not agree more....time will tell, but it WILL take time.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
sounds like Sessions punted the ball yet again

I'm beginning to wonder just which side Jeff Sessions is on, Trump's or the Dems.

He sure as shit doesn't seem like a Trump Team player to me much anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by GT-40DOC:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
J


so tell me again why Sessions is different?

The fact is neither you nor I have any information about what DOJ is or is not doing on these issues, so forming opinions either way is premature at best.

Could not agree more....time will tell, but it WILL take time.

And that’s the problem. We all want the witch hanging from a lamppost and we all want it yesterday.

I just keep praying, “Dear Lord, Please give me patience. And for goodness sake, please do it NOW!”

It is bizarre. Trump has been in office less than a year and the dems get a special prosecutor. When there is no apparent evidence of a crime, no less. Months of investigation and so far...nothing.

Does that witch hunt meet with Sessions 'ok'..?

HRC, on the other hand, has a trail of scandals a mile long. Just regarding the classified email situation (never mind all the others), what she did was clearly a crime. It's not even a question. And Comey providing cover and not recommending prosecution. Really? How stupid do they think we are? Pretty fucking stupid, I guess.

Maybe the bigger question is what HRC was trying to hide by using a private server.
HRC, her husband and their foundation stink to high heaven.

I hope Sessions has the balls to take this on.
If not, step aside.

quote:

Originally posted by mod29:
It is bizarre. Trump has been in office less than a year and the dems get a special prosecutor. When there is no apparent evidence of a crime, no less. Months of investigation and so far...nothing.

Does that witch hunt meet with Sessions 'ok'..?

It cannot, as he is barred from his recusal from having anything to do with it. No briefings, no decisions, no FYIs, nothing but what he might see in the papers. He doesn’t even read SigForum AFAIK.

quote:

HRC, on the other hand, has a trail of scandals a mile long. Just regarding the classified email situation (never mind all the others), what she did was clearly a crime. It's not even a question. And Comey providing cover and not recommending prosecution. Really? How stupid do they think we are? Pretty fucking stupid, I guess.

Maybe that’s why they have dodged all the bullets so far. Like Poor Richard used to say, “Act in haste. Repent at leisure.”

quote:

Maybe the bigger question is what HRC was trying to hide by using a private server.
HRC, her husband and their foundation stink to high heaven.

That certainly seems possible, even likely. Nobody believes you go that that much trouble to keep wedding plans and yoga workouts secret. But like we found out in mob prosecutions, handling the evidence in the wrong way gives the crooks a pass.

quote:

I hope Sessions has the balls to take this on.
If not, step aside.

I’m not as worried about Sessions as I am about career holdovers in DOJ. Sessions has been around the track with the big boys and held his own.