This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Petition: We need an independent special prosecutor!

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


https://petitions.signforgood.com/independentprosecutor/

Add Your Name: We need an independent special prosecutor to investigate the Trump administration’s ties with Russia!

After President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, it became abundantly clear that we must have an independent investigation into whether Russia influenced the presidential election.

Join us and add your name now to our petition calling for an independent special prosecutor to investigate the Trump administration’s ties with Russia!


Sen. Tammy Baldwin
Sen. Michael Bennet
Sen. Maria Cantwell
Sen. Bob Casey
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto
Sen. Al Franken
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Sen. Maggie Hassan
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp
Sen. Mazie Hirono
Sen. Angus King
Sen. Ed Markey
Sen. Jeff Merkley
Sen. Bill Nelson
Sen. Gary Peters
Sen. Jack Reed
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
Sen. Jon Tester

Rep. Pete Aguilar
Rep. Don Beyer
Rep. Tony Cárdenas
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman
Rep. Elijah Cummings
Rep. Rosa DeLauro
Rep. Elizabeth Esty
Rep. Lois Frankel
Rep. Ruben Kihuen
Rep. Grace Meng
Rep. Rick Nolan
Rep. Mark Pocan
Rep. Raul Ruiz
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Rep. Mark Takano
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Rep. Nydia Velázquez

Attorney General Xavier Becerra
Attorney General Bob Ferguson

AMERIPAC
CHC BOLD PAC
Daily Kos
Democratic Action
Democratic Party of Virginia
Democratic Party of Wisconsin
DLCC
DWS PAC
End Citizens United
Equality PAC
Florida Democratic Party
Grassroots Victory PAC
Left Action
National Democratic Training Committee
South Dakota Democratic Party

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
https://petitions.signforgood.com/independentprosecutor/

Add Your Name: We need an independent special prosecutor to investigate the Trump administration’s ties with Russia!

After President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, it became abundantly clear that we must have an independent investigation into whether Russia influenced the presidential election.

Join us and add your name now to our petition calling for an independent special prosecutor to investigate the Trump administration’s ties with Russia!

President I.M. Pussygrabber
Sen. Tammy Baldwin
Sen. Michael Bennet
Sen. Maria Cantwell
Sen. Bob Casey
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto
Sen. Al Franken
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Sen. Maggie Hassan
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp
Sen. Mazie Hirono
Sen. Angus King
Sen. Ed Markey
Sen. Jeff Merkley
Sen. Bill Nelson
Sen. Gary Peters
Sen. Jack Reed
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
Sen. Jon Tester

Rep. Pete Aguilar
Rep. Don Beyer
Rep. Tony Cárdenas
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman
Rep. Elijah Cummings
Rep. Rosa DeLauro
Rep. Elizabeth Esty
Rep. Lois Frankel
Rep. Ruben Kihuen
Rep. Grace Meng
Rep. Rick Nolan
Rep. Mark Pocan
Rep. Raul Ruiz
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Rep. Mark Takano
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Rep. Nydia Velázquez

Attorney General Xavier Becerra
Attorney General Bob Ferguson

AMERIPAC
CHC BOLD PAC
Daily Kos
Democratic Action
Democratic Party of Virginia
Democratic Party of Wisconsin
DLCC
DWS PAC
End Citizens United
Equality PAC
Florida Democratic Party
Grassroots Victory PAC
Left Action
National Democratic Training Committee
South Dakota Democratic Party

View user profile
Great idea but, at the present, not very realistic. A Special Counsel would have to be appointed by the Department of Justice which is controlled, with the exception of his limited recusal, by Satan, oops, Sessions, a notoriously illiberal creature.

There's certainly a critical mass of controversy but I don't think we're there yet.

Patience, grasshopper, we'll get there.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
The answer is no... just like it was under Obama. Get used to it.

View user profile
del.capslock wrote:Great idea but, at the present, not very realistic. A Special Counsel would have to be appointed by the Department of Justice which is controlled, with the exception of his limited recusal, by Satan, oops, Sessions, a notoriously illiberal creature.

There's certainly a critical mass of controversy but I don't think we're there yet.

Patience, grasshopper, we'll get there.

http://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/sessions-violated-two-recusal-oaths-in-comey-firing/

President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey raises grave concerns about preserving the rule of law in our nation. Among the many deeply disturbing aspects of this action is that the attorney general played an active role in the decision, in blatant violation of his recusal both in the very matter cited as the reason for the firing (Hillary Clinton’s emails), and in the investigation profoundly impacted by the firing (the Russia collusion investigation).

Sessions and Trump worked together to remove the central player in the FBI’s investigation of the campaign’s (and subsequently, the incoming administration’s) potentially illegal contacts and cooperation with Russia. The parallels to President Nixon’s firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox are clear, and they are ominous.

But since the White House claims that the firing is directly related to the Clinton email investigation, let’s look at that recusal violation first. During the election, Sessions supported and advised Donald Trump’s campaign, which included unsubstantiated accusations of criminal conduct by Clinton relating to her emails and repeated calls to “lock her up.” So when Sessions was nominated to be the chief law enforcement official in the land, it was obvious that his neutrality in any matter relating to Clinton’s emails would be in serious doubt.

In an exchange with Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on the first day of his confirmation hearing, Sessions vowed that he would recuse himself from “any question involving” Clinton’s emails:

[Chairman Chuck] GRASSLEY:

During the course of the presidential campaign, you made a number of statements about the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, relating to her handling of sensitive e-mails and regarding certain actions of the Clinton Foundation. You weren’t alone in that criticism. I was certainly critical in the same way as were millions of Americans on those matters, but now, you’ve been nominated to serve as attorney general. In light of those comments that you made, some have expressed concerns about whether you can approach the Clinton matter impartially in both fact and appearance. How do you plan to address those concerns?

SESSIONS:

Mr. Chairman, it was a highly contentious campaign. I, like a lot of people, made comments about the issues in that campaign. With regard to Secretary Clinton and some of the comments I made, I do believe that that could place my objectivity in question. I’ve given that thought. I believe the proper thing for me to do, would be to recuse myself from any questions involving those kind of investigations that involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during the campaign or to be otherwise connected to it.

GRASSLEY:

I think, that’s — let me emphasize then with a follow up question. To be very clear, you intend to recuse yourself from both the Clinton e-mail investigation and any matters involving the Clinton Foundation, if there are any?

SESSIONS:

Yes.
Urging Comey’s termination because of his actions in the email investigation is exactly the kind of action from which Sessions had promised to recuse himself—under oath, and under penalty of perjury.

So even before you get to the obstruction of the Russia investigation, Sessions has already taken an action that undermines the trust the American people have in his office.

But it’s the Russia investigation that is at the heart of this. No one believes that Comey’s actions almost a year ago are why Trump decided to fire him yesterday. But even if that were true, the action’s most important impact is on Comey’s investigation of the Trump campaign and White House ties to the Russian government and its manipulation of America’s presidential election to advantage Trump.

During the confirmation hearing, Sessions misled (to be charitable) the committee about contacts he’d had with Russian government officials during the campaign. After saying he’d had none, reports came out showing that was not true.

So when he took office, he formally recused himself not only from all matters relating to the Clinton email, but also all matters relating to the Russian sabotage of the election.

In Sessions’ recusal statement on March 2, the attorney general said:

I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.
How can recommending that the lead investigator of the Trump campaign’s potential collusion with Russia be fired NOT be in violation of this clear statement?

Even if Sessions had taken office without the slightest whiff of controversy, with no need for recusal, his actions as attorney general represent a dagger at the heart of our democracy and the rule of law. Our nation’s chief law enforcer has helped the president fire the man investigating his administration. The “lawyer for the people” has shown himself to be nothing more than a goon whose allegiance is to Donald Trump—the person—not to our country, our democracy, or our Constitution.

The fact that he did this in plain violation of his recusal commitments just adds to the outrage, showing just how little Jeff Sessions cares about the rule of law.

The nation cannot have faith in the independence, competence, and loyalty of this attorney general. He is aiding and abetting a presidential abuse of power designed to sabotage what may very well be the most important investigation in the nation’s history.

The rule of law protects us from arbitrary and tyrannical rule, and the Justice Department plays a central role in maintaining the rule of law. But when the attorney general himself violates his oath of recusal in order to help the president fire the official investigating his campaign, the danger to our democracy is exponentially heightened.

With Jeff Sessions’ fitness to serve as attorney general now in serious doubt, the Senate Judiciary Committee should exercise its oversight authority to have him explain his actions in this affair.

*************

View user profile
With all due respect, Floridatexan, you can post all the righteous leftie stuff you want but the fact remains that the Executive branch and both houses are in Republican hands. They're gonna enforce the laws the way they see fit. Dems do the same thing when they have the unified control.

It's not a question of legal or illegal, it's a matter of what laws get enforced. Until Trump alienates enough Republicans, nothing is going to get done.

But, not to worry, it won't be long. The guy can't help himself and every one of the self-inflicted controversies pisses off a few more of his stalwarts.

Meanwhile, pour yourself a frosty beverage, sit back and watch the show. This is the best political theater in decades.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Prosecutor Schmosecutor, this is a deflection of what is really coming down the pike. Hillary and many others are getting fitted for orange jumpsuits as they will soon have zero ties to the Justice Department.

View user profile
orange jumpsuits as they will soon have zero ties to the Justice Department.


So it was Hillary's ties to the Justice Department which kept her out of an orange jumpsuit? Who knew. Career FBI and Justice Department employees compromised their professional ethics to keep Hillary out of jail....or the elements of a crime were and still cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the answer is obvious, but I am all ears what law is going to put Hillary in an orange jumpsuit.

View user profile
If Comey did everything correctly, why then this?

http://fxn.ws/2r2qgzn

View user profile
Waiting wrote:If Comey did everything correctly, why then this?


I see you made the news:


View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Of course, now we find out this:
http://freedomdaily.com/young-congresswoman-comey-got-fired-came-forward-sick-thing-hiding/

View user profile
Waiting wrote:Of course, now we find out this:
http://freedomdaily.com/young-congresswoman-comey-got-fired-came-forward-sick-thing-hiding/

What bullshit! Buried down in the bottom of that swill is this:

"Of course, the left is saying that the reason that President Trump fired Comey was because of the Russian collusion investigation. However, we all know that is could not be further from the truth. They have dug all around President Trump and not one thing has been discovered that could be interpreted as scandalous."

Are you shitting me? You read this and believe it? Try this on for size, but it may not be to your liking. It's from a serious journal:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
If Comey did everything correctly, why then this?


The link is talking about Comey testifying before a committee. What does this have to do with putting Hillary in an Orange Jump suit? There are criminal investigations going on which the former FBI director as much as he would like to stoop to President Trump's level, he must keep silent to keep the integrity of the investigation. Also, revenge is a dish best served cold. For the FBI director to act unprofessional and respond to the goading, only provides cover to what increasingly looks like a criminal conspiracy.

View user profile
del.capslock wrote:
Waiting wrote:If Comey did everything correctly, why then this?


I see you made the news:



Oh, Lord. I had seen this but I didn't realize where it happened. Disgusting.

View user profile
James Comey Reportedly Willing to Testify, But Wants to Do So Publicly



Yesterday we reported that ousted FBI director James Comey declined an invitation from the Senate Intelligence Committee to testify next Tuesday. Well, it seems that Comey is actually willing to testify, just not behind closed doors.

His testimony next week reportedly would have been behind closed doors, but according to The New York Times, he wants to go public if he does testify:



http://www.mediaite.com/online/james-comey-reportedly-willing-to-testify-but-wants-to-do-so-publicly/

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum