colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
- 1,465
Iām much better informed than you. Thatās what happens when you arenāt afraid to have your beliefs questioned.You think Obama used real prosecutors and processes to investigate hillary?Yeah, thatās the problem. Lack of āreal prosecutorsā.then we also need a REAL PROCECUTOR to go after hillary, obama, brennan and so many others. funny at the time they said BUT THIS IS THE GOV YOU MUST TRUST.The real prosecutor who lied multiple times saying that he turned everything of concern over to the defense? Even if you INCORRECTLY think the evidence turned over is not exculpatory, it certainly went against Sullivanās standing order to not turn over anything of relevance at all (meaning even if it makes the defendant look bad, or is considered inconsequential). And itās impossible to argue that any of that was irrelevant. Van Gack fucked up big. Should receive a bar hearing, even though he āprotestedā and took his ball home with him. The only real protest wouldāve been to stay on and explain why the evidence he didnāt turn over was neither exculpatory nor relevant. The latter being impossible, the former being outlandish.It needs to go back to a real prosecutor, not Barrās political hack.This case needs a new look with a new judge.....
now suddenly the gov is a hack.
and they wonder why they have credibility issues.
I donāt think Obama did anything. He wasnāt involved in any decisions made about the investigation.
The IG discusses how the investigation was staffed, entirely with career prosecutors who were not chosen by any political appointee. Youāll find the discussion on page 46 of the IG report.
So based on this, Iād say yes they were ārealā prosecutors.
Would you say otherwise?
It is just amusing to watch people such as yourself who are so uninformed and so unable to draw reasonable conclusions using evidentiary information available to all - act as if they are superior in any manner.