Rosenstein has balls

[Crepitus]

It's amazing just how completely they brainwash and pull the wool over peoples eyes like the OP.
Sad......but amazing.

He's the ultimate Chicken cheering for good ole Col Sanders....and CLUE-less.

Republican, appointed by republicans, confirmed by republicans.

Next stupid comment?

So you are of the opinion that Democrats have a monopoly on stupidity?

That is a statistically debatable proposition.

How does that in any way relate to my post?

.
Is this a trick question?

It's not that hard dude. The post I responded to said rosenstein was an "Obama sycophant". He's not. He is a republican, appointed by republicans, confirmed by republicans.
As far as your question, emprical evidence confirms republicans, particularly trumpkins, have a lock on stupid at the moment.

So I guess it was pretty stupid of Republicans to appoint an Obama sycophant.

They do this stuff all the time. So your theory that only Democrats do stupid things is wrong.

LMAO!! He predates President Obama.

 

[percysunshine]

It's amazing just how completely they brainwash and pull the wool over peoples eyes like the OP.
Sad......but amazing.

He's the ultimate Chicken cheering for good ole Col Sanders....and CLUE-less.

So you are of the opinion that Democrats have a monopoly on stupidity?

That is a statistically debatable proposition.

How does that in any way relate to my post?

.
Is this a trick question?

It's not that hard dude. The post I responded to said rosenstein was an "Obama sycophant". He's not. He is a republican, appointed by republicans, confirmed by republicans.
As far as your question, emprical evidence confirms republicans, particularly trumpkins, have a lock on stupid at the moment.

So I guess it was pretty stupid of Republicans to appoint an Obama sycophant.

They do this stuff all the time. So your theory that only Democrats do stupid things is wrong.

LMAO!! He predates President Obama.

He predates Obama?

Does Michelle know?

 

[Crepitus]

How does that in any way relate to my post?

.
Is this a trick question?

It's not that hard dude. The post I responded to said rosenstein was an "Obama sycophant". He's not. He is a republican, appointed by republicans, confirmed by republicans.
As far as your question, emprical evidence confirms republicans, particularly trumpkins, have a lock on stupid at the moment.

So I guess it was pretty stupid of Republicans to appoint an Obama sycophant.

They do this stuff all the time. So your theory that only Democrats do stupid things is wrong.

LMAO!! He predates President Obama.

He predates Obama?

Does Michelle know?

Ok, just because I know you are conservative and thus kinda stupid I will define the word "predates" for you.

It means to have happened or arrived at an earlier time.

Now do you understand?

 

[percysunshine]

.
Is this a trick question?

It's not that hard dude. The post I responded to said rosenstein was an "Obama sycophant". He's not. He is a republican, appointed by republicans, confirmed by republicans.
As far as your question, emprical evidence confirms republicans, particularly trumpkins, have a lock on stupid at the moment.

So I guess it was pretty stupid of Republicans to appoint an Obama sycophant.

They do this stuff all the time. So your theory that only Democrats do stupid things is wrong.

LMAO!! He predates President Obama.

He predates Obama?

Does Michelle know?

Ok, just because I know you are conservative and thus kinda stupid I will define the word "predates" for you.

It means to have happened or arrived at an earlier time.

Now do you understand?

So this is like you having an orgasm before your date can put the condom on. Predate...got it...

 

[Coyote]

Kudos to Rod for standing up to the rule of law - AND Devin Nunes!

No you little putz - I am not going to give you the unredacted memo from an ongoing investigation, which you will promptly run up to the White House around midnight in order to give your Orange God a leg up on Mueller - So go ahead and impeach me!

From remarks at Law Day Celebration:

In 1941, Congressman Carl Vinson wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Jackson. He requested FBI and DOJ reports made in connection with an investigation of labor disputes involving Navy contracts. Vinson’s committee had oversight for such issues, which is why he wanted the documents.

Attorney General Jackson flatly refused the request. He did not compromise at all. Jackson explained that disclosing investigative reports would harm the national interest in a number of different ways.

First, it would “seriously prejudice law enforcement” by providing defense counsel with the government’s confidential impressions of the case.

Second, disclosing certain investigative reports would give aid to our enemies and jeopardize our national security.

Third, investigative reports often contain information about witnesses and informants. Releasing the information could stifle the FBI’s ability to obtain sources and could even put lives at risk.

The fourth reason is often overlooked. Jackson explained that handing over the documents could harm the reputations of innocent people. Being a subject of an investigation – or even a target – is not the same as being guilty of a crime. The Department of Justice conducts many investigations that never see the light of day because there is insufficient evidence to support the allegations.

When we conclude an investigation without filing charges, we do not announce our findings. We are not the judge and jury. If we cannot prove our case beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no case.

When Attorney General Jackson responded to the Congress in 1941, he referenced case law, statements by prior Presidents, and letters from six other Attorneys General.

Jackson explained that declining to open the FBI’s files to review by congressional members and staff is an “unpleasant duty,” but it is in keeping with the separation of powers embodied in our constitutional system. To illustrate his point, Jackson quoted a Supreme Court opinion explaining that it is “essential to the successful working of this system that the persons intrusted with power in any one of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the powers confided to others, but that each shall by the law of its creation be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department.”​

/----/ Libtards demand Trump should testify because if he has nothing to hide what's he worried about? In the same breath, Librards demand the crucial evidence of the FISA Warrant be kept secret because it's none of our beeswax.
View attachment 191950

Who are you? Are you part of the investigation that you should have access to evidence from a FISA warrant with an investigation that is still ongoing?

/——/ Yes, the American people have the right to know. They work for us, we don’t work for them. These assclowns are trying to unseat our duly elected president and we should see the warrant.

No they don't.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Kudos to Rod for standing up to the rule of law

That alone is reason enough for removal...what was he thinking for goodness sake?

 

[Tom Horn]

No because it is part of a ongoing criminal investigation. It also could contain classified intelligence information. Worth noting that Nunes was able to view the document and didn't bother opening up the folder.

Wrong....the House intel committee has the same security clearance Rosenstein has....and it's his pals Comey and McCabe who did the leaking and both are headed to prison, not Trump.

 

[Crepitus]

It's not that hard dude. The post I responded to said rosenstein was an "Obama sycophant". He's not. He is a republican, appointed by republicans, confirmed by republicans.
As far as your question, emprical evidence confirms republicans, particularly trumpkins, have a lock on stupid at the moment.

So I guess it was pretty stupid of Republicans to appoint an Obama sycophant.

They do this stuff all the time. So your theory that only Democrats do stupid things is wrong.

LMAO!! He predates President Obama.

He predates Obama?

Does Michelle know?

Ok, just because I know you are conservative and thus kinda stupid I will define the word "predates" for you.

It means to have happened or arrived at an earlier time.

Now do you understand?

So this is like you having an orgasm before your date can put the condom on. Predate...got it...

Don't be stupider than you have to be.

 

[percysunshine]

So I guess it was pretty stupid of Republicans to appoint an Obama sycophant.

They do this stuff all the time. So your theory that only Democrats do stupid things is wrong.

LMAO!! He predates President Obama.

He predates Obama?

Does Michelle know?

Ok, just because I know you are conservative and thus kinda stupid I will define the word "predates" for you.

It means to have happened or arrived at an earlier time.

Now do you understand?

So this is like you having an orgasm before your date can put the condom on. Predate...got it...

Don't be stupider than you have to be.

You set the bar for the limbo dance. I don't think I can best your record.

 

[Crepitus]

LMAO!! He predates President Obama.

He predates Obama?

Does Michelle know?

Ok, just because I know you are conservative and thus kinda stupid I will define the word "predates" for you.

It means to have happened or arrived at an earlier time.

Now do you understand?

So this is like you having an orgasm before your date can put the condom on. Predate...got it...

Don't be stupider than you have to be.

You set the bar for the limbo dance. I don't think I can best your record.

All I can do I shake my head. I offer good advice, and you ignore it.

 

[Tom Horn]

All I can do I shake my head. I offer good advice, and you ignore it.

The mods will figure out who you were before and ban you again.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Kudos to Rod for standing up to the rule of law - AND Devin Nunes!

No you little putz - I am not going to give you the unredacted memo from an ongoing investigation, which you will promptly run up to the White House around midnight in order to give your Orange God a leg up on Mueller - So go ahead and impeach me!

From remarks at Law Day Celebration:

In 1941, Congressman Carl Vinson wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Jackson. He requested FBI and DOJ reports made in connection with an investigation of labor disputes involving Navy contracts. Vinson’s committee had oversight for such issues, which is why he wanted the documents.

Attorney General Jackson flatly refused the request. He did not compromise at all. Jackson explained that disclosing investigative reports would harm the national interest in a number of different ways.

First, it would “seriously prejudice law enforcement” by providing defense counsel with the government’s confidential impressions of the case.

Second, disclosing certain investigative reports would give aid to our enemies and jeopardize our national security.

Third, investigative reports often contain information about witnesses and informants. Releasing the information could stifle the FBI’s ability to obtain sources and could even put lives at risk.

The fourth reason is often overlooked. Jackson explained that handing over the documents could harm the reputations of innocent people. Being a subject of an investigation – or even a target – is not the same as being guilty of a crime. The Department of Justice conducts many investigations that never see the light of day because there is insufficient evidence to support the allegations.

When we conclude an investigation without filing charges, we do not announce our findings. We are not the judge and jury. If we cannot prove our case beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no case.

When Attorney General Jackson responded to the Congress in 1941, he referenced case law, statements by prior Presidents, and letters from six other Attorneys General.

Jackson explained that declining to open the FBI’s files to review by congressional members and staff is an “unpleasant duty,” but it is in keeping with the separation of powers embodied in our constitutional system. To illustrate his point, Jackson quoted a Supreme Court opinion explaining that it is “essential to the successful working of this system that the persons intrusted with power in any one of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the powers confided to others, but that each shall by the law of its creation be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department.”​

/----/ Libtards demand Trump should testify because if he has nothing to hide what's he worried about? In the same breath, Librards demand the crucial evidence of the FISA Warrant be kept secret because it's none of our beeswax.
View attachment 191950

Who are you? Are you part of the investigation that you should have access to evidence from a FISA warrant with an investigation that is still ongoing?

/——/ Yes, the American people have the right to know. They work for us, we don’t work for them. These assclowns are trying to unseat our duly elected president and we should see the warrant.

No they don't.

Are you saying the American people don't have a right to know?

 

[Coyote]

Kudos to Rod for standing up to the rule of law - AND Devin Nunes!

No you little putz - I am not going to give you the unredacted memo from an ongoing investigation, which you will promptly run up to the White House around midnight in order to give your Orange God a leg up on Mueller - So go ahead and impeach me!

From remarks at Law Day Celebration:

In 1941, Congressman Carl Vinson wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Jackson. He requested FBI and DOJ reports made in connection with an investigation of labor disputes involving Navy contracts. Vinson’s committee had oversight for such issues, which is why he wanted the documents.

Attorney General Jackson flatly refused the request. He did not compromise at all. Jackson explained that disclosing investigative reports would harm the national interest in a number of different ways.

First, it would “seriously prejudice law enforcement” by providing defense counsel with the government’s confidential impressions of the case.

Second, disclosing certain investigative reports would give aid to our enemies and jeopardize our national security.

Third, investigative reports often contain information about witnesses and informants. Releasing the information could stifle the FBI’s ability to obtain sources and could even put lives at risk.

The fourth reason is often overlooked. Jackson explained that handing over the documents could harm the reputations of innocent people. Being a subject of an investigation – or even a target – is not the same as being guilty of a crime. The Department of Justice conducts many investigations that never see the light of day because there is insufficient evidence to support the allegations.

When we conclude an investigation without filing charges, we do not announce our findings. We are not the judge and jury. If we cannot prove our case beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no case.

When Attorney General Jackson responded to the Congress in 1941, he referenced case law, statements by prior Presidents, and letters from six other Attorneys General.

Jackson explained that declining to open the FBI’s files to review by congressional members and staff is an “unpleasant duty,” but it is in keeping with the separation of powers embodied in our constitutional system. To illustrate his point, Jackson quoted a Supreme Court opinion explaining that it is “essential to the successful working of this system that the persons intrusted with power in any one of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the powers confided to others, but that each shall by the law of its creation be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department.”​

/----/ Libtards demand Trump should testify because if he has nothing to hide what's he worried about? In the same breath, Librards demand the crucial evidence of the FISA Warrant be kept secret because it's none of our beeswax.
View attachment 191950

Who are you? Are you part of the investigation that you should have access to evidence from a FISA warrant with an investigation that is still ongoing?

/——/ Yes, the American people have the right to know. They work for us, we don’t work for them. These assclowns are trying to unseat our duly elected president and we should see the warrant.

No they don't.

Are you saying the American people don't have a right to know?

FBI, DoJ, Judges, etc all all publically paid. Does that mean the public has a right to all the evidence, in every case? I don't think so.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I know Crepitus from a different site. Quite capable of a poster. Leftist shill and obnoxious though, so I don't like him. He can prove a point up to an extent. Idk what else to say, bastard's as good as I am at proving points almost. I definitely don't like him.

 

[Marion Morrison]

/----/ Libtards demand Trump should testify because if he has nothing to hide what's he worried about? In the same breath, Librards demand the crucial evidence of the FISA Warrant be kept secret because it's none of our beeswax.
View attachment 191950

Who are you? Are you part of the investigation that you should have access to evidence from a FISA warrant with an investigation that is still ongoing?

/——/ Yes, the American people have the right to know. They work for us, we don’t work for them. These assclowns are trying to unseat our duly elected president and we should see the warrant.

No they don't.

Are you saying the American people don't have a right to know?

FBI, DoJ, Judges, etc all all publically paid. Does that mean the public has a right to all the evidence, in every case? I don't think so.

I'm going to say not immediately, but eventually on that.

 

[Crepitus]

All I can do I shake my head. I offer good advice, and you ignore it.

The mods will figure out who you were before and ban you again.

LMAO! That would be a neat trick, since I've never been here before.

 

[Marion Morrison]

All I can do I shake my head. I offer good advice, and you ignore it.

The mods will figure out who you were before and ban you again.

LMAO! That would be a neat trick, since I've never been here before.

I know where you came from. I've been here so long, I can't even remember the assholes there.


Mal was there. Wtf are the names of the asshole SJW mods there I hated?

They don't like Hamburger Boy. dank69 is a faggot.

 

[Coyote]

Who are you? Are you part of the investigation that you should have access to evidence from a FISA warrant with an investigation that is still ongoing?

/——/ Yes, the American people have the right to know. They work for us, we don’t work for them. These assclowns are trying to unseat our duly elected president and we should see the warrant.

No they don't.

Are you saying the American people don't have a right to know?

FBI, DoJ, Judges, etc all all publically paid. Does that mean the public has a right to all the evidence, in every case? I don't think so.

I'm going to say not immediately, but eventually on that.

I disagree, and that is because - as I read in another article - many people can become "subjects of interest" or "targets" of an investigation, but an investigation doesn't yield enough - or maybe anything - for a criminal indictment. Should that become public knowledge? Do those people deserve to have their reputations shredded simply because they were looked at at some point?

 

[Crepitus]

All I can do I shake my head. I offer good advice, and you ignore it.

The mods will figure out who you were before and ban you again.

LMAO! That would be a neat trick, since I've never been here before.

I know where you came from. I've been here so long, I can't even remember the assholes there.


Mal was there. Wtf are the names of the asshole SJW mods there I hated?

They don't like Hamburger Boy. dank69 is a faggot.

None of those names are familiar

 

[Marion Morrison]

All I can do I shake my head. I offer good advice, and you ignore it.

The mods will figure out who you were before and ban you again.

LMAO! That would be a neat trick, since I've never been here before.

I know where you came from. I've been here so long, I can't even remember the assholes there.


Mal was there. Wtf are the names of the asshole SJW mods there I hated?

They don't like Hamburger Boy. dank69 is a faggot.

None of those names are familiar

Hmm, how about del or exotixx?