🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Rosenstein has balls

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.

Right to know what? Evidence from an ongoing investigation that has not been completed where that very evidence exposed can be used by those under investigation? Are you out of your mind? That would be like telling a suspected murderer everything the investigators know, there by helping the suspected murderer who happens to be guilty. You people can't be this stupid.
 
/——/ 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?
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?[/QUOTE] This really makes no sense.
 
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?
I do know them.
 
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.

The House Intel Committee does not have the right to receive the information and leak it to the White House or leak it publicly. Comey and McCabe are not going to prison.
 
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.

Right to know what? Evidence from an ongoing investigation that has not been completed where that very evidence exposed can be used by those under investigation? Are you out of your mind? That would be like telling a suspected murderer everything the investigators know, there by helping the suspected murderer who happens to be guilty. You people can't be this stupid.

/----/ "that would be like telling a suspected murderer everything the investigators know,"
Try doing some research before you post. Your lack of knowledge is appalling. And you're calling me stupid.
The Constitution requires that the prosecution disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence within its possession or control.
Updated January 27, 2016
Criminal Discovery: The Right to Evidence Disclosure - Lawyers.com
Criminal Discovery: The Right to Evidence Disclosure
Someone who’s been formally accused of a crime is normally entitled to certain kinds of evidence and information. In general, a defendant has a right to receive this kind of material, called “discovery,” before trial. But the prosecution’s duty to hand over discovery is usually ongoing—it doesn’t end merely because a trial has begun.
 
/----/ 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.
/-----/ Well you're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
The Constitution requires that the prosecution disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence within its possession or control.
 
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.
/-----/ Well you're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
The Constitution requires that the prosecution disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence within its possession or control.

To the defense. You got that right?
 
Right to know what? Evidence from an ongoing investigation that has not been completed where that very evidence exposed can be used by those under investigation? Are you out of your mind? That would be like telling a suspected murderer everything the investigators know, there by helping the suspected murderer who happens to be guilty. You people can't be this stupid.

Yes, anyone who believes Devin Nunes is entitled to this information is literally out of their mind and living in some sort of alternate reality. Devin and his Donald Interference pals KNOW that their request is out of bounds, but they'll continue to ask for more and more outrageous things to alter public perception of the investigation. Their goals are transparent as hell. Either a) force RR out, b) make their base believe that this investigation has gone on for too long or c) sully Mueller's ultimate report.

Rosenstein has integrity - Sadly they do not :(
 
Right to know what? Evidence from an ongoing investigation that has not been completed where that very evidence exposed can be used by those under investigation? Are you out of your mind? That would be like telling a suspected murderer everything the investigators know, there by helping the suspected murderer who happens to be guilty. You people can't be this stupid.

Yes, anyone who believes Devin Nunes is entitled to this information is literally out of their mind and living in some sort of alternate reality. Devin and his Donald Interference pals KNOW that their request is out of bounds, but they'll continue to ask for more and more outrageous things to alter public perception of the investigation. Their goals are transparent as hell. Either a) force RR out, b) make their base believe that this investigation has gone on for too long or c) sully Mueller's ultimate report.

Rosenstein has integrity - Sadly they do not :(
/----/ Once again, for you Slow on the Uptake Libtards: The Constitution requires that the prosecution disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence within its possession or control.
 
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.”



Trump needs to send in 82nd Airborne and seize the records, cell phones, laptops and wiretap their lawyers too. That's how the Mule's Team rolls
 
Right to know what? Evidence from an ongoing investigation that has not been completed where that very evidence exposed can be used by those under investigation? Are you out of your mind? That would be like telling a suspected murderer everything the investigators know, there by helping the suspected murderer who happens to be guilty. You people can't be this stupid.

Yes, anyone who believes Devin Nunes is entitled to this information is literally out of their mind and living in some sort of alternate reality. Devin and his Donald Interference pals KNOW that their request is out of bounds, but they'll continue to ask for more and more outrageous things to alter public perception of the investigation. Their goals are transparent as hell. Either a) force RR out, b) make their base believe that this investigation has gone on for too long or c) sully Mueller's ultimate report.

Rosenstein has integrity - Sadly they do not :(

Obama must be your lawyer
 
/——/ Trump is Turing is I to a banana republic?? That’s the dumbest thing you’ve ever posted. Why are you lashing out blindly?

Read a book -

https://www.amazon.com/How-Democrac...-1&keywords=how+democracies+die&tag=ff0d01-20
https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Warn...eywords=fascism+a+warning&psc=1&tag=ff0d01-20

This is precisely how democracies die.

Trump wants to run all three branches of government like an autocratic tyrant in the style of Putin, Erdogan or Duterte. That you fail to see that may be the dumbest thing YOU'VE ever posted.
 
Last edited:
Right to know what? Evidence from an ongoing investigation that has not been completed where that very evidence exposed can be used by those under investigation? Are you out of your mind? That would be like telling a suspected murderer everything the investigators know, there by helping the suspected murderer who happens to be guilty. You people can't be this stupid.

Yes, anyone who believes Devin Nunes is entitled to this information is literally out of their mind and living in some sort of alternate reality. Devin and his Donald Interference pals KNOW that their request is out of bounds, but they'll continue to ask for more and more outrageous things to alter public perception of the investigation. Their goals are transparent as hell. Either a) force RR out, b) make their base believe that this investigation has gone on for too long or c) sully Mueller's ultimate report.

Rosenstein has integrity - Sadly they do not :(

Obama must be your lawyer
If he was, he would certainly beat the hell out of this stupidity from the Right that I just outlined.
 
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.

Anyone who doesn't agree with your Orange God is an "Obama sycophant" - whether true or a total fairy tale.
 
Right to know what? Evidence from an ongoing investigation that has not been completed where that very evidence exposed can be used by those under investigation? Are you out of your mind? That would be like telling a suspected murderer everything the investigators know, there by helping the suspected murderer who happens to be guilty. You people can't be this stupid.

Yes, anyone who believes Devin Nunes is entitled to this information is literally out of their mind and living in some sort of alternate reality. Devin and his Donald Interference pals KNOW that their request is out of bounds, but they'll continue to ask for more and more outrageous things to alter public perception of the investigation. Their goals are transparent as hell. Either a) force RR out, b) make their base believe that this investigation has gone on for too long or c) sully Mueller's ultimate report.

Rosenstein has integrity - Sadly they do not :(
/----/ Once again, for you Slow on the Uptake Libtards: The Constitution requires that the prosecution disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence within its possession or control.
Except for the fact that the defense,( House Intelligence fraud committee) who proved to be dishonest by doing these midnight runs to the WH to inform the very criminals under investigation, and have sided with the defense for the defense, when they were elected to be neutral, have obstructed this investigation. No, they are not entitled to anything.
 
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.”



Trump needs to send in 82nd Airborne and seize the records, cell phones, laptops and wiretap their lawyers too. That's how the Mule's Team rolls

Except that's actually a lie.
 
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.

The last thing Rosenstein gave them was leaked in the first hour.

Why should he give them anything else? ---> They cannot be trusted.

indict-facebook-com-straightblue-devin-nunes-obstruction-of-justice-he-delivered-sensitive-28724750.png
 
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?


The American people have NO right to know until the investigation is complete.

Are you daft? *Don't answer that question :rolleyes-41:
 

Forum List

Back
Top