570
Q!UW.yye1fxo 01/21/2018 14:06:20 ID
Will SESSIONS drop the hammer?
1 of 22 Q
3385 Q !!mG7VJxZNCI07/09/2019 12:37:54 ID:8c9882
You didn't think the Epstein investigation began a few months ago did you? It was all under the direction and oversight of AG Jeff Sessions. Expect a lot more to become public (unsealing). Q
1553
Q!CbboFOtcZs 06/18/2018 20:19:33 ID: 502ea1
“Attorney General Jeff Sessions has also said U.S. Attorney John Huber is investigating claims of FBI and DOJ misconduct related to these actions, noting that Huber would be “conducting his work from outside the Washington D.C. area and “in cooperation” with Horowitz.” Q
2452
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI 11/07/2018 16:02:17 ID:
Thank you for your service to our Country, Mr. Jeff Sessions! Your sacrifices will never be forgotten. Q+
Lots more on Q posts.
Oh, nonsense. This is the process to replace an absent president and vice president. You have no other alternative. And you are trying to argue that the Constitutional procedure is---what?---invalid? Sorry, but that is ridiculous.
Second-guessing history is a fool's hobby. Nixon and Agnew could have been shot dead and it would have been the same result. Or they could have collapsed from heart attacks. All along, Agnew had the clear option NOT to be corrupt, but he was, and resigned office. "The cabal" had nothing to do with his corruption. He shot himself in the foot. At least Ford was not corrupt. Nixon was a slightly different story, but he did not stand his ground, and resigned.
I'm arguing no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. Constitutional processes can be manipulated to give an outcome that was never intended by that process. Birthright citizenship and counting illegals in the decennial census are two examples. 2020 electoral college certification would be another.
As to Agnew specifically, I don't know if the corruption charges were founded in fact or if it was a frame job (I believe they were true but historical "facts" from that era seem particularly tainted,IMO). A strong case could be made against 90% of politicians for the same allegations Agnew faced if a prosecutor dug hard enough but somehow that rarely happens. General Flynn pleaded Guilty to giving false statements. Trump was found Guilty on 34 felony counts, would you like to argue the merits of those historical "facts"? Probably not - arguing history is a "fools hobby" and you're too smart for that.
And, likewise, don't construe an honest question as putting words in your mouth. Good that you gave an answer. It just means that you have no alternative to the facts of the matter.
No constitutional process was "manipulated" to force Agnew to resign. It was the fruit of his own damned corruption. The "process" has no "intention" except to be followed. What happened was exactly in accordance with the process, and therefore fulfilled the intention of the process. You don't like the result? You get to explain how there could be a different result from the same circumstances.
Agnew was receiving kickbacks from a government contract award...still while he was Vice President, so it wasn't just a prior offense. They even tried to shield him from the inquiry. You couldn't possibly prove that 90% of politicians committed the same crimes, even if that was a true statement. Agnew maintained his innocence all along, but was undone by witness testimony to the contrary and accounting evidence. Jeeze, I wish you guys would do some due diligence before wrapping yourself in the "it's all a conspiracy" blanket. I lived through the historical facts, so they don't seem "tainted" to me. How old are you? (I often ask this, and seldom get an answer.)
Have a nice argument with yourself from now on. You seem incapable of having disagreements without feebly attempting to insinuate that those that disagree with you are somehow fools not worthy of your time. My age is unimportant to this conversation, as is yours - and that is why you "seldom get an answer" because their age is not important in those comments either. You appear like a very disagreeable person or maybe that's your mission here, sew discord. Machs nichs. I'll never comment on anything you ever post again because all you ever seem to do is start arguments - that's who you are, no matter what your age is. No asshole like an old asshole.
Nope. You started this by making a totally unsupported assertion about the movement of Ford into the presidency. I called this out and asked you if you could identify a better institutional outcome. So far, you have failed to support your original position and have never answered my question. I find it is common for people with no argument to get upset over an argumentative challenge to their unsupported statements. Bad self-image. And I have a growing suspicion that willful disregard of history comes from being too young to have seen it in person. (Especially from the Moon Hoaxers, who clearly don't know what they are talking about.) I did get one person to answer, and he and I were of an age, so that was a nice point of commonality.
Don't expect me to not comment on your future posts. Time will tell.