Thread: DOJ'S NEW LEADER Says He'd Do To Hillary What Sessions Didn't Do!

Rush Limbaugh Radio




DOJ'S NEW LEADER Says He'd Do To Hillary What Sessions Didn't Do! * 100PercentFedUp.com

29 Comments
59 shares

DOJ’S NEW LEADER Says He’d Do To Hillary What Sessions Didn’t Do!

Nov 7, 2018

The Democrats are going crazy about the replacement for Jeff Sessions who resigned today. Even though Matthew Whitaker is the Acting Attorney General, the left is all over him because he once said the Mueller investigation went too far.
So far, we’re thinking this new leader is a perfect choice to go after Hillary and shut down the Mueller investigation.
You can see Whitaker shaking hands with Sessions as Sessions leaves the DOJ today for his final day as leader of the Department of Justice. You can’t miss Whitaker because he’s the big guy in the video who was once a football player for the Iowa Hawkeyes.

ABC News ✔ @ABC

Video at the tweet

NEW: Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions exits the Department of Justice to applause by colleagues and staff after submitting his resignation at Pres. Trump's request. https://abcn.ws/2QrZpGq

5:37 PM - Nov 7, 2018

• 136
• 95 people are talking about this

Matthew Whitaker is on our team, unlike Sessions who was timid at best when it came to the Clintons and Hillary’s email scandal. Check out what Whitaker said about Hillary Clinton in 2016:
Whitaker penned an opinion piece in 2016 for USA Today:
According to FBI Director James Comey’s statement on Tuesday, former secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have been charged with violating several different code sections, and he detailed the evidence that supports bringing criminal charges.
Yet, Director Comey’s judgment was that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case. I disagree. I believe myself to have been a reasonable prosecutor, and when the facts and evidence show a criminal violation has been committed, the individuals involved should not dictate whether the case is prosecuted…

…A reasonable prosecutor may ask, if on numerous occasions, an unknown State Department employee had taken top secret information from a secured system, emailed that information on a Gmail account, and stored the information on a personal server for years, would that individual be prosecuted? I believe they would




https://100percentfedup.com/dojs-new...ions-didnt-do/

Rod Rosenstein no longer overseeing Russia probe

By Tamar Lapin
November 7, 2018 | 3:32pm | Updated



Rod Rosenstein Getty Images

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is no longer overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian election meddling — following the resignation of Jeff Sessions.
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker will now oversee the investigation, a Justice Department spokeswoman said.
“The Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice,” said spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores.
In a 2017 opinion piece, Whitaker called for Mueller to “limit the scope of his investigation.”

The investigation was being managed by Rosenstein because Sessions had recused himself.

https://nypost.com/2018/11/07/rod-ro...3urczv8iVlJO8M

Trump on prosecuting Clinton: ‘I don’t want to hurt' her

BY CYRA MASTER - 11/13/16 07:42 PM EST 1,018


Speaking to “60 Minutes” Sunday night in his first major interview since being elected, Donald Trump dodged questions about Hillary Clinton.


On the campaign trail, Trump dubbed his Democratic rival “crooked Hillary” and pledged to prosecute her over her use of a private email server while secretary of State.

“She did some bad things, I mean she did some bad things,” Trump said.

But when asked about his previous statements about appointing a special prosecutor to go after Clinton, Trump changed course.

“I don't want to hurt them, I don't want to hurt them. They’re, they’re good people,” he said.

“I don't want to hurt them," he said again. "And I will give you a very, very good and definitive answer the next time we do ‘60 Minutes’together.

​https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/305808-trump-on-prosecuting-clinton-i-dont-want-to-hurt-her

Rod Rosenstein OUT

By Steve Straub
November 7, 2018 at 4:44pm

Rod Rosenstein is officially out as overseer of the Mueller investigation:
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is no longer overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian election meddling — following the resignation of Jeff Sessions.
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker will now oversee the investigation, a Justice Department spokeswoman said.
“The Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice,” said spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores.
New acting Attorney General Whitaker is no fan of the investigation and is on the record, when he was a CNN analyst, destroying the investigation and saying it was going too far.
Last month, when President Donald Trump was asked by The New York Times if special counsel Robert Mueller would be crossing a line if he started investigating the finances of Trump and his family, the President said, “I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia.”
The President is absolutely correct. Mueller has come up to a red line in the Russia 2016 election-meddling investigation that he is dangerously close to crossing.
According to a CNN article, Mueller’s investigators could be looking into financial records relating to the Trump Organization that are unrelated to the 2016 election. According to these reports, “sources described an investigation that has widened to focus on possible financial crimes, some unconnected to the 2016 election.” The piece goes on to cite law enforcement sources who say non-Russia-related leads that “involve Trump associates” are being referred to the special counsel “to encourage subjects of the investigation to cooperate.”
This information is deeply concerning to me. It does not take a lawyer or even a former federal prosecutor like myself to conclude that investigating Donald Trump’s finances or his family’s finances falls completely outside of the realm of his 2016 campaign and allegations that the campaign coordinated with the Russian government or anyone else. That goes beyond the scope of the appointment of the special counsel.
In fact, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s letter appointing special counsel Robert Mueller does not give Mueller broad, far-reaching powers in this investigation. He is only authorized to investigate matters that involved any potential links to and coordination between two entities — the Trump campaign and the Russian government. People are wrongly pointing to, and taking out of context, the phrase “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” to characterize special counsel’s authority as broad.
The word “investigation” is clearly defined directly preceding it in the same sentence specifically as coordination between individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump and Russia. The Trump Organization’s business dealings are plainly not within the scope of the investigation, nor should they be.
Indeed, Sunday on Fox News, Rod Rosenstein acknowledged Mueller had limited authority and would need to seek his permission to expand the investigation.
Beyond the legal reading, the broad authority argument defies plain logic: If the special counsel could investigate anything he wants, why would there even need to be a letter spelling out the specific limits of the investigation?
If he were to continue to investigate the financial relationships without a broadened scope in his appointment, then this would raise serious concerns that the special counsel’s investigation was a mere witch hunt. If Mueller is indeed going down this path, Rosenstein should act to ensure the investigation is within its jurisdiction and within the authority of the original directive.
I’ve prosecuted several financial crimes at the federal level and I’ve also defended plenty in my private practice. From this unique vantage point, I can understand how a motivated prosecutor, in a broad investigation into the financial affairs of high-profile individuals, can become overzealous toward the targets of such probes — with calamitous results. While no one is above the law, in situations such as this, any seasoned prosecutor must use discretion both judiciously and expertly.
The writing is on the wall and Robert Mueller is headed out the door.|

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opin...8vCkNYDJ6tu_fM

Panic in DC

Gateway Pundit

LOCK HER UP!

Acting AG Matthew Whitaker: I Would Indict Hillary Clinton

85 Comments
265 shares
1.1K

by Jim Hoft November 7, 2018 431 Comments



Lock her up!

As Cristina Laila reported earlier…
Jeff Sessions turned in his resignation Wednesday afternoon and the President announced Matthew Whitaker will take over his position as Acting Attorney General.

Whitaker is also taking over Rosenstein’s job overseeing the Mueller witch hunt.
Matthew Whitaker is described as a “Trump loyalist” who has been privately described as the West Wing’s “eyes and ears” in the Justice Department, says the New York Times.
In August of 2017, Matthew Whitaker penned an op-ed for CNN titled, “Mueller’s Investigation of Trump is Going Too Far” wherein he argued the Special Counsel is roving outside of his jurisdiction to investigate Trump-Russia collusion.

And there’s more…
in July 2016, before the presidential election, Matthew Whitaker penned an opinion piece for USA today where he argued that Hillary Clinton should be locked up.
Whitaker wrote:

According to FBI Director James Comey’s statement on Tuesday, former secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have been charged with violating several different code sections, and he detailed the evidence that supports bringing criminal charges.
Yet, Director Comey’s judgment was that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case. I disagree. I believe myself to have been a reasonable prosecutor, and when the facts and evidence show a criminal violation has been committed, the individuals involved should not dictate whether the case is prosecuted…
…A reasonable prosecutor may ask, if on numerous occasions, an unknown State Department employee had taken top secret information from a secured system, emailed that information on a Gmail account, and stored the information on a personal server for years, would that individual be prosecuted? I believe they would.

Hat Tip T. Wictor

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...BqodxL4BiQD1B8