Is the Special Counsel REALLY still needed at this point?

You still need Mueller’s report.

Absolutely. They just need to shift gears to another case

Rosenstein is central to the "insurance policy" strategy. Levin stated the Constitutional Basis where in Trump can NOT be prosecuted. He can only be Impeached.

This is a dirt-digging expedition to give the Dems ammo for Impeachment. The raid on Cohen was a last ditch effort.

And anybody that is party to this should be thrown in a dark dungeon cell...with Hillary.

quote:

---

You still need Mueller’s report.

---

That’s where Giuliani comes in.

He’s gonna tell Honest Bob he’s got a month to turn in a report. Because finished or not, that’s when it all ends.

quote:

---

That’s where Giuliani comes in.

He’s gonna tell Honest Bob he’s got a month to turn in a report. Because finished or not, that’s when it all ends.

---

I’m pretty sure Mueller is ready for that. And again, I don’t care how it comes out.

quote:

---

Well, the process has started. Whatever started it, it’s underway.

---

OK but how is that acceptable? Is this just a "quirky law" thing? Cause I gotta say, it seems like a HUGE waste of tax payer money, not to mention the unjust nature of it.

quote:

---

How does he have the authority? 

---

I think Giuliani's argument is that Comey's memos show there was no crime that warranted the appointment of a Special Counsel. If Mueller wants this to continue, expect a direct court challenge to the entire probe, with Comey's memos being the crux of the argument.

As cruel as it gets, Gf.

quote:

---

So what, exactly, in the hell was in those memos which would indicate the need for a SC!?

---

Nothing. It was a plot between Dems and never-Trump RINO's to get Trump (probably at the direction of Clinton). It wasn't an accident that RR hired Mueller, who is a close friend of both his and Comey's. Totally inappropriate EVEN if the investigation was legitimate.

I am no fan of conspiracies, but as Sherlock said, when you rule everything else out, what you are left with is the truth no matter how improbable it may seem. There is no other way to read this other than a conspiracy to get Trump from the start.

Now, why would "Republicans" want to help Clinton and/or protect Obama? Besides being RINO's, some of them likely got involved because they were neck deep in the spying/dossier scandal themselves. Some of them (like RR) might have been tricked into believing this lie, so they want to save face. Others like Comey and Mueller (definitely Brennan and Clapper) probably were "in on it" from the start.

Bottom line: Whole thing was a setup. I am not sure yet exactly how it went down, but it's mighty suspicious when the GCHQ boss comes to Washington to meet with the CIA boss to discuss Trump before the election. And that same GCHQ boss RESIGNS his position 3 days after Trump took office (he wrote an e-mail to his employees and was out the door the same day). So either this guy knew he was in deep shite and would be discovered by Trump's IC or he was fired by Theressa May when everyone learned Muh Russia was a bunch of nonsense. It's something that could severely damage our relations with the UK (May had to know that) and I suspect she fired him as an olive branch to Trump.

No one covers this angle of the story. Even Hannity and Fox do not talk about the GCHQ angle, when clearly the Guardian newspaper in the UK has stated that it was British intelligence that got this thing rolling as early as "late 2015". According to the Guardian, the Brits were pissed that CIA wasn't doing anything about it and kept nagging Clapper and Brennan about it. Finally, Hannigan (GCHQ) flew to Washington to meet with Brennan in person.

Now, one might ask: "If the UK was so upset at the intel they had, why do you disbelieve them?" Because if it were damning intelligence, we would fricking know about it by now. Do you really think Obama's people could keep their mouths shut if they had Trump recorded on a GCHQ intercept colluding with Russia? Hell no. CNN would have had that transcript months ago. In fact, this is why I believe the whole Guardian story is fake news (not on the Guardian's part -- I think they were being fed lies by British intel sources). It was a way to retroactively cover this scandal up. (Look guys, we had Trump on wiretaps colluding, we couldn't just sit by and watch our closest ally elect a Ruskie spy!).