‘Looks like’ is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel

Go down

‘Looks like’ is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel

Post by Idéfix on Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:37 pm

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III had another interesting day on Capitol Hill. One Congressman brought a salt shaker while another tried to push him on the predisent's behalf to appoint a special counsel to go after Hillary Clinton. I am sure he didn't mean to say it, but Sessions ended up conceding that there is no factual basis for all the right-wing conspiracy theories about illegal activity by Clinton.

Sessions said appointing a separate special counsel to investigate Clinton would require “a factual basis”.

In a heated exchange with Jim Jordan, a Republican congressman from Ohio who asked what it would take to appoint a special counsel to investigate allegations against Clinton, Sessions said: “We will use the proper standards, and that’s the only thing I can tell you.

You can have your idea, but sometimes we have to study what the facts are, and to evaluate whether it meets the standards it requires.”

A fiery Jordan continued to allege misconduct by Clinton. Citing additional reports that her campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded the Fusion GPS dossier into Trump’s ties to Russia, Jordan maintained it “looks like” there was enough evidence to warrant naming a second special counsel.

Sessions tersely responded: “I would say ‘looks like’ is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel.”


Posts : 8808
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : Berkeley, CA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum