Any closer to an answer?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...946_story.html
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Any closer to an answer?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...946_story.html
You said that an 18 month investigation overseen by a Prosecutor who was part of Trump's transition team and was hand-picked for the DC office not only did not find any evidence for the crank conspiracies you have been pedaling for the past year but also took the step to publicly repudiate them. Like to see that post again!
“Particularly, the Government has found no evidence that your client illegally removed House data from the House network or from House Members’ offices, stole the House Democratic Caucus Server, stole or destroyed House information technology equipment, or improperly accessed or transferred government information, including classified or sensitive information,”
You can file this one alongside your Pizzagate, Seth Rich and other unsubstantiated tosh you bombard us with.
If it was an open and shut case I would normally be in full agreement with you.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/03/aw...y-not-charged/
The only questions remaining are being raised by the idiot of a "reporter" who inflated this as a scandal in the first place and is slowly watching what little credibility he ever had and those Hannity and Fox News appearance fees dribbling down the toilet. Are you so gullible you expected the Daily Caller to accept the validity of the findings of an investigation, I repeat overseen by a hand-picked Trump appointee? Don't answer that!
I don't really care about the reporter, I just take note of what he reportod on, which includes documentary evidence from congessional staff members who investigated the Awan case. So, it's been swept under the carpet. Nobody is surprised given the implications. What is clear is that you are a Washington Post deciple, and in the future if I want to know your opinion on anything I will just consult with the WAPO! Incidentally their reporter wasn't even in court yesterday, and he published his account before the hearing had even ended.
I don't think there is much room for opinion, just the resolution of a case by investigators overseen by a member of the Trump transition team who was personally interviewed by Trump before appointment in terms that could not be clearer that there was not a shred of worthwhile evidence to support the breathless drivel you have been posting for the last year.
I never expected you to recognise how completely wide of the mark your pronouncements and baseless innuendo have been on this over the last year but if you need the facts confirmed by reading verbatim details of the court settlement in the Washington Post or any other media outlet then don't let me stop you!
An interesting detail has emerged from the plea offer made to Imran Awan by Jessie K.Liu, United States Attorney District of Columbia, that the Washington Post completely failed to report.
"Your client further understands that this Agreement is binding only upon the Criminal and Superior Court Divisions of the United States Attomey's Office for the District of Columbia. This Agreement does not bind the Civil Division of this Office or any other United States
Attomey's Office, nor does it bind any other state, local, or federal prosecutor. It also does not bar or compromise any civil, tax, or administrative claim pending or that may be made against your client."
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Attorney General Sessions have a Federal Prosecutor working for him based in Utah, who has already empanelled a Grand Jury? I'm not saying there is any connection, but how funny would that be!
PS I think you are referring to District of Columbia state prosecutor are you not?
See if you can spot what this startling new bit of straw clutching has in common with completely unrelated plea bargain cases copied randomly off the internet. Could it be some kind of standard waiver???? Don't let me stop your denial though!
This agreement applies only to the criminal violations described and does not apply to any civil matter or any civil forfeiture proceeding except as specifically set forth. This agreement binds only the United States Attorney's Office of the Western District of Oklahoma and does not bind any other federal, state, or local prosecuting, administrative, or regulatory authority.
The defendant understands that this agreement is only binding on the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico and the Office of Consumer Litigation of the United States Department of Justice. Nothing in this agreement shall bind any other federal, state or local agency.