The statement he made in testimony "I was not the affiant" means something. Look it up.
Which means he was not the one that swore to the validity of the information.
Somebody doesn't want us to know what his actual role is. They're afraid if it comes out it will reveal what is actually being investigated.
No. His signature was acknowledged. He was not the affiant. He did not verify the information, he merely verified the affiants swore to the information. He locked in their criminality.
No. He was approval for the affiant. The affiants were the agents that submitted the affidavit.
This is all public information. The process is convoluted, but known.
They weren't 'turned," they were always good guys. If they were ever bad, all of their efforts would be tainted, including Trump's exoneration and any DS they take down.
No, he's not. Look it up FFS
The affiants DID swear the information was verified to him, however.
Some of it. It was boring, IMO. Lawyers lawyering.
Yes.
My best guess on Q posts is "more to the story." Maybe he is running ops and becomes a witness once the full app is released. He wpuld recuse for that. Dunno…
Not really. I think you're confusing what these applications are. They aren't for criminal filings, they are for intelligence gathering missions. The agents submit the application, swearing the data has been verified. Leadership then signs off starting that the agents swore the data was verified.
I don't disagree. I think well see them overhauled because of all this. The process was supposed to provide protections that clearly aren't in place
Indeed. It's happening. I'm sure of it. R registrations and primary turnouts are killing Ds. Once evidence starts rolling, it will get worse. Dirty politicians wont be able to get off ballots. Electoral exti action is pending.
JC = John Carlin and James Clapper, too.
True, but it's not just a handful stepping down. The list is long (well, by my standard). Most are good, but forced into following the party line.
Signing the app was not a criminal act on RR's part. It was only for the affiants that submitted it to him.
Of course he can. That doesn't change what I claimed. He signed off on the affiant(s) testimony. Not the information itself.
That's how it works.
He already said he signed. Not sure what your point is.
Ezactly.
He can't read everything. Think of how many people work for him. Thousands. The law is what dictates the process anyway, not our feelz.
That's the analogy! Thanks, anon!
Different circumstances governed by different laws.
As noted above, get something notarized under false pretenses then get back to us on which person got 3 hots and a cot.
No, it wouldn't be obstruction. That's MSM lies. He can do whatever he wants in this regard. Study the Constitution and pay particular attention to the Article II powers given to the President.
I understand perfectly. I dont care what the MSM pushes. Their opinion is irrelevant. Only the Constitution matters He can't "obstruct justice" as long as he holds pardon power.
Maybe we will be talking about them at some point. Trump has to get some things done first. A friendly Congress is near the top of that list.
The dude is a badass. Generally loved by his men. Go home jooshill.