Anonymous ID: b6c186 Sept. 23, 2018, 12:44 a.m. No.3148595   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>3148238 (last)

How is it a loophole? A relative of a prosecutor is immune from investigation? Don't they have recusal rules about that, so that young Brett could have been investigated if young Christine had "come forward" with allegations?

 

This is absurd, they keep dreaming up (or already dreamed up and are now deploying) one "shadow of doubt" after another, but the doubt is by now so small with all 4 of her alleged witnesses denying it ever happened, that no more shadows should matter. She's discredited, goodbye.

Anonymous ID: b6c186 Sept. 23, 2018, 12:49 a.m. No.3148614   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>3148568 (last)

Friend, don't touch the booze. They don't deserve to have you do this to yourself.

 

We'll get Kav thru, and even if not (which won't happen) it does none of us any good for you to go off the wagon. We need ya here.

Anonymous ID: b6c186 Sept. 23, 2018, 1:14 a.m. No.3148735   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8740 >>8744 >>8759

>>3148692

But technically has she committed a crime? Sending a letter to Feinstein is probably only an offense if Feinstein presses it, which she won't. And then Feinstein (I guess) leaked it, and she's protected under "speech and debate" from prosecution for anything she does in the execution of her office.

 

Hope I'm wrong and someone can show me a prosecutable crime any of these worms commmitted.

Anonymous ID: b6c186 Sept. 23, 2018, 1:22 a.m. No.3148772   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8789

>>3148744

Because she doesn't have to, I suppose. Indeed that may be why he's asking for the letter (even though he can read it in the press) and she's not providing it.

 

Now maybe if Grassley can get it, then HE can press charges for lying to the Senate.

 

But if Feinstein refuses to send the letter formally to Grassley, she can't be prosecuted, at most impeached or censured or voted out of office.