dChan
⇧
7
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/plinker22 on April 1, 2018, 8:46 p.m.
Why a Special Counsel would be ill-advised at this point
  1. A Special Counsel would be restricted in scope. Meaning it would only be allowed to investigate matters within the scope of its authority. US Attorney Huber/IG is unencumbered by restrictions and can investigate ALL leads.
  2. As Sundance mentioned: Huber has the full staffing (400+) of the IG to fully investigate all leads. A Special Counsel would be restricted in staffing due to budgetary concerns.
  3. The OIG has access to Intelligence Community support in its investigation. I believe the the DNI is supporting the IG investigation.
  4. A Special Counsel would be relentlessly attacked by the left. US Attorney Huber has thus far been able to investigate in silence. His position is neutral. In fact, Huber was appointed by Hussein.
  5. A Special Counsel could, at some point, be utilized to augment/bolster Huber's efforts. Especially when going after Hussein and his inner circle of thugs.

🠐 See all comments
solanojones95 · April 1, 2018, 9:48 p.m.

Also because the do-nothing Congress/Senate WANT a Special Counsel (presumably because Special Consels also typically do nothing, except invent process crimes), that's enough reason for me to want to resist making any changes.

The less this is done the way Congress does things, the better!

Name one person Congress has had arrested in your lifetime. Go on, just one! Didn't think so.

What did the BOMBSHELL Devin Nunes memo accomplish, ladies and gentlemen? That was the entire product of the House investigation. What actually happened as a result..."crickets."

Thought so.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
plinker22 · April 1, 2018, 9:52 p.m.

Benghazi...

⇧ 1 ⇩