MSN: It Exists: DOJ Finds Letter Ordering Scrutiny of Uranium One, Hillary Clinton

This should prove interesting. Best line in the reporting: “Democrats, meanwhile, argue it’s evidence of the Trump administration weaponizing law enforcement to target its political rivals.”

I find it hard to believe that launching an investigation amounts to “weaponizing law enforcement.” If that’s true, then secret surveillance of the Trump campaign must have been weaponizing law enforcement, too. But I jest.

Let’s see what Huber has to say about Uranium One and Hillary Clinton.

8 thoughts on “MSN: It Exists: DOJ Finds Letter Ordering Scrutiny of Uranium One, Hillary Clinton

  1. I think the point of the story was that Trump’s own DOJ buried a demand to investigate his political opponents. Then they lied about it, probably to protect the president from overstepping his bounds. Or at least from public scrutiny.

    Trump has always felt and lamented that Sessions did not “have his back”. Or, by extension, did not do his personal bidding. Which is laudable for Sessions.

    Once presidents can demand investigations by the DOJ then we are creating a SAVAK-like “state security department”. And this is particularly important if the target is a political opponent. This applies even to Hillary.

    So I would say that finding this letter is a good thing. Not for Trump, but for our nation.

    Sadly, it probably impresses the president’s base. At least he can say at future rallies that, hey, he tried but the deep state got in the way. And “lock ‘er up” chants continue.

    Good times for America…not.


    Liked by 1 person

    1. What do you see that might be illegal in this story?

      Does the president have the authority to order investigations or reviews of investigations?

      For whom do the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI work?

      Was it legal for President Obama to authorize or with knowledge to approve of “wiretapping” and other surveillance of the Trump campaign?


      1. “For whom do the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI work?”

        The US and it’s citizens. It’s job is to uphold the Constitution.

        Obama did not order surveillance of Trump or the campaign. The FBI followed up on a tips and leads on people working with foreign nationals.


        1. RE: “Obama did not order surveillance of Trump or the campaign.”

          According to Srtzok and Page he was briefed. Hence he at least approved of the surveillance, even if he didn’t directly order it in advance. We may yet find that he did order it. We simply don’t know at this point.


  2. If you find it hard to find that Trump’s demand for this investigation was a misuse of law enforcement what is your explanation for Team Trump lying about the existence of this written demand?

    As a reminder, the idea of some sort of scandal in connection with the Uranium One transaction is a total and complete fabrication designed to fool idiots. If you have not watched Fox News debunk it, you should. By the way, a proud and patriotic moment for Jeff Sessions.


    1. RE: “what is your explanation for Team Trump lying about the existence of this written demand?”

      I don’t know that Team Trump lied. The letter might have been misplaced, or it might be that Rod Rosenstein — not obviously a Trump ally — hid it. Without knowing the details, the claim is unsubstantiated.

      I’ve responded to your Sheppard Smith video before. It doesn’t debunk anything of significance, and it doesn’t say anything useful in the context of the current event. For those who are paying attention, the salient point about Uranium One is that Robert Mueller was FBI Director at the time, and the FBI was investigating RICO allegations involving some of the players in Uranium One. Unanswered at present is why Mueller didn’t share knowledge of the investigation with the committee that approved the deal. The DoJ, after all, was represented on the committee.


      1. I am now officially giving up trying to help you. It is beyond hopeless. Shep Smith “does’nt debunk anything of significance” – EXCEPT the entire completely phony Uranium One “scandal.”


        1. Thanks. Your help is no good, anyway.

          Uranium One is a scandal for many reasons, the main one being as stated: senior Obama official approved the transaction despite the RICO investigation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s