[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Corrupt Government See other Corrupt Government Articles Title: Does justice just stop dead with a corrupt FBI and JustUs Dept? Source: Me URL Source: [None] Published: Oct 26, 2016 Author: Hank Rearden Post Date: 2016-10-26 13:04:37 by Hank Rearden Keywords: None Views: 4012 Comments: 33 For discussion, I'm hoping people with Federal legal knowledge or experience can chime in...... Since it's obvious the FBI and JustUs departments have been fully corrupted in service to the Odumbass regime, is there another way to bring the Clinton Crime Family and others to justice? Isn't it possible for a United States Attorney in one of Odumbass's 57 states to convene a grand jury and independently begin an investigation and possible indictments without permission from the very top in D.C.? I'm assuming that somewhere there still remains an officer of the court who retains a sense of justice and duty to the oath they've sworn who might consider such a prosecution no matter the harm to his/her career prospects, of course. They'd need some support from GOPussies suddenly growing balls, but I just want to know if there's a mechanism. Is it really possible that just two, or a handful of, corrupt individuals in Washington D.C. can thwart efforts to bring obvious criminals to justice, forever, and maybe even get elected to the presidency - with no recourse? Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 18. #3. To: Hank Rearden (#0) (Edited) I'm assuming that somewhere there still remains an officer of the court who retains a sense of justice and duty to the oath they've sworn who might consider such a prosecution no matter the harm to his/her career prospects, of course. They'd need some support from GOPussies suddenly growing balls, but I just want to know if there's a mechanism. Such a saint can file something and be replaced before he can pursue it. And it's dead. Even with Attorneys General, the lieutenants do not get to overrule the general. Congress might remove an AG, but there isn't much probability of this. nolu chan  posted on  2016-10-26   13:29:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: nolu chan (#3) (Edited) Note that I'm asking about US Attorneys, not state or even federal Attorneys General. My understanding is that USAs have a lot of independence and latitude to pursue criminal cases, but I'm hoping to hear from those who know for sure. Ultimately, the decision to indict and try is the grand jury's to make, so I'm hoping it's possible for a USA to bring a case to one without interference. Not whether it's politically feasible, but legally possible for a USA who's brave enough to pursue a criminal prosecution. And yes, presidential pardons can squish anything, but they leave their own sort of legacy stains in their wake, as we saw with Gerald Ford. Odumbass is a pretty gigantic narcissist who might not want to risk that unless he's personally in the crosshairs of a prosecutor. My point is if the US Attorney General, like Toady Lynch, can legally kill any action by a USA seeking to bring a case and evidence to a federal grand jury, our country may very well be fvcked in the long run. We've seen the damage done on the first try the last few years - imagine what our nation will become once they get good at it, if there's nothing to stop them? Hank Rearden  posted on  2016-10-26   13:38:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Hank Rearden (#4) No, it is not possible. The government runs on a system of chains of command. The person at the top of the chain of command has ultimate accountability for everything that happens under his/her command, and therefore ultimate authority over it all. A superior can delegate authority, but not responsibility. What this means is that no, a US Attorney cannot "go rogue" and bring charges against a mandate from his/her superiors. He will be immediately stripped of his authority if he tries to do so and, no longer having that authority, will not be able to pursue the case. The Grand Jury, if convened, does not belong to him. And his replacement will simply move for dismissal. Now, I suppose it is possible that a federal judge might insist that proceedings continue, but that would be unprecedented, immediately appealed, and struck down. The checks and balances are political. If a President's administration is corrupt enough, the Congress can remove him through the impeachment process. But if 1/3 +1 Senators - 34 Senators - refuse to vote for removal from office, then there is no further recourse: the President sits and rules, in spite of being corrupt. That is, unless unconstitutional means are used. Yes, the US Attorney General can legally kill any action. Congress can bring a special prosecutor, but the power of that special prosecutor would be limited to what the courts were willing to enforce. Congress can impeach, but a rump of 34 in the Senate can stop it. The check after that is the ballot box, but if that too is corrupted, the final resort is the Second Amendment. But note well: resort was ALREADY MADE to the Second Amendment by half the country in the 1860s, and they got slaughtered. So, in the final analysis, if the government becomes completely corrupt, we are in essentially the same position as the black slaves were in 1790: outnumbered, outgunned, hopelessly outpowered. We will obey and be used for our entire lives, and have no hope whatever of ever gaining our freedom either through political persuasion or through force. Because of Supreme Court control, THIS election will be the last one that matters. If Hillary wins, it is over for good. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-26   14:07:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Vicomte13, Hank Rearden (#5) But note well: resort was ALREADY MADE to the Second Amendment by half the country in the 1860s, and they got slaughtered. Resort was made to warfare by the North, not the South, and they prevailed. As for slaughter, the Union combat deaths exceeded the Confederate combat deaths by about 50%. The total Union casualties also exceeded the total Confederate casualties. For the first 2+ years, the Union army suffered repeated bloodbaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war nolu chan  posted on  2016-10-26   14:44:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: nolu chan (#6) Interesting statistics. Stoner  posted on  2016-10-26   15:14:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: Stoner (#9) There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. Teddy Roosevelt, you are an ass. Oh, wait, no - you're just a dead guy who had stupid and unworkable ideas. I am an American and several other things also. You say I am not an American at all. You're a dead ass, and your cause failed. So I get to say what an American is - and I am one. You, Dead Teddy, are OVERRULED. Schmuck. Room for one flag? Well, I count a state flag there too. Also the UN flag we put on various things. And, come to think of it, the leader of my church has a flag, and that's displayed also. I've got my own family coat of arms, and it's centuries older than the USA. So once again Teddy, you've got a nice little strongly stated stupid thought there. Room for one language here? Well, I speak two, and both of them are part of my culture. And lots of people speak others too. Having a common language is nice, it's helpful. English is the majority language now, so that's the rational choice, for now. Given birth rates, in a century Spanish will be the dominant language, so then we should convert over to Spanish and use that. There is nothing inherent in the English language that makes it better than Spanish, or French, or any other language. It's the most spoken, so it's what we use. "American" is not the same thing as "English", and if Americans speak Spanish as the dominant language one day, then we should have no sentimentality about dropping English and taking up Spanish. Or better, just operating with both. After all, some of my people, the Basque, have done a very good job operating in Basque and some other language (Latin, French, Spanish, etc.) over the course of 2200 years. Basque-Americans must be smarter than you Bully-bully- Teddy-Americans, because we have always been capable of functioning happily in two languages. What is it, Teddy, are you suggesting that Americans are retards, and not CAPABLE of using more than English? That's not true. One sole loyalty, Teddy? To the American PEOPLE? No, Teddy. that's just stupid. People also owe loyalty to their God, their families, their parents and wives and children, their close friends. In fact, all of those loyalties are more intense and more important than abstract notions of loyalty to some sort of nationalist ideal. If we all keep our rightful loyalties, we will understand that cooperating with each other as a national ideal, as a people, is in all of our BEST INTERESTS, but that's the thing, Teddy, that you didn't get. YOU think that our loyalty should be to some idol, a country, a Constitution, an imaginary thing. But really people's loyalty should properly be to other people - to God, to family, to friends - and people should be convinced by what the country they live in does that said country is protective of those primary loyalties of the people. It is the COUNTRY which has to EARN the loyalty of its people, whose FIRST loyalties should be - and in any case will be - to other people close to them and to God. Loyalty to the country comes only because the country DESERVES it. If the country turns evil, there is no debt of loyalty at all - other than the loyalty to what counts - family, friends and God - to CHANGE the political structure of the country to make it more amenable to loyalty. Teddy, you thought different. You thought "Country alone and above all". You were an idolator, Teddy, placing your imaginary little nation ahead of God in your hierarchy. In short, Teddy, you were a stupid man with stupid ideas, wrong on everything, and no intelligent person believes any of that. Idolators followed your obsession with nation and created aggressive empires...that are all dead and gone now. Your belief system created a flash-in-the-pan, but it was always a stupid fantasy. Go back to your grave, Teddy, and shut up. You were a fool, and the people knew it too: that is why they didn't elect you and your Progressives. You died a loser, and your ideas have died since then too, because they were bad. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-26   16:27:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Vicomte13 (#10) In spite of your lengthy diatribe, and I will admit TR had his faults ( who does not, besides Jesus Christ ) I think he was correct on: " There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. " to go in the opposite direction is to embrace multiculturalism. One does not need to be a lawyer, or an intellectual, to look around and come to the rightful conclusion that in that he was correct. Embracing multiculturalism is a large part of why our nation has gone into decline. I am sure socialists will disagree with TR on this point. Stoner  posted on  2016-10-26   17:00:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: Stoner (#13) to go in the opposite direction is to embrace multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a wonderful thing, when you bring in the best features of the different cultures. It has always been America's strength. The multicultures of the 19th Century were all white and European, but the country was certainly multicultural. America's first culture was English, and Colonial America was quite English in culture. By the late 1800s, as America boomed, we were most certainly not an English culture. We spoke English, but our culture was not at all English. It was a blend of things, and above all a political culture - very, very different from England, more like France, truth be told, because it was a republic not a monarchy. Monocultures are inbred and weak, as are purebred dogs. Mongrels are stronger and healthier and smarter. America is, as Hitler rightly said, a mongrel nation. That's why we are so strong, so adaptable and so innovative. Multiculturalism is a good thing. Healthy. It means more kinds of food - always a good thing - and different perspectives in art, literature and teaching. These things establish new social norms, all of which skew towards the practical. Americans are a practical people. Expending energy trying to impart fundamental "Englishness" to a fundamentally non-English people would have been an UTTER waste of energy. Keeping the non-English out would have mean that America was weak, limited, and ultimately devoured by other empires. In short, the problem with the illegal alien invasion from Mexico is not that they are Mexican, or that they speak Spanish, or that they are Catholic - the cultural aspect is pretty irrelevant. It's the ECONOMIC impact of all of those people illegally entering and putting low-skilled Americans out of work that is the problem. America is a better place now that we can get tacos and tequila from San Diego to Maine. Tacos and tequila are good. Multiculturalism is good. Immigration from most of the world needs to be controlled for economic reasons having to do with our own labor force, not because we need to fear other people's cultures. There is an asterisk on this: Islam is like Naziism or Communism - a vicious, aggressive ideological system. We don't let Nazis immigrate, and we didn't let Communists immigrate during the Cold War. As long as Islam is shooting at us, we should not permitting that rabid belief system to immigrate here. That is tough for us, though, because our political culture does not let us discriminate against religion. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-26   17:21:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: Vicomte13 (#16) Our nation became strong because we were united. That is what I was talking about, and that is what I take from TR. Not talking about getting tacos, or Chinese food. Ever hear of the saying " United We stand, Divided We Fall ". It is more than just a saying. It has a lot of important meaning. We would not have won WWII if we had not been united. Stoner  posted on  2016-10-26   17:35:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 18. #21. To: Stoner (#18) Our nation became strong because we were united. That is what I was talking about, and that is what I take from TR. Not talking about getting tacos, or Chinese food. Ever hear of the saying " United We stand, Divided We Fall ". It is more than just a saying. It has a lot of important meaning. We would not have won WWII if we had not been united. That sort of unity has only ever existed in war. From the time of John Adams through the Civil War we were not united. The Alien & Sedition Act was passed to impose a false appearance of unity by silencing the opposition. We were not united in the War of 1812: New England considered secession. We were not united in the long run up to the Civil War. We were not united when Jackson destroyed the first Bank of the US. The Civil War as the final act of our early disunity, At the end of it there was the unity of the prison camp, with half of the nation standing armed guard over the other half, and depriving them of the vote. A unity of sorts appears then on the voting records....but only during the period that Southern rebels were not permitted to vote. There was no unity in the desire to enter World War I - the US had to be dragged in it. During the Depression there was a sort of unity behind FDR, by numbers, but the opposition hated him and spoke of him as if he were a dictator. There was no unity about entering World War II: America was paralyzed by its division. It was only the Zimmerman Telegram and the U-Boat predations that finally convinced a majority of Americans to support war. In World War II, America was disunited. That's why we were outside of it, neutral for the first 2 1/4 years of the war. We only entered it when we did because the enemy powers declared war on us and attacked us. It was the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor that caused us to wake up. And we had a President who took that moment, and walked into Congress and asked for a Declaration of War the very next day. Pearl Harbor united us, and the war effort - it's all consuming nature - kept us united for the duration. That was certainly America's finest hour of unity. But that was not the norm either before the war, or since. We were disunited over Korea. That's why Ike won. We were disunited over Vietnam, which is why Nixon won. We were also disunited over race. None of this was the loss of some traditional American unity. America was always divided and fractious. World War II was the exception. We have only been united once like that in our lifetimes: on September 11, 2001, and for a few weeks afterwards, we were united. But unlike FDR, who seized the moment to ask for a full declaration of war, placing the country under military orders, censoring the papers, effectively outlawing dissent "for the duration", W Bush did not preserve the unity by asking for a Declaration of War. Instead, soon, he was telling the people that the professional military would handle it, and asked them to "go shopping". Without the unity of formal war, opposition to the war became the method of political opposition. This was not opposition to the war from black and Hispanic minorities. The Democrat/Republican divide over the war was among white people of both parties, all of them of the American culture. American unity is very rare. It has only ever been seen after some devastating attack, such as the Maine, or Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. And it only remains viable if the President crystallizes the unity with a declaration of war. President McKinley and President Roosevelt seized the moment. W Bush let it pass. And in none of those cases - Spanish-American, World War II or 9/11 was there any substantial ethnic opposition to the war. The Japanese-Americans fought Germany, in spite of heavy discrimination. The German- Americans fought Japan. After 9/11, there was no ethnic resistance to the war. The resistance to it, as it rose, came from white liberals of English ethnic descent, mostly. The sort of unity needed to win World War II did not come from ethnic unity, it came from unity of purpose in a war, which is to say: the unity of the mob, behind a strong leader. It was effective, but that sort of unity does not exist in peacetime. Other than a few short periods of war, Americans have never been very united. And while the country has been ethnically diverse since the mid-1800s, the divisions have not mostly been along ethnic lines, other than the black-white division, which was imposed and created by the oppression of the blacks by the whites. A mythical idea of a unity that never was other than during declared wars after we were attacked is not a reason to practice discriminatory immigration. But the need to economically protect our own people from being undercut in their wages by illegal labor is. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-26 19:02:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 18. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com