Jeff Sessions: Peter Strzok's FBI security clearance has been revoked.....

It's high time the public know everything and pick up the pieces from there.

 

It was probably a mistake. It is a bigger mistake for the RP follow the "rule" after the Democrats have broken it.

Senate Rules are not set down in the COTUS.

 

PAST high time for it....

 

A lifetime ban is needed

 

Agreed and it explains why McConnell, who believed it was a mistake, is seeking to reinstall it.

True, but there are lots of rules that are not in the Constitution.

 

We can't always get rid of these lifetime politicians so easily:

 

It wasn't easy but the last election finally cut the Clintons down to size. They are free to bitch and moan from the sidelines, but I doubt either could get elected dog catcher in Arkansas.

 

I wouldn't hire either of them to scrape dog shxt off my driveway.

 

Since they aren't "dead broke", they won't have to work. Those millions from the Clinton Foundation and other sources will provide them for a very comfortable retirement unlike the "little people" they walked all over to get to where they are.

 

McConnell is making sure that the "rule" is only used to nullify elections that Democrats lose.

It has always been a bad rule.

 

Disagreed, but I'd like to see your evidence of him doing so.

Disagreed here too. Partisan politics have been the bane of our nation for the past 25 years. It's caused more problems than it's solved. Certain rules, such as the 60/40, help minimize the damage.

 

Im against punishing just Strzok.

We all know Obama ordered the FBI to do this.

Just punishing Strozk isnt enough.

 

McConnell knows that the DP rejected the rule. By following the rule he is applying the rule against Republicans when they win a majority in the Senate.

That is why it is fair to describe McConnell as a VD - Virtual Democrat.

Note also that he broke the rule to seat Gorsuch. Of course, hypocrisy is bipartisan. Only the French executed politicians for being hypocrites.
It did not help - much.

 

Anticipating denouement:

I’d presume Trump’s critics would expect Mueller at least name Trump as a co-conspirator, maybe (depending on the evidence) he could indict Trump, but this seems unlikely. It all depends on the evidence and, in my view, its quality.

The precedent established by Comey’s critical remarks as he absolved Hillary, and the IG’s criticism of this conduct would be quite relevant if Mueller determines he can’t show collusion.

Regardless of the conclusion, the public clamor for a full accounting may make it impossible for Mueller to wind up his investigation with only minimal comment, said Libby's lawyer, Bill Jeffress.

If Mueller does like Comey, denounces Trump for all the inuendo, but then doesn't proceed against him, the criticism will be as it was against Comey. If Mueller instead decides to seek an indictment, DoJ will shoot him down as they've already telegraphed. If Mueller reports all sorts of inuendo and implication to Congress, whether they'll seek impeachment depends a lot on the quality of Mueller's evidence (which I question).