Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Q

The FBI/DOJ "Insurance Plan" to stop President Trump that was uncovered and exposed by Congress is still sort of a mystery. Some think that FISA /Mueller is the "Insurance Plan", some think that we have yet to uncover the real "Insurance plan".

Me, I am pretty damn sure that the "Insurance Plan" was more than just a plan to stop President Trump with SC Mueller, but also a plan to safe their asses if Mueller failed.
Remember when Hillary said, "If Trump wins we will all go to prison". She was serious and She along with those in the Obama Administration needed a Protection plan, an insurance plan to guarantee that the Trump Department of Justice would never investigate, indict or prosecute a single one of them.

Enter Jeff Sessions, the Safety Net Insurance Plan to save their asses, all of their asses. Sessions has done the job he was appointed to do, refuse to honor Congressional subpoenas, refuse to indict the likes of Louis Learner, Indict Republicans members of congress, refuse to appoint a special council and the list goes on.

Sessions is Deep State and needs to be fired.

You may want to check out the Hatch Act for your answers.

And if I need to be more specific ...............5 U.S.C. § 7323 (a) (1)

Another week closer to the elections.

Answers to what?

The Hatch Act prohibits employees of the executive branch from engaging in certain political activities like bribery and other illegal campaign activities.

What does this have to do with Sessions as a WH or a BH?

...and five days till there can be NO Red October as forecast by Q.

So much for Sessions and Huber being "Unleashed" and dropping an October Bomb. A Bomb that would destroy the democrats and ensure a Republican Red Wave.

You might want to read it again. It's a reason there will be no arrests before midterms.

prohibit releasing "intel" within so many days of an election i think,, im not 100% on me recolection tho,or use their power or position for influenceing an eletion i think?

Spot on Hosfly.

I thought maybe Steve would catch that and put it together, but...............

The Hatch Act you referenced.



You left out the good part.




Sessions is exempt as is Rosenstien.

The Hatch act has nothing to do with whether or not Sessions or Rosenstien can arrest and indict before the midterms.

Nice try, but no cigar.

There will be No arrests or action before the Midterms or after the midterms as long as Sessions is at the Helm.

That is the ONLY reason as there is no legal statute that prevents him from doing so.

I'm not sure on that steve. You could have somthing there, but Sessions detemines law not party or personal policies,HOWEVER Sombody like sec of state Pomp would quaify under that particular sentance you defined in bold print, but i admit i dont kno for sure,,,

Sessions is exempt as ,
1) He was appointed by the President.

2) Confirmed by the Senate

3) His office is in the United States

4) He administers Federal Laws

Comey was also Exempt for the same reasons. That is why when he publicly stated that the FBI was "reopening" the Hillary email case right before the election, the Democrats (Who were fit to be tied) and the Obama DOJ didn't call for his indictment citing the Hatch Act as the reason.

The Hatch Act does Not prohibit our DOJ and FBI from enforcing Federal laws at any time, not even weeks before an election. There is no "grace" period for criminal acts.

Great job, Steve, on your articulate and well-researched responses.

Sessions blocks President Trump from declassifying the FISA documents.

In court filings last week the Department of Justice deployed what could be the nuclear option in its latest effort to prevent President Trump from declassifying information regarding FISA warrants used to spy on his campaign aide Carter Page: It is claiming that such a move would interfere with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

This is the first time the DOJ has explicitly made this argument implying personal peril for the president, since interference could open Trump to charges of obstruction of justice. Until now, the department has argued that declassifying the documents threatened national security.

In the 178-page court document, DOJ officials said they had “determined that disclosure of redacted information in the Carter Page FISA documents could reasonably be expected to interfere with the pending investigation into Russian election interference."

https://www.realclearinvestigations...a_trump_fisa_release_to_obstruction.html

Thank God Sessions is a White Hat and working with the President instead of against him, I shutter to think what he would do if he was protecting the Deep State and not pursuing Justice.

So much for the "declass" as Q puts it, happening anytime soon, especially before the Midterms.

5 U.S. Code § 7322 - Definitions
US Code

For the purpose of this subchapter—
(1) “employee” means any individual, other than the President and the Vice President, employed or holding office in—
(A) an Executive agency other than the Government Accountability Office; or
(B) a position within the competitive service which is not in an Executive agency;
but does not include a member of the uniformed services or an individual employed or holding office in the government of the District of Columbia;
(2) “partisan political office” means any office for which any candidate is nominated or elected as representing a party any of whose candidates for Presidential elector received votes in the last preceding election at which Presidential electors were selected, but shall exclude any office or position within a political party or affiliated organization; and
(3) “political contribution”—
(A) means any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value, made for any political purpose;
(B) includes any contract, promise, or agreement, express or implied, whether or not legally enforceable, to make a contribution for any political purpose;
(C) includes any payment by any person, other than a candidate or a political party or affiliated organization, of compensation for the personal services of another person which are rendered to any candidate or political party or affiliated organization without charge for any political purpose; and
(D) includes the provision of personal services for any political purpose.

Cornell Law School

Department of Justice
Government Ethics Outline


C. DOJ-Specific Conflict of Interest Regulation: No DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome. 28 CFR 45.2

Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, candidate, political party or campaign organization arising from service as a principal advisor or official; personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality.

D. Impartiality in Performing Official Duties

1. An employee may not participate in a particular matter involving specific parties affecting the financial interests of a member of his household, or when a person with whom he has a covered relationship is, or represents a party.

2. A covered relationship includes one involving:

a. Someone with whom he has or seeks a business relationship;
b. A member of the employee's household;
c. A relative with whom the employee has a close relationship;
d. A present or prospective employer of a spouse, parent or child; and
e. An organization in which the employee serves or has served in the past year as an employee, attorney or active participant.

3. The employee may disqualify himself or he may be authorized in writing to participate in the matter if the interest of the Department outweighs the appearance of a conflict. The determination should be based on: a) the nature of the relationship; b) the effect of the resolution of the matter on the financial interest; c) the nature and importance of the employee's role; d) the sensitivity of the matter; and e) the difficulty of reassigning it.

4. Circumstances other than those set forth in the regulation that would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts to question an employee’s impartiality. (“Catch-all” provision).

5. An employee who receives an extraordinary payment from a former employer prior to entering government service must disqualify himself for two years if the payment is not part of an established compensation or benefits program; exceeds $10,000; and is made because of his government position. Disqualification may be waived by his determining official.

6. An employee is recused for one-year from a particular matter in which her former firm, former employer or a client she provided services to within the previous year, is a party or represents a party. Clients of an employee’s former firm, who were not clients of the employee herself, do not fall within this recusal, as long as the former firm does not represent them. Attorneys may have additional recusals in matters related to matters they handled, and in matters for which they may have client confidences or privileged information (see bar rules). Also, in some cases, for example a long-standing major client, an employee may be recused for a period of time beyond one year.



Nice try Steve...........................but no cigar

Thanks.

Any one follow the Q clock?

Q Clock of future events

Lets break this down shall we.

First we must go back to who and what are "Exempt from the Hatch Act.



The first section of your quote defines "Employee" is reference to those exempt .

For the purpose of this subchapter—

(1) “employee” means any individual, other than the President and the Vice President, employed or holding office in—
(A) an Executive agency other than the Government Accountability Office; or
(B) a position within the competitive service which is not in an Executive agency;
but does not include a member of the uniformed services or an individual employed or holding office in the government of the District of Columbia;
So these people (employees) are exempt if they are paid from the Executive Office of the President.


(2) “partisan political office” means any office for which any candidate is nominated or elected as representing a party any of whose candidates for Presidential elector received votes in the last preceding election at which Presidential electors were selected, but shall exclude any office or position within a political party or affiliated organization; and
Sessions is not a politician, so this does not apply to him.


(3) “political contribution”—
(A) means any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value, made for any political purpose;
(B) includes any contract, promise, or agreement, express or implied, whether or not legally enforceable, to make a contribution for any political purpose;
(C) includes any payment by any person, other than a candidate or a political party or affiliated organization, of compensation for the personal services of another person which are rendered to any candidate or political party or affiliated organization without charge for any political purpose; and
(D) includes the provision of personal services for any political purpose.
Does not apply here.


C. DOJ-Specific Conflict of Interest Regulation: No DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome. 28 CFR 45.2


This is what Sessions cited when he recused himself from both the Russian investigation and the Clinton investigation.
Q has said that Sessions has gone to the SC and was given permission to "unrecuse" himself, so this no longer applies, if it still applies, then Sessions can never become "unleashed" and indict as Q has claimed he is going to do.

This all pertains to the First sentence pertaining to those that are exempt (employees) it does not address the second which Is "Presidential Appointees approved by Congress" That are exempt, which is what the AG (Sessions) is.

You can spin it anyway you wish, Sessions, Rosenstien, Wray, Comey, are all exempt from the Hatch Act.

But thanks for posting who and what "employees" are exempt.