Joe DiGenova: John Brennan has been referred to John Huber for criminal prosecution (yuge if true)

[JamesRussler]

Former U.S. Attorney Joe DuhGenerate appeared on motherTucker Carlson's show (Fox) yesterday and asserted that IG Michael wHorowitz has referred former C.I.A. director John Brennan to current Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber for prosecution. The alleged criminal referral relates to Brennan's conduct during the 2016 election, particularly as to the investigations of Trump and Clinton. DuhGenerate said Brennan should "get himself a good lawyer, . . . a very, very good lawyer . . . He’s going to be in front of a grand jury shortly." Check out the clip for yourself:



That's a pretty bold claim. DuhGenerate's statements come in the wake of of reports "that Inspector General Michael [w]Horowitz found 'reasonable grounds' for criminal prosecution and referred his findings to U.S. Attorney John Huber for possible criminal prosecution." wWhorowitz is reportedly finished with a "draft" of his report, which will be released in the coming weeks.

Do you think this story has legs? Is it possible that someone from inside the IG's office, or someone with access to the IG's report, leaked to a loudmouth like Joe DiGenova? He's been right in the past, but he tends to overstate things in order to secure his place on prime time television. On the other hand, he was legitimately a U.S. Attorney for D.C. Maybe he has the inside track . . .

Comment, discuss, etc. Be resperctful!

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Former U.S. Attorney Joe DuhGenerate appeared on motherTucker Carlson's show (Fox) yesterday and asserted that IG Michael wHorowitz has referred former C.I.A. director John Brennan to current Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber for prosecution. The alleged criminal referral relates to Brennan's conduct during the 2016 election, particularly as to the investigations of Trump and Clinton. DuhGenerate said Brennan should "get himself a good lawyer, . . . a very, very good lawyer . . . He’s going to be in front of a grand jury shortly." Check out the clip for yourself:



That's a pretty bold claim. DuhGenerate's statements come in the wake of of reports "that Inspector General Michael [w]Horowitz found 'reasonable grounds' for criminal prosecution and referred his findings to U.S. Attorney John Huber for possible criminal prosecution." wWhorowitz is reportedly finished with a "draft" of his report, which will be released in the coming weeks.

Do you think this story has legs? Is it possible that someone from inside the IG's office, or someone with access to the IG's report, leaked to a loudmouth like Joe DiGenova? He's been right in the past, but he tends to overstate things in order to secure his place on prime time television. On the other hand, he was legitimately a U.S. Attorney for D.C. Maybe he has the inside track . . .

Comment, discuss, etc. Be resperctful!

You'd think he has a reliable source. Saying things like this and then nothing happening would wreck your reputation real quick.

 

[JamesRussler]

You'd think he has a reliable source. Saying things like this and then nothing happening would wreck your reputation real quick.

It's a pretty specific claim which can easily be proven true or false. He'd have to be crazy to make that claim without vetting it thoroughly.

 

[Andy Capp]

You'd think he has a reliable source. Saying things like this and then nothing happening would wreck your reputation real quick.

A sane person would think appearing on Faux News would wreck your reputation "real quick" but that seems not to be the case. You'd think telling bald face lies to your audience would wreck your reputation, but Hannity is still on the air. Need I go on?

 

[JamesRussler]

A sane person would think appearing on Faux News would wreck your reputation "real quick" but that seems not to be the case. You'd think telling bald face lies to your audience would wreck your reputation, but Hannity is still on the air. Need I go on?

Of course, if it turns out he's not telling "bald face lies," then that would reflect poorly on you for dismissing him out of hand.

 

[SBJJ]

As much as I'm sure Brennan deserves it I do doubt it.

Also, even if a criminal referral is given those die hards in the WR will still say Brennan did nothing wrong

 

[LangfordBarrow]

A sane person would think appearing on Faux News would wreck your reputation "real quick" but that seems not to be the case. You'd think telling bald face lies to your audience would wreck your reputation, but Hannity is still on the air. Need I go on?

Well we'll see what happens. With the way this administration has been obfuscating and outright lying I wouldn't be surprised either way. This opiner might just be lying to further erode trust in our democracy or this IG could be pushing Trump's agenda. It could be true too but then that's why credibility is important.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Of course, if it turns out he's not telling "bald face lies," then that would reflect poorly on you for dismissing him out of hand.

Well, not really, if you take the station's credibility into account. Maybe their whole news division isn't fraudulent but their opinion hosts sure do seem to have a problem with the truth.

 

[JamesRussler]

Well, not really, if you take the station's credibility into account. Maybe their whole news division isn't fraudulent but their opinion hosts sure do seem to have a problem with the truth.

Respectfully, I don't think Fox News has a credibility problem. I don't even think Joe DiGenova has a credibility problem right now, aside from the fact that he speaks in a constant state of hyperbole. It is MSNBC and John Brennan that actually have credibility problems. And if DiGenova turns out to be correct, the entire Left wing will have an irreparable credibility problem.

 

[KILL KILL]

You'd think he has a reliable source. Saying things like this and then nothing happening would wreck your reputation real quick.

 

[MASShole]

I can't get past all the name calling in the original thread to care.

 

[cincymma79]

Theater

But


Interdasting if true

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Respectfully, I don't think Fox News has a credibility problem. I don't even think Joe DiGenova has a credibility problem right now, aside from the fact that he speaks in a constant state of hyperbole. It is MSNBC and John Brennan that actually have credibility problems. And if DiGenova turns out to be correct, the entire Left wing will have an irreparable credibility problem.

I don't see why that would be the case. Sure he might be guilty but why would that involve the entire "left"?

 

[HereticBD]

A sane person would think appearing on Faux News would wreck your reputation "real quick" but that seems not to be the case.

James Comey appeared on Fox News a few weeks ago. Reputation destroyed?

 

[Andy Capp]

James Comey appeared on Fox News a few weeks ago. Reputation destroyed?

LOL you're off your game. The bench is over there.

 

[HereticBD]

LOL you're off your game. The bench is over there.

Recently, I've observed that when posed with argument that easily contradicts your simplistic and juvenile assessment of things, you simply choose to sit out, or not address it all. It's probably for the best. It must get tiresome embarrassing yourself with your ignorance so often.

Have you recovered from finding out the very basic knowledge that a sitting President can not be indicted, yet?

 

[Andy Capp]

Recently, I've observed that when posed with argument that easily contradicts your simplistic and juvenile assessment of things, you simply choose to sit out, or not address it all. It's probably for the best. It must get tiresome embarrassing yourself with your ignorance so often.

Have you recovered from finding out the very basic knowledge that a sitting President can not be indicted, yet?

I believe that is not a certainly, just a prickly legal issue, but as the case may be, let's take that as a given. That wasn't really the point, was it? He claimed I said something that only an illiterate could conclude from my post he quoted, and then you in turn chose to ignore that and make a distinction without a difference. Hence my lack of interest in continuing.

Tl;dr you suck.

 

[HomerThompson]

Does the DOJ have oversight over the CIA?

 

[Andy Capp]

Of course, if it turns out he's not telling "bald face lies," then that would reflect poorly on you for dismissing him out of hand.

Really? If I had more time and a better memory I would have no trouble finding multiple instances of it.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Recently, I've observed that when posed with argument that easily contradicts your simplistic and juvenile assessment of things, you simply choose to sit out, or not address it all. It's probably for the best. It must get tiresome embarrassing yourself with your ignorance so often.

Have you recovered from finding out the very basic knowledge that a sitting President can not be indicted, yet?

Anyone who supports Trump has no room to point out other peoples supposed contradictions.