BREAKING!: Corsi files criminal complaint against Mueller, alleges bid to seek false testimony

[Beaudreaux]

It amounts to the same thing. The words are the words. You can throw any interpretation onto them you want...build anything you care to onto them if you want. But that is all it is and all its worth for that matter.

"The legal principle of Prosecutorial Discretion, and the US Attorney's plenary powers granted by the US Code and Title 9 of the US Department of Justice's Justice Manual could lead one to say there is no definitive requirement for an affirmative action on the part of the government from a criminal standpoint. However, there's a thin veil between Prosecutorial Discretion and Prosecutorial Misconduct as defined by precedence and the ABA in part as "an illegal act or failing to act, on the part of a prosecutor...". Also, and IMHO more important, the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It can be read like this for clarity on this subject: Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... or abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Given that, it would a violation of the First Amendment for the Prosecutor (the US Attorney) to use Prosecutorial Discretion to deny the right of a person to petition (DOJ investigate whether they should file criminal charges on behalf of the petitioner) for redress of grievances of the government.

IMHO, that is."

"Could lead one to say"....you are literally telling us you are interpreting, building something new on the words that is not there. "It can be read like this".....again telling us you are interpreting, building something onto the words that is not there. Then you end with "IMHO, that is."

Finally calling what you posted a "description" of the Constitution suggests just the sort of loose use of language that is basic to this country's current horrendous state of affairs.
Thanks for playing.

If you can't, or refuse, to see the basic legal logic in how one leads to two and two to three and three back to one, then I can't help you any further.

Here, I hope this helps:

Diagramming Sentences

 

[Chomsky]

First, let me repeat that I am not in anyway defending or supporting Corsi.

There's no real way (official form or format) for a private citizen to petition the government for redress which is a protected right of the people enshrined in the First Amendment. The criminal complaint, as it's being called in the OP and this thread, appears to me to have been formatted using the basic Bluebook or Indigo Book formatting. That leads me back to my previous posts on why and how the government should legally accept and affirmatively pursue, at a minimum, an investigation into the allegations made in a petition from a private citizen under the auspices of the First Amendment. And, as I proffered before, to do otherwise, or especially to utilize a legal maneuver such as Prosecutorial Discretion which is based on law passed by Congress as a reason to deny such a petition, would in fact be a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Again, IMHO.

Yes. I'm aware you're simply doing analysis, rather than defending Corsi or his positions.

But this is interesting, because you're invoking a use of the first amendment of which I'm not aware.

So you're saying the first implies the gov must affirmatively act upon Mr. Corsi's communications? And, why would prosecutorial discretion not apply here? Lastly, is your opinion here a matter of constitutional theory, or currently practiced procedure?

Please realize I'm not debating, here.

 

[jnug]

If you can't, or refuse, to see the basic legal logic in how one leads to two and two to three and three back to one, then I can't help you any further.

Here, I hope this helps:

Diagramming Sentences

Look....you appear to using a lot of gibberish to say that a Prosecutor does not have to prosecute. I actually agree that a Prosecutor does not have to prosecute. Though that could have been said easily enough.

"Also, and IMHO more important, the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It can be read like this for clarity on this subject: Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... or abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Given that, it would a violation of the First Amendment for the Prosecutor (the US Attorney) to use Prosecutorial Discretion to deny the right of a person to petition (DOJ investigate whether they should file criminal charges on behalf of the petitioner) for redress of grievances of the government."


In bold above you are simply not making a point of any sort and interpreting the Constitution to do it. You are making what is at best a stretch.

Corsi can petition and the Justice Dept can and the Justice Dept will do him a favor and throw it in the trash can! Corsi might as well have sent them coupons for free rides at a carnival in Calcutta. There is no rational cause for filing a petition that is not intended to result in an action and you are using the Constitution to imply that a petition of that sort whether filed by Corsi or any other citizen has merit. It doesn't. Therefore it is either a frivolous or self serving petition not intended to do anything more than elevate the petitioner in his own eyes to the status of the Prosecutor he apparently fears and/or possibly elevate himself in the public eye in some vain effort to set himself up as some sort of savior or martyr in anticipation of his next POS utter pile of drivel book. WHATEVER.

Some people would simply take a stiff shot of Bourbon call an attorney experienced with Federal Prosecution and leave it at that. At least Corsi or anybody else in his position would get something out of that. About the only things Corsi or any other private citizen would get out of what Corsi is doing is the first chapter of some self serving recitation in print of "My story...How I Did Whatever".

Now as you can likely guess, I have am not terribly sympathetic to BS artists like Corsi making light of the Justice Dept for his own purposes.

 

[JasperL]

First, let me repeat that I am not in anyway defending or supporting Corsi.

There's no real way (official form or format) for a private citizen to petition the government for redress which is a protected right of the people enshrined in the First Amendment. The criminal complaint, as it's being called in the OP and this thread, appears to me to have been formatted using the basic Bluebook or Indigo Book formatting. That leads me back to my previous posts on why and how the government should legally accept and affirmatively pursue, at a minimum, an investigation into the allegations made in a petition from a private citizen under the auspices of the First Amendment. And, as I proffered before, to do otherwise, or especially to utilize a legal maneuver such as Prosecutorial Discretion which is based on law passed by Congress as a reason to deny such a petition, would in fact be a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Again, IMHO.

I just don't see that at all. We're allowed to protest, petition, write letters, express our opinions, but there simply cannot be an affirmative obligation (or expectation even) on the part of government to engage in a criminal investigation based on a letter from a private citizen.

Good government might suggest that the prosecutors take the complaint, and read it in good faith for evidence of a prosecutable crime, but their resources are incredibly limited and we demand them in effect to prioritize their efforts in 100 ways every day, by ignoring MANY crimes or alleged crimes and pursuing others. Police in general do the same prioritization every day. So they simply cannot be prioritized by private citizens, forced to abandon other possible investigations to answer who knows how many letters with substantial investigations.

And in this case, at its core, Corsi is alleging that although he admits to telling an untruth, it wasn't a lie, and the "criminal complaint" boils down to prosecutors not believing his "I forgot!" story and playing prosecutorial hardball. Well, boo hoo.

 

[Grokmaster]

Two things that you can consistently be counted upon to do: Be wrong, and be totally biased.

First, the article you referenced is “written” by a freelancer with no journalist training and a clear bent against Mueller. No surprise you picked such a weak source.

Now let’s go over what you proffer as evidence of Mueller’s incompetence. The Hell’s Angels case cited offered no details as to how or if Mueller made any mistakes at all. Only that on the second trial the jury was deadlocked. The anthrax case was a failure on Mueller’s part. Even though he pursued the wrong man at the urging of at least two representatives, it was ultimately his failure.

Now let’s look at some of Mueller’s successes.
“Oversaw the prosecutions of Manuel Noriega, John Gotti and led the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Mueller helped transform the FBI into an agency focused on national security as well as law enforcement, gathering intelligence and countering terrorism globally.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/04/16/us/robert-mueller-fast-facts/index.html

And now he’s running what from the outside appears to be one of the most complex, far reaching investigations the U.S. government has ever been involved in, so far netting dozens of guilty pleas/convictions.

Hate on Mueller all you like, it doesn’t change the fact that he’s been very successful so far.

Two things you can be consistently counted on to do: IGNORING THE FACTS, or PRETENDING THEY AREN'T TRUE...such as THESE (ETAL):


The first of these cases took place in 1979, when Mueller, as head of the U.S. attorney’s special prosecutors unit, took over the case against 33 members of the Hells Angels motorcycle club charged with drug trafficking, murder, and bombings. The first trial, which sought to imprison 18 of the accused members, was unsuccessful, as the five convictions reached in the case were overturned on appeal.


.Mueller then took over the case and lead a team of four prosecutors in the second trial with 11 eleven defendants. However, as reported by the Times, “after four months, the jury said it was deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Mueller decided not to ask for a retrial.”


.Mueller was also criticized for his time as head of the FBI. He led the investigation into the deadly anthrax attacks in the years after 9/11 for nearly seven years, ultimately leading in the prosecution of the wrong suspect, who later successfully sued the government for $5.8 million..



After agents successfully traced back the anthrax to an Army microbiologist who committed suicide once he was informed of the impending charges, Mueller “was reluctant to publicly address the missteps” in the case.

"I think he was personally embarrassed," a former aide told the Times. "I would assess him as someone that can't accept the fact that he screwed up."








Yes. citing the ACTUAL FACTS is "wrong".

CAN'T READ?

HIS IDIOCY COST US MILLIONS....keep trying to pretend otherwise.

BTW- The BRITISH solved Pan--Am 103...NOT the Grand Buffoon...and RUDY GUILLIANI is WHO GOT GOTTI, not the IDIOT MUELLER . Makeup some more SILLIASS **** to try to PROPP THE GRAND BUFFOON UP.



HIS OWN CO-WORKERS are who describes him as unable to admit his mistakes, and we see that you are also.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Two things you can be consistently counted on to do: IGNORING THE FACTS, or PRETENDING THEY AREN'T TRUE...such as THESE (ETAL):


The first of these cases took place in 1979, when Mueller, as head of the U.S. attorney’s special prosecutors unit, took over the case against 33 members of the Hells Angels motorcycle club charged with drug trafficking, murder, and bombings. The first trial, which sought to imprison 18 of the accused members, was unsuccessful, as the five convictions reached in the case were overturned on appeal.


.Mueller then took over the case and lead a team of four prosecutors in the second trial with 11 eleven defendants. However, as reported by the Times, “after four months, the jury said it was deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Mueller decided not to ask for a retrial.”


.Mueller was also criticized for his time as head of the FBI. He led the investigation into the deadly anthrax attacks in the years after 9/11 for nearly seven years, ultimately leading in the prosecution of the wrong suspect, who later successfully sued the government for $5.8 million..



After agents successfully traced back the anthrax to an Army microbiologist who committed suicide once he was informed of the impending charges, Mueller “was reluctant to publicly address the missteps” in the case.

"I think he was personally embarrassed," a former aide told the Times. "I would assess him as someone that can't accept the fact that he screwed up." ........... blah blah

Repeats same crap expecting it be embraced second time around. Insanity or stupidity?

Speaking of ignoring, I noticed that you didn’t (or couldn’t) undercut the Mueller achievements I posted. Like I said, hate on Mueller all you like, doesn’t change the fact that he’s been very successful so far in the current investigation.:thumbs:

 

[JustHanging]

If there's evidence of misconduct, Mueller and whoever else his team that were involved should be immediately dismissed and become subjects to an investigation.

:lamo

Really? Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that you were braying "Innocent until proven guilty!" ad nauseam? Now it's "evidence and immediate dismissal!"?


How do you keep all the talking points you're expected to repeat straight, when they expect you to attack today what you were defending yesterday? Job requirement to have a really short memory?

 

[JustHanging]

Two things you can be consistently counted on to do: IGNORING THE FACTS, or PRETENDING THEY AREN'T TRUE...such as THESE (ETAL):


The first of these cases took place in 1979, when Mueller, as head of the U.S. attorney’s special prosecutors unit, took over the case against 33 members of the Hells Angels motorcycle club charged with drug trafficking, murder, and bombings. The first trial, which sought to imprison 18 of the accused members, was unsuccessful, as the five convictions reached in the case were overturned on appeal.


.Mueller then took over the case and lead a team of four prosecutors in the second trial with 11 eleven defendants. However, as reported by the Times, “after four months, the jury said it was deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Mueller decided not to ask for a retrial.”


.Mueller was also criticized for his time as head of the FBI. He led the investigation into the deadly anthrax attacks in the years after 9/11 for nearly seven years, ultimately leading in the prosecution of the wrong suspect, who later successfully sued the government for $5.8 million..



After agents successfully traced back the anthrax to an Army microbiologist who committed suicide once he was informed of the impending charges, Mueller “was reluctant to publicly address the missteps” in the case.

"I think he was personally embarrassed," a former aide told the Times. "I would assess him as someone that can't accept the fact that he screwed up."








Yes. citing the ACTUAL FACTS is "wrong".

CAN'T READ?

HIS IDIOCY COST US MILLIONS....keep trying to pretend otherwise.

BTW- The BRITISH solved Pan--Am 103...NOT the Grand Buffoon...and RUDY GUILLIANI is WHO GOT GOTTI, not the IDIOT MUELLER . Makeup some more SILLIASS **** to try to PROPP THE GRAND BUFFOON UP.



HIS OWN CO-WORKERS are who describes him as unable to admit his mistakes, and we see that you are also.

Are you feeling OK?

 

[beefheart]

Two things you can be consistently counted on to do: IGNORING THE FACTS, or PRETENDING THEY AREN'T TRUE...such as THESE (ETAL):


The first of these cases took place in 1979, when Mueller, as head of the U.S. attorney’s special prosecutors unit, took over the case against 33 members of the Hells Angels motorcycle club charged with drug trafficking, murder, and bombings. The first trial, which sought to imprison 18 of the accused members, was unsuccessful, as the five convictions reached in the case were overturned on appeal.


.Mueller then took over the case and lead a team of four prosecutors in the second trial with 11 eleven defendants. However, as reported by the Times, “after four months, the jury said it was deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Mueller decided not to ask for a retrial.”


.Mueller was also criticized for his time as head of the FBI. He led the investigation into the deadly anthrax attacks in the years after 9/11 for nearly seven years, ultimately leading in the prosecution of the wrong suspect, who later successfully sued the government for $5.8 million..



After agents successfully traced back the anthrax to an Army microbiologist who committed suicide once he was informed of the impending charges, Mueller “was reluctant to publicly address the missteps” in the case.

"I think he was personally embarrassed," a former aide told the Times. "I would assess him as someone that can't accept the fact that he screwed up."








Yes. citing the ACTUAL FACTS is "wrong".

CAN'T READ?

HIS IDIOCY COST US MILLIONS....keep trying to pretend otherwise.

BTW- The BRITISH solved Pan--Am 103...NOT the Grand Buffoon...and RUDY GUILLIANI is WHO GOT GOTTI, not the IDIOT MUELLER . Makeup some more SILLIASS **** to try to PROPP THE GRAND BUFFOON UP.



HIS OWN CO-WORKERS are who describes him as unable to admit his mistakes, and we see that you are also.

Oh, calm down. Mueller has the bona fides and he is doing a great job, which pisses you off something fierce...

 

[Grokmaster]

Repeats same crap expecting it be embraced second time around. Insanity or stupidity?

Speaking of ignoring, I noticed that you didn’t (or couldn’t) undercut the Mueller achievements I posted. Like I said, hate on Mueller all you like, doesn’t change the fact that he’s been very successful so far in the current investigation.:thumbs:

Still waiting for you to specify which part of that IS NOT TRUE, as you LIED about....DO I NEED TO PRINT THOSE FACTS AGAIN?


Or will you be making up MORE BULL****, like how The Grand Buffoon solved the Pan Am 103 bombing, or was responsible for getting Gotti?

 

[Grokmaster]

Oh, calm down. Mueller has the bona fides and he is doing a great job, which pisses you off something fierce...

Yeah..I cited his "bonafides"...ACCURATELY..which makes th DP Left go apoplectic desperately trying to IGNORE IT.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Still waiting for you to specify which part of that IS NOT TRUE, as you LIED about....DO I NEED TO PRINT THOSE FACTS AGAIN?


Or will you be making up MORE BULL****, like how The Grand Buffoon solved the Pan Am 103 bombing, or was responsible for getting Gotti?

Seriously, is there something wrong with you? I have already replied to your repeated post (post #222).

Now, how about you respond to the achievements/successes of Mueller’s that I posted, without lying.

 

[beefheart]

Yeah..I cited his "bonafides"...ACCURATELY..which makes th DP Left go apoplectic desperately trying to IGNORE IT.

You have nothing left, you know he is doing a good job, and he is indicting, convicting and jailing the bad guys...and he is moving up the ladder. I will enjoy your increasing fear and paranoia that this investigation invokes.:lamo

 

[Grokmaster]

Are you feeling OK?

Oh look...another DP leftist desperate to avoid the facts about their Precious Grand Buffoon's record of buffoonery.

 

[Grokmaster]

You have nothing left, you know he is doing a good job, and he is indicting, convicting and jailing the bad guys...and he is moving up the ladder. I will enjoy your increasing fear and paranoia that this investigation invokes.:lamo

Excuse me, but the Grand Buffoon has a HISTORY of prosecutorial misconduct....as I have produced.

I don't need "anything else" to make that point.

Keep pretending your Sacred Grand Buffoon is NOT the "Grand Buffoon" that he is...it's funny to read...the Left Dupes being led around by the nose...AGAIN. :2rofll:

 

[Mr Person]

Say, has the OP's creator ruminated on the absurdity of claiming that actual testimony under oath isn't "evidence" (Kavanaugh hearing) to using an accusation as evidence?

 

[beefheart]

Excuse me, but the Grand Buffoon has a HISTORY of prosecutorial misconduct....as I have produced.

I don't need "anything else" to make that point.

Keep pretending your Sacred Grand Buffoon is NOT the "Grand Buffoon" that he is...it's funny to read...the Left Dupes being led around by the nose...AGAIN. :2rofll:

No, he doesn't. You just have a weird obsessive opinion of Mueller and you can't think past that.

You live in fear.

 

[Beaudreaux]

.

I know you're not debating. That was for the others that may read my posts and respond like others have in this thread, and respond with some sort of attack on me as if I'm trying to defend Corsi. As for you, I always enjoy our discussions and learn something new or at least a new way of viewing issues, each and every time.

Okay, let me try to describe this in a logical path:

1) There are a number of different types of written documents that empower and restrict the federal government.

2) Each and every action (intentionally not acting is also an action) taken by the federal government must first be an act for which the US Constitution empowers the federal government with the power to take such action.

3) Article One of the Constitution enumerates the powers that Congress can act upon.

4) Among those Article One powers is the Plenary Power of Congress to make law: Article One, Section 8, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

5) The First Amendment, among other things, states that "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... or abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (I gave another poster a sentence diagram of the First Amendment from a web site that does such things, in post #228, if you'd like to reference that as well).

6) An oversimplification, but in-depth enough for this discussion, description of types of laws would be a) laws that are stand alone as statutes themselves which need no other written guidance for compliance or enforcement and are published in the Federal Register and codified as all laws are codified, in the United States Code (U.S.C.), and b) those laws that require the promulgation of regulations by the Executive Branch to enable enforcement and/or compliance with the underlying legislation, AKA the enabling legislation. Most legislation is the latter, requiring promulgation of regulatory guidance which are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR's).

7) To review real quick, this is the hierarchy of US law that I've mentioned so far: the Constitution (the highest law of the land), the Law (made by Congress), the Regulations (made by the Executive Branch which is not law but has the power of law behind it).

8) Next are Codified Policies, Rules, Guidance Manuals, and Standard Procedures. All of which have to be authorized to be created by a law, or they don't mean anything at all.

9) In Post 83 of this thread I gave a layout of how the above effects the topic of this thread. Here's what I wrote:

Here's some that my lawyer gave me: US DOJ Citizen Complaint Files which meets the requirements of 5 U.S. Code § 301 - Departmental regulations and the requirements of 28 U.S. Code § 547 - Duties and 23 D.C. Code 101(c) Conduct of prosecutions. Also, here's a reference to the Steps In The Federal Criminal Process, which this "criminal complaint" would be the first step in the first part, the Investigation. In Title 9 of the US Department of Justice's Justice Manual, 9-2.000 - AUTHORITY OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY IN CRIMINAL DIVISION MATTERS/PRIOR APPROVALS, states the following:

Continued on next post...

 

[Beaudreaux]

.

Continued from previous post:

Additionally, the US DOJ OIG must investigate claims of waste, fraud, abuse, misconduct, or whistleblower reprisal, which if the claims in this complaint are accurate could be classified as abuse and/or misconduct.

There are other regulations and laws as well as the The American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice which are used by courts to determine issues covered by them such as proprietorial misconduct, but it's late and I'm tired, so I hope the above suffice.

Notice that I started with the law, the first one being codified at 5 U.S. Code § 301, which is from Public Law (PL) 89–554 (the actual law passed by Congress) which is the law that enables the Executive Branch to create Departmental Regulations. Then I mentioned 28 U.S. Code § 547 which is also from PL 89–554 and lays out the United States attorney's Duties. Then I mentioned the US DOJ Justice Manual (authorized by 5 U.S. Code § 301 above) which lays out the rules and regulations for the DOJ and the US Attorney's in each district, which includes all the parts that would entail Prosecutorial Discretion.

10) (I apologize in advance for the following run-on sentence) So let me walk this backwards: Prosecutorial Discretion is a choice that a US Attorney can make that could be the "Act of not Acting" which is allowed by the US DOJ Justice Manual (among other sections includes Section 9-2.020 - DECLINING PROSECUTION), which is authorized by Congress through the enabling legislation PL 89–554 and codified at 5 U.S. Code § 301, which Congress is empowered to enact through Article One, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which brings us back to the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... or abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances" therefore Prosecutorial Discretion used to deny the petition by not acting, would be traceable back to the law passed by Congress as the enabling legislation for that act of not acting, which would be in violation of the First Amendment.

Whew...

 

[Chomsky]

I hope you didn't mind me sitting on this for an extra day, until I had a window to give it the time it deserved. There's a lot here!

I know you're not debating. That was for the others that may read my posts and respond like others have in this thread, and respond with some sort of attack on me as if I'm trying to defend Corsi. As for you, I always enjoy our discussions and learn something new or at least a new way of viewing issues, each and every time.

Thanks for the reply, and thanks for the kind words, I feel likewise. I have high respect for you.

Continued from previous post:




Notice that I started with the law, the first one being codified at 5 U.S. Code § 301, which is from Public Law (PL) 89–554 (the actual law passed by Congress) which is the law that enables the Executive Branch to create Departmental Regulations. Then I mentioned 28 U.S. Code § 547 which is also from PL 89–554 and lays out the United States attorney's Duties. Then I mentioned the US DOJ Justice Manual (authorized by 5 U.S. Code § 301 above) which lays out the rules and regulations for the DOJ and the US Attorney's in each district, which includes all the parts that would entail Prosecutorial Discretion.

10) (I apologize in advance for the following run-on sentence) So let me walk this backwards: Prosecutorial Discretion is a choice that a US Attorney can make that could be the "Act of not Acting" which is allowed by the US DOJ Justice Manual (among other sections includes Section 9-2.020 - DECLINING PROSECUTION), which is authorized by Congress through the enabling legislation PL 89–554 and codified at 5 U.S. Code § 301, which Congress is empowered to enact through Article One, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which brings us back to the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... or abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances" therefore Prosecutorial Discretion used to deny the petition by not acting, would be traceable back to the law passed by Congress as the enabling legislation for that act of not acting, which would be in violation of the First Amendment.

Alright, this is a great well-executed and organized argument. Thanks for working through this.

Here's my takeaways:

1] The DOJ does indeed have the Constitutional responsibility to act upon a complaint
2] However, not-acting is indeed taking an action
3] In one of your lawyer's DOJ source docs, the term "meaningful complaint" surfaced

So in essence, I think the point has been shown that the DOJ must technically take "action", but that requirement can be satisfied by deciding to take no action! :mrgreen:

And of course that phrase I found, "meaningful complaint", is a powerful predicate. Because in reality, I believe the DOJ can do exactly as I believed: Throw it (the complaint) in the circular file (perhaps after claiming to have read it).

Whew...

Yeah, "whew". But a good & informative "whew". Thanks again for laying it all out. It was a great exercise (with one helluva' run-on sentence!).

:thumbs:

 

[Grokmaster]

UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS have ZERO authority over a sitting POTUS. PERIOD.

Meanwhile Comey ADMITS the FISA ABUSES to Congress...and the Fake News/Lying Left IGNORES IT, NATURALLY...