Type Username Here
Not a new member
@Type Username Here
to me this should startle you a bit
So the FBI launches an investigation into the leak. Interviews Holder about the leak. Then the org he controls looks for and provides information for the FBI to conduct the investigation. But he abstains from making the decision because he's been interviewed. Even though he had knowledge of the action and probably provided an opinion on the action. How does that make sense? Thats pretty stupid. It seems like the easiest way to circumvent the AG is to just interview him for all borderline civil rights issues.
I just replied to this the same time you posted. See above.
Last edited by a moderator: