It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BOMBSHELL! Rep. Joaquin Castro Says Some Trump Associates Probably Going To Jail

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
its obviously rhetorical tit for tat otherwise why would this pop up just ever so coincidentally after the Susan Rice scandal erupted?

if one believes in that kind of serendipity theyre a special kind of stupid


You mean like the whole "unmasked" narrative popping up seemingly out of nowhere after one day of open hearing testimony to the House Intelligence Committee as part of their investigation into possibly collusion between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign?

And then it coming to light that in the day inbetween those events, the guy who was supposed to be heading up the investigation, the man who kicked off the "unmasked" narrative, was called to a meeting at the WH?

Yeah, I'm not buying those coincidences either. And I agree, I do believe that Castro's airing these claims was a response to the administration trying to shift focus to Susan Rice and away from #RussiaGate with the help of (mainly) Fox News and Daily Caller.

That doesn't mean he was wrong/lying. Pretty bold predictions to come out of his mouth considering he's on the committee. We shall see.




posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
And you would think with a scandal of this magnitude, they'd be all over special prosecutor, but you'll note that not a single Democrat has called for one.


You seem to have missed democrats calling for a special prosecutor. I list just a few.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is also demanding a special counsel to investigate the Trump administration for ties to Russia, “given AG Sessions’ false statements about contacts with Russia.”


Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — a leading progressive and Trump antagonist — repeated calls for a special prosecutor to probe Russian influence in the elections and ties to Trump.

WaPo March 2


...Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, praised Rosenstein’s record as U.S. attorney for Maryland and backed his nomination. But he also called for a special prosecutor...

Fox March 7

Sen. Blumenthal of Connecticut, today:
twitter link with video
edit on 4/4/2017 by Olivine because: bolding is mine



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine


You seem to have missed democrats calling for a special prosecutor. I list just a few.


I believe she was referring to a special prosecutor for the wiretap/leaks case.

In the case of the leaks, that is something which is documented. They actually happened and we all know they happened, a felony was committed.

That beings said, no one on the left has called for a special prosecutor to go after the leakers.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

My apologies if I misunderstood her post. It still reads to me as if she is talking about the Trump/Russia investigation.
Here is the entire quote:

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: darkbake
But... but... Republicans don't believe it! They are exactly the same as the Democrats that don't believe Susan Rice unmasked Trump associates. Although I will say that while Russia interfering in the election is a solid fact, this is still speculation.


I know how Democrats operate. They are so desperate to get rid of Trump that if they actually had the smoking gun proof of what they allege, they'd have it out and this would be a real impeachment by now because let's get real, plenty of the GOP in DC don't like him either.

That they haven't done it yet, says they either have nothing at all or have something that's only circumstantial at best which means their only real play is to keep the scandal machine rolling because the rumors and allegations are far more damaging than any real discovery could ever be.

And you would think with a scandal of this magnitude, they'd be all over special prosecutor, but you'll note that not a single Democrat has called for one. Why not? Because then the truth might actually come out and they likely know that ends their only real play at this point -- pushing Trump out of office the way they did Nixon. They can't impeach him, but they might be able to force him to resign.




originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: darkbake But... but... Republicans don't believe it! They are exactly the same as the Democrats that don't believe Susan Rice unmasked Trump associates. Although I will say that while Russia interfering in the election is a solid fact, this is still speculation.
I know how Democrats operate. They are so desperate to get rid of Trump that if they actually had the smoking gun proof of what they allege, they'd have it out and this would be a real impeachment by now because let's get real, plenty of the GOP in DC don't like him either. That they haven't done it yet, says they either have nothing at all or have something that's only circumstantial at best which means their only real play is to keep the scandal machine rolling because the rumors and allegations are far more damaging than any real discovery could ever be. And you would think with a scandal of this magnitude, they'd be all over special prosecutor, but you'll note that not a single Democrat has called for one. Why not? Because then the truth might actually come out and they likely know that ends their only real play at this point -- pushing Trump out of office the way they did Nixon. They can't impeach him, but they might be able to force him to resign.


edit on 4/4/2017 by Olivine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

Ah.

Well I could be wrong, too.

Explain yourself ketusko!



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe


So yeah...nobody is going to jail. Likely nobody on either side.

I do believe the dems are going to come out of this looking like fools though.

How long has the Russian thing been going on now, and still nobody charged or in jail?


As I was just saying in my last post, I don't see anyone in the current administration going down. At least not any of the more significant players. I wouldn't rule out some other folks though.

I think that at least half the country sees Nunes's shenanigans for what they were. That bolsters my suspicion. It might have just been Nunes trying to throw Trump a bone over his weeks of being called out for his March 4 tweet — even though Nunes himelf said point blank that the reports didn't back up Trump's tweets. But I also have to wonder if hey don't know/suspect something that they're desperately trying to bury with this obvious attempt to shift the public's attention.

Whatever the case, I don't think the appearance of Nunes rushing off to the WH after the first day of testimony and then without briefing the committe, holding a morning press conference to drop a deflection the very next day, really escapes the notice of even folks like you who are more moderate Trump supporters.

The froathy-mouthed, they'll make themselves believe whatever they need to. Their capacity to ignore s# knows no limits. But even if you don't want to come right out and say it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, I'm assuming it registers and you're not going to forget. Just like most people who voted for Clinton know, at least on some level, that she's outright lied on a number of occassions, particularly in terms of the email server.

And think that through.

Had Clinton just come out on a day one and said, "yes, I ran a private e-mail server and I thought it was something I could do but I realize now it was wrong, here's all my emails FBI" — would it have grown into what it did? But no, she lied about it. She stalled. She played games and even those of us who supported her over Trump knew it and enough Democrats knew it deep down that if her opponent hadn't been Donald Trump, she'd have lost the popular vote by a landslide.

Sometimes it's the coverup that gets them.


Well, my issue with the story is the fish keep getting bigger on the Dem side and smaller on the GOP side.

Susan Rice is currently actually responding to questions, meaning she was definitely involved and definitely waited this long to do the right thing. I can't even find a name for a Trump connected person that is currently being investigated, except Flynn who no longer works for Trump. Rice worked all the way through what is being investigated and can, for obvious reasons, be directly tied to an Obama order.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

At this point, a special prosecutor would really have to go after the leakers wouldn't they? Because it's the leaks that would really uncover the whole mess.

Both stories stem from the same issue.

Democrats want the special prosecutor just for Trump/Russia, but what it's really needed for is to chase down the source of all these leaks. At this point, when the leaks are uncovered and everything with them, wouldn't we have full discovery on both sides of this story?

So why aren't the Democrats just as keen to have the special prosecutor stop up the leaks? They'd still get what they say they want wouldn't they?
edit on 4-4-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

My guess is that they are letting the FBI investigation take its course, before they try to force the issue for a special prosecuter.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
"If the claims are right" is not a "BOMBSHELL!"

Any threads forthcoming about Susan Rice? Should I hold my breath?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Whatever the case, I don't think the appearance of Nunes rushing off to the WH after the first day of testimony and then without briefing the committe, holding a morning press conference to drop a deflection the very next day, really escapes the notice of even folks like you who are more moderate Trump supporters.


Here again, your after Nunes.

Maybe he is the one person who was not surveilled?

Otherwise, I'd expect to see you posting a headline from CNN
about him. But as it is, all you can do is whine about his
legal authority, and his disregard for the Democrats.



Had Clinton just come out on a day one and said, "yes, I ran a private e-mail server and I thought it was something I could do but I realize now it was wrong, here's all my emails FBI" — would it have grown into what it did? But no, she lied about it. She stalled. She played games and even those of us who supported her over Trump knew it and enough Democrats knew it deep down that if her opponent hadn't been Donald Trump, she'd have lost the popular vote by a landslide.

Sometimes it's the coverup that gets them.


Like Susan Rice, and Benghazi?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Olivine
a reply to: ketsuko

My guess is that they are letting the FBI investigation take its course, before they try to force the issue for a special prosecuter.


Gets tricky here. Clinton wouldn't let the FBI have her server to investigate. It had to come from a 3rd party...this suggests a trust issue.

Not really sure why the FBI couldn't have taken it had they wanted though...i mean there were no national security threatening emails on it right? It was a personal server right? So how does she get out of it, Anthony Weiner apparently get out of it, and Huma get out of it? If there were no classified files distributed amongst all of the servers/personal devices they said, then why would Clinton have an issue with the FBI investigating her physical server?


And how is it the FBI can't gain access to it?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Thank-you for that transcription and post. Wuuf Blisterer has been repeating every ten minutes that he has it on good authority that some of Trump's associates are going to prison. But he doesn't say who told him this. Now we know...and can dismiss it.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Olivine
a reply to: ketsuko

My guess is that they are letting the FBI investigation take its course, before they try to force the issue for a special prosecuter.


Has the FBI ever FINISHED a high-profile investigation in the past few years? I think the Clinton Foundation investigation has been ongoing for several years...with no progress report.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Olivine
a reply to: ketsuko

My guess is that they are letting the FBI investigation take its course, before they try to force the issue for a special prosecuter.


Has the FBI ever FINISHED a high-profile investigation in the past few years? I think the Clinton Foundation investigation has been ongoing for several years...with no progress report.


I'm thinking this is the actual "get out of jail free card". Just how long can they keep an investigation ongoing? I mean if they just let it go does it just continue be classified as ongoing, therefore locking all information in "limbo"?

Shouldn't these investigations and their conclusions be transparent to the public? Even if redacted, shouldn't the conclusive beginning and end of an investigation be available on some government site?

Could be one and if there is, please link me.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


I know how Democrats operate. They are so desperate to get rid of Trump that if they actually had the smoking gun proof of what they allege, they'd have it out and this would be a real impeachment by now because let's get real, plenty of the GOP in DC don't like him either.


Why would they want to get rid of Trump now? His stupid travel bans have been injuncted, he failed to repeal Obamacare, his National Security Advisor had to resign for lying about his communications with Russian offiicials, a lot of people aren't blind to what is going on with Nunes, he's been talking about how Assad's not a bad guy and today it's, "Worst Chemical Attack in Years in Syria; U.S. Blames Assad." His favorability numbers are bleak. He's still tweeting about Clinton and debate questions.

Oh, and there are still serious outstanding questions about possible coordnation between members of Trump's campaign staff and Russian officials.

He has managed to do a lot of golfing. He's also made a number of attempts to take credit for economic and employment trends that he inherited — oh he he's back to tweeting about Clinton and primary debate questions. He needs this Susan Rice diversion just get some breathing room. In this state, why would the Democrats want him out and Pence in? Why would they want any more competent Republican taking his place?


And you would think with a scandal of this magnitude, they'd be all over special prosecutor, but you'll note that not a single Democrat has called for one. Why not? Because then the truth might actually come out and they likely know that ends their only real play at this point -- pushing Trump out of office the way they did Nixon. They can't impeach him, but they might be able to force him to resign.


That's actually not true:

Democrats call on Sessions to step aside from Flynn investigation (2/14):


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called Tuesday for an "independent investigation," possibly led by career DOJ employees with prosecutorial powers, while Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley suggested to CNN's Erin Burnett a special prosecutor should be appointed.


Democrats press for Trump-Russia probes on all fronts (2/15):


"An independent investigation is now necessary to determine what General Flynn did, who knew about it, and when," the senators wrote in a Wednesday letter to Sessions. "To maintain the confidence, credibility and impartiality of the Department of Justice, we urge you to immediately appoint an independent Special Counsel to investigate collusion with the Russian government by General Flynn and other Trump campaign, transition, and Administrative officials."


Independent investigation into Russian interference needed (2/23):


We must have an independent commission investigate Russia’s interference. Many of us have also called for the appointment of a special counsel to avoid potential conflicts of interest by providing for prosecutorial power outside of the Department of Justice. Attorney General Sessions’ recusal from any Department of Justice investigation is not enough; many of us have called for his resignation. We need sanctions to punish those responsible for this attack on our country from overseas. And Congress must act to protect and defend our democracy as each of us has sworn an oath to do.

Signed by 20 Democratic Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee:


Democrats call for independent Russian probe apart from Congress (3/26):


WASHINGTON — The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee repeated his call Sunday for an independent probe of possible Russian ties with the Donald Trump campaign.

“There are enough questions that have now been called, that have been raised where I think the establishment of a commission would give the country a lot of confidence that at least one body was doing this in a way that was completely removed from any political considerations,’’ California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on CBS’ Face the Nation.


Schiff tweeted early Sunday, “The events of this week only underscore need for an independent commission to conduct its own Russia investigation, along with Congress."

edit on 2017-4-4 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I guess so he doesn't come off sounding like a profit.

Allowing that things could change, what's wrong with that?.
Better than making a declaration.
He may feel certain but that doesn't mean others reviewing the same material would agree.
He's being cautious.
But on the same note I heard similar proclamations about Hillary and company going to jail all spring and we know how that went.
Not taking any politicalrhetoric on this at anything but face value .
The results will be revealed eventually.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: tribal

There is no Susan Rice scandal. LOL.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Rice and Obama are not Trump associates. Neither is Hillary. They're the ones going to jail, along with Comey.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

timing coincidences are the domain of speculation.

however, whats important is WHERE along the time line one chooses to focus their attention.

In my mind there are at least two major questions which distill this entire thing down to its more salient points.

1) if Susan Rice was asking for names of Trump associates to be unmasked more than a YEAR before the election it begs the question of upon WHAT BASIS those requests were made. The chatter suggests she requested names be unmasked over a dozen times in the course of a year or so. Those requests, i would imagine, cannot be made just out of curiosity alone. So theres that.

2) If Rice requested the names be unmasked out of suspicion that Trump associates were communicating with Russia about things that could be illegal or questionable that leads to a logical question which no one is asking or speaking to which is this:

If there was sufficient REASON for Rice to request unmasking of Americans names to, as she put it, discover the CONTEXT of those conversations and she could not determine what that context was with over a dozen requests and over the course of a year that can only mean a couple of things:

a) there was nothing definitive that could prove or show with little doubt that Trump and the Russians were doing anything untoward.

b) there was something that suggested collusion which they wanted to follow for further proof or clarification.


NOW, no matter which one you believe Rice and Obama are both in hot water and i will explain why.

if you choose a) then by all accounts when nothing was found the fairy tale of Trump Russia collusion should have never seen the light of day. For even the QUESTION to have been created is evidence that not only did Rice not find anything, but that associates of Obama who were unhappy that they found nothing realized their only play was to SUGGEST wrongdoing as a dark cloud to hang over the incoming president to suggest illegitimacy.

if you choose b) and there WAS something more than just a SUGGESTION of wrong doing or collusion it would be absolutely CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT to allow a person seeking the Presidency who was colluding with the Russians for advantage to not ONLY win the Republican nomination, but even more to go all the way to November 8 without that intelligence being brought to light to keep a potential Russian agent or co conspirator to gain the most powerful position in the world.

No matter which one you choose there is AT MINIMUM profound corruption OR dangerous and perhaps criminal dereliction of duty, for if there was no ACTIONABLE intelligence with which to find fault with Trumps communication with Russians then merely raising the spectre of it was HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE and rises to the level of State sponsored propaganda and smear campaigning to undermine a new Executive branch........and if there WAS actual evidence of collusion for the intelligence agencies to allow a person working with a foreign state power to attain the office of POTUS NOTWITHSTANDING the evidence they had he was colluding THAT ALSO is profoundly disasterous and criminally irresponsible and a complete dereliction of duty if not an act of direct complicity.


Now....how would you like your crow?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: theantediluvian

timing coincidences are the domain of speculation.

however, whats important is WHERE along the time line one chooses to focus their attention.

In my mind there are at least two major questions which distill this entire thing down to its more salient points.

1) if Susan Rice was asking for names of Trump associates to be unmasked more than a YEAR before the election it begs the question of upon WHAT BASIS those requests were made. The chatter suggests she requested names be unmasked over a dozen times in the course of a year or so. Those requests, i would imagine, cannot be made just out of curiosity alone. So theres that.

2) If Rice requested the names be unmasked out of suspicion that Trump associates were communicating with Russia about things that could be illegal or questionable that leads to a logical question which no one is asking or speaking to which is this:

If there was sufficient REASON for Rice to request unmasking of Americans names to, as she put it, discover the CONTEXT of those conversations and she could not determine what that context was with over a dozen requests and over the course of a year that can only mean a couple of things:

a) there was nothing definitive that could prove or show with little doubt that Trump and the Russians were doing anything untoward.

b) there was something that suggested collusion which they wanted to follow for further proof or clarification.


NOW, no matter which one you believe Rice and Obama are both in hot water and i will explain why.

if you choose a) then by all accounts when nothing was found the fairy tale of Trump Russia collusion should have never seen the light of day. For even the QUESTION to have been created is evidence that not only did Rice not find anything, but that associates of Obama who were unhappy that they found nothing realized their only play was to SUGGEST wrongdoing as a dark cloud to hang over the incoming president to suggest illegitimacy.

if you choose b) and there WAS something more than just a SUGGESTION of wrong doing or collusion it would be absolutely CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT to allow a person seeking the Presidency who was colluding with the Russians for advantage to not ONLY win the Republican nomination, but even more to go all the way to November 8 without that intelligence being brought to light to keep a potential Russian agent or co conspirator to gain the most powerful position in the world.

No matter which one you choose there is AT MINIMUM profound corruption OR dangerous and perhaps criminal dereliction of duty,

for if there was no ACTIONABLE intelligence with which to find fault with Trumps communication with Russians then merely raising the spectre of it was HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE and rises to the level of State sponsored propaganda and smear campaigning to undermine a new Executive branch.......

.and if there WAS actual evidence of collusion for the intelligence agencies to allow a person working with a foreign state power to attain the office of POTUS NOTWITHSTANDING the evidence they had he was colluding THAT ALSO is profoundly disasterous and criminally irresponsible and a complete dereliction of duty if not an act of direct complicity.


Now....how would you like your crow?



Nice one.


And I'd say espionage would be a possibility too.







top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join