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.

 

Trump Team Knew Flynn Was Under Investigation Before He Came to White House

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

"Picking on Trump" wouldn't be quite an accurate assessment on my stance but for arguments sake, we'll go with it.

From what I gather of your post you are saying that the information provided on anonymity is ok with you. Fine, should it be vetted? Should there be something a tad more to substantiate the claim?

I don't really have a problem with the sources as long as there is something else tangible to back them up. For instance, How many of YOUR threads are singularly sourced?

My bigger question is where are they getting the information.




posted on May, 17 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Who?

Are you telling me that she had to prove her innocence in a court of law? Provide a source of this.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

Comey saying he didn't confirm or deny an investigation in a public hearing does not mean he didn't inform the person under investigation.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
But, that had nothing to do with Russia, it was with Turkey, which is one of our allies I thought. He did not do the proper paperwork but that shouldn't have been a problem. Again unnamed sources, no official person to even verify whether it is true. The thing is people make things up every day, even people working in Washington and New York. I like to have verified evidence to make a determination, people will make up all sorts of stuff to get recognition or if they overheard bits and pieces, they may not have gotten things right.

The Media is spewing rumors all the time, I used to think Fox was bad, their past actions now seem like they were angels compared to much of the News sources. I know that trump put a target on his back for attacking the MSM, but that does not mean the MSM has to shoot twisted allegations at him with improper evidence to back them.

I don't even personally care for Trump but he is our elected president. That is good enough for me. I disliked Hillary, I think the Dems made a mistake with her. The skeletons in her closet are much worse than Trump has. I voted for Trump so Hillary would not win. I guess a lot of other people around the country had the same attitude.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi


This doesn't mean he didn't tell Flynn. It means he won't confirm an investigation in an open hearing.
Recall he announced the investigation into trumps campaign only after DOJ gave him permission to.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Democrats also knew Hillary was under investigation. Your point?



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I can tell you my opinion and it seems to be one that a lot of people share. When Trump nudged Comey, Comey knew it was sketchy — which is why he documented it — but he figured it was something he could manage. And on its own, it's a single statement from a single meeting that is open to interpretation and of course, there's the fact that it would be his word against Trump's. Do the math. What would you have done?

The fact that Trump actually fired Comey and as he said to Lester Holt, the Russia investigation was foremost in his thinking, it really cast that statement in a far more serious light.

Just connect those dots and tell me, if he actually said what was in the memo, doesn't it smell like obstruction of justice?

1. Meeting with Comey, leans on Comey to kill investigation.
2. Fires Comey.
3. Directly contradicting his own spokespeople, Trump tells Lester Holt that he was planning on firing Comey before and regardless of the recommendations.
4. In the same response to Holt, Trump also cites the Russian investigation as a reason for firing Comey.

If Trump fired Comey because Comey wouldn't kill the Flynn investigation (or the Russia investigation), then Trump is in fact 100% guilty of obstruction of justice and could reasonably face impeachment.

Based on his ridiculously ill-conceived statements to Lester Holt, there's a prima facie case for obstruction of justice without the memo.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Two members in the Senate intelligence committee are the ones saying trumps transition team knew he was under investigation.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




I can tell you my opinion and it seems to be one that a lot of people share. When Trump nudged Comey, Comey knew it was sketchy — which is why he documented it — but he figured it was something he could manage. And on its own, it's a single statement from a single meeting that is open to interpretation and of course, there's the fact that it would be his word against Trump's. Do the math. What would you have done?


I've lost four jobs for clinging to my morals, beliefs and values. I'm not the right person to ask.

Does it smell like obstruction? You would have to prove that the case exists for any laws that may have been broken and that he was under investigation for either. Latest articles are proving that Trump is in fact NOT under investigation, however there is no clear answer. This applies to Trump.

Now onto Flynn and that is a maybe.

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers. A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

www.law.cornell.edu...
An argument could surely be made upon the verb influence in the above law. However, this law has an intent clause.....and we all are well versed on that implication.
edit on 17-5-2017 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: Kali74
Trump must be blowing a gasket!

LOL


Looks like it's the other way around. You probably missed his speech where he explicitly said that he would never give up and fight til the end.


Trump says a lot of things and then flip flops. You been played by a pro.

www.politico.com...


I'm in for the endgame.


Most likely end with his resignation.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
News flash:

Clinton team knew Hillary was under investigation before, during and after she ran for president.

Why was it OK for Hillary to be under federal investigation and still run but it is unacceptable for Trump to nominate someone who turned out to be under investigation for something way less serious and unproven?
edit on 17-5-2017 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


Latest articles are proving that Trump is in fact NOT under investigation, however there is no clear answer.


Trump doesn't have to be guilty of collusion to be guilty of obstruction. You can in fact obstruct justice when it comes to investigation into your associates or even stranger. It doesn't even matter if the persons investigated were even guilty in the first place.

I've never been convinced that Trump was directly involved in collusion if it happened. That doesn't mean he isn't afraid that there's something to be found that he doesn't know about (or that he does know about) regarding somebody from his campaign/administration.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




Trump doesn't have to be guilty of collusion to be guilty of obstruction. You can in fact obstruct justice when it comes to investigation into your associates or even stranger. It doesn't even matter if the persons investigated were even guilty in the first place.


I think I addressed that in my previous post. However it would be hard to prove intent on an investigation that doesn't exist. How/if that applies to Flynn, we will see.




I've never been convinced that Trump was directly involved in collusion if it happened. That doesn't mean he isn't afraid that there's something to be found that he doesn't know about (or that he does know about) regarding somebody from his campaign/administration.


Of course there's dirt behind Trump especially if he has done any in Russia. You can't break into that market without dealing with some shady characters.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Kali74

NYT have to be true, we can not deny their political truthfulness anymore, they are all fair and balance, hell they are running the country as we speak, who needs Trump we got the NYT in the White house they know everything.



Don't forget The Washington Post


Yeah, John Podesta is on the case!



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I don't know... do you think if Tillerson knew he wouldn''t tell Trump?
I'm thinking no. He would definitely tell him.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

Know what?
edit on 5182017 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

No no of course not. No, in the court of public opinion. Anyway that was just a metaphor. This thread is about Flynn.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
They did and didn't care. Trump and most of his people are under investigation now. Why should they care about Flynn?




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join