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.

 

Wapo Claims Mueller Changed Investigation to Obstruction of Justice

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Holy $h!t, I had never heard of that before.

Nice find Sublime.




posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I passed on this because it seemed in bad taste but since you've gone and posted it and spewed a bunch of inaccuracies, I feel it's only right that somebody refute them.

#1. Mueller is not a "lefty" — what are you talking about? Robert Mueller is in fact a Republican. He's a decorated Vietnam vet (Marine - Bronze Star, Purple Heart) who has a long career of public service. He became FBI Director under Bush 43 and served in that position until 2013.

You're attempts to smear him based entirely on your ignorance would be clownish if not so reprehensible.

#2. President Trump's own personal lawyer seems to be confirming the veracity of the reporting.

#3. You have absolutely no basis for saying that the leaks come from Mueller's team. Period.

#4. The fact that James Comey and Robert Mueller know one another isn't a conflict of interest. Do you know how many people these two know? They're both former directors of the FBI who served for years in the US Attorney's office and were both Deputy AGs. By your absurd, desperate, baseless standard, there's be virtually nobody fit for the job.

As for your assertions that this is a win for Trump — you couldn't be more wrong and you better hope as a Trump supporter, that the people in Trump's ear have more sense than you do because as an advisor, you'd have him out of office in a matter of days.

Any attempt at further inteference in this investigation would be the end of his presidency. It's just that simple. You can come up with all the lame justifications you want to but you're a die hard Trump supporter and that puts you in a small minority. The majority wouldn't buy any of it, wouldn't stand for it and he'd have enough GOPers flee to join up with Democrats that they'd easily pass articles of impeachment that have probably already been drafted in the hopes that he makes such a horrible, horrible move.

Good grief.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Holy $h!t, I had never heard of that before.

Nice find Sublime.


I've been sitting on it for a few weeks and was going to post it at the opportune time - feel free to thread it - it's a game-changer.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



This is likely going to come down to Comey's word vs. Trumps


I'm pretty sure that Trump and Co already admitted to having the "hope" conversation....et al.




edit on 14-6-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler



This is likely going to come down to Comey's word vs. Trumps


I'm pretty sure that Trump and Co already admitted to having the "hope" conversation....et al.





No. Trump said in his press conference with the Romanian president the other day that he never said that at all, and he never asked Comey for loyalty.

My stance on these accusations was that they were not a big deal for various reasons.

But if Trump is going to ssay he never said these under oath, that changes the game. Lying under oath would be a big deal.

So it seems it will be Trumps word vs. Comey's.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JinMI


A "Yes" or "No" answer would suffice. No need to be coy.



Reading my already posted comments will get you the answer you seek. Putting words in my mouth will not.

Since you failed to comprehend, let me illustrate.


construe

verb (used with object), construed, construing. 1. to give the meaning or intention of; explain; interpret. 2. to deduce by inference or interpretation; infer: He construed her intentions from her gestures. 3. to translate, especially orally. 4. to analyze the syntax of; to rehearse the applicable grammatical rules of: to construe a sentence. 5. to arrange or combine (words, phrases, etc.) syntactically.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Trump didn't ask Comey for personal loyalty and Comey never said Trump asked him for personal loyalty. Trump said I want loyalty I expect loyalty. Trump meant loyalty to the state, not to Trump.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I feel like dems would want someone else anyone else. That way if it is found that trump broke the law there can be no doubt about the integrity of the investigation.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


Look, as far as I can gather, you believe that Mueller's working relationship with Comey is a conflict of interest. The only way that I can understand that point of view is if you think that these two men, as well as the man who appointed Mueller, Rosenstein, have colluded to frame Trump for obstruction of justice.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Agreed its a game changer.

Unfortunately, my thread quota is full for the month, if I do more than 1 or 2 I find it has lasting negative psychological effects.


I do hope someone makes it soon though....WOW



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JinMI
Mentor?
You know this how?



Ummm...Cmon Reldra...I mean...silly ole bear...get that honey pot off your head right this instant...

Now pay attention...and leave piglet be...The lesson for today is how not to leave a trail of sticky oh bother...Now...do keep up...or no more honey for you...

Silly ole bear...I mean...silly ole you...




YouSir
edit on 14-6-2017 by YouSir because: the Y fell off the page...

edit on 14-6-2017 by YouSir because: there was a disturbance in the force...



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler



This is likely going to come down to Comey's word vs. Trumps


I'm pretty sure that Trump and Co already admitted to having the "hope" conversation....et al.





No. Trump said in his press conference with the Romanian president the other day that he never said that at all, and he never asked Comey for loyalty.



You'd think that if President Trump asked Comey for loyalty, he asked for loyalty from every person he personally interviewed for a top position. Why aren't they coming forward? The answer is obvious.

And like you said Grambler, this is a non-issue in the overall picture anyway.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Then why bother attempting a conversation? You're mind is made up based upon your own interpretations.

Comey and Mueller go way back, fact. Rosenstein worked under Mueller fact. Rosenstein appointed Mueller to the investigation, fact.

Collusion to frame Trump for obstruction is your own twist that I never said.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

For the last time, trump can fire any special counsel appointed. Everyone in the justice department (including the special counsel) is exercising power granted to them by the president. The constitution supersedes all internal regulations and trumps power over the entire executive is granted to him in the constitution.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
I feel like dems would want someone else anyone else. That way if it is found that trump broke the law there can be no doubt about the integrity of the investigation.


Yes this is a good point. Basically Trump supporters, myself included, feel the deep state and the Fbi are waging a war against him. So how would a former leader of the FBI be a good choice, especially one that is best friends and mentor to a person that will be investigated in this investigation.

Remember that the dems were furious that Sessions may be the one leading this investigation, and demanded his recusal. But now they are ok with this.

If Trump is guilty, then a person with no conflict of interests would be able to find that. The dems and republicans should want the investigation to be as impartial as possible.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



So it seems it will be Trumps word vs. Comey's.


Too bad Trump has a "tremendous" record of lying!

However, regardless of the "loyalty question", Trump has himself said that he fired Comey because of the Russian thing. It's Trump's own words and action that continue to indict him.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Trump did call Comey a nutjob and reduction of pressure. But I don't recall Trump saying anything about the Russian investigation when he talked about firing Comey.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Evidence of what though?

Trying to can Mueller would be such a horrible move on Trump's part that I can almost believe that this WaPo reporting is completely fake news planted by people trying to bait Trump into political suicide. That's how overtly dumb of a move this would be.

What part are Trump supporters not getting here, I have to ask?

Even without these "leaks" (if they're even "leaks"), it was pretty obvious given Trump's own comments to Lester Holt — not to mention what he's reported to have said to the Russians which was all but confirmed by Sean Spicer — that Trump's own blabbing all but guaranteed that he was going to find himself under investigation for obstruction.

What do you think trying to fire the guy leading an investigation which includes the circumstances of him firing the guy who was leading the agency investigating, among other things, his associates, would do?

Rosenstein would resign immediately assuming Rosenstein himself hasn't recused himself.

Why would Rosenstein recuse himself you may ask? Because of the stupid recommendation that Trump solicited to use for an excuse to fire Comey. Which is yet another thing the OP was wrong about when he said this:


But even if he didn't recuse himself, it allows sessions to get involved as the matter is no longer about the campaign.


AG Sessions is involved in the firing of Comey just like Rosenstein.

edit on 2017-6-14 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI




Rosenstein worked under Mueller fact. Rosenstein appointed Mueller to the investigation, fact.


It was Rosenstein's recommendation to fire Comey. Fact.
It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller. Fact.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

For context. This was my reply to another poster asking how anyone could see a conflict of interest.



There are a few reasons that could be construed as conflict of interest. Mueller was a mentor to Comey Rosenstein hired Mueller which is odd because Rosenstein also worked under Mueller.


I've not now, nor in any other thread condoned the firing of Mueller by anyone. My opinion is that Trump setup this administration and if it trips him up, then we can all witness it. If he is exonerated, we can witness that too.

I see the trail. My whole point is how the investigation has been assembled. Just doesn't pass the smell test.

Sessions has recused himself (can you ..un-recuse?), he's not even in the discussion unless, as you stated, we're talking reasons why Rosenstein should step back.







 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join