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.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: DBCowboy
Well good.
I hope the truth wins and justice prevails.
We all hope that, but given the parties involved ... I don't think anyone has much faith.
originally posted by: TacSite18
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Don't research it...just believe....LOL
OR better yet, jsut say it is a fact, and when someone calls you on it, never respond.
Even when they keep asking you for your "facts"
Just never respond.
Ok....so you're saying Lynch and Clinton never met on the tarmac, Comey didn't say he gave his leaked memos to a reporter, Lynch didn't direct Comey to call an investigation something else, Rice didn't unmask 100's without cause and McCabe's wife didn't get a massive donation when this all kicked off?
Guessing you also believe that Hillary Clinton, acting SOS who made training videos about national security protocols and knew from 30 years in government that all government communications are to be saved, just forgot all of this and erased it?
Then, I am supposed to believe that Trump has some deal with Russians? Based on a unverified dossier given to them by a company who's people have ties to the Clintons since the 70's? And after all the Russian hoopla with Hillary during her SOS tenure?
I mean seriously....I have multiple threads on these things with hard evidence and court cases and documents etc....yet you seem to just want to sit here an recite MSN?
Anywho...your post history tells me all I need....no real depth, just copy paste regurgitation of whatever fits your internal narrative...echo chamber much?
When did I say any of these things that your are saying?
This post appears to be the most obvious deflections I have seen today.
That is saying a lot.
How does any of this last post have anything to do with the OP?
Start another one of the tiresome threads on these topics if you like. This OP is about breaking news into the Mueller investigation of Russia interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, and any ties to the Trump campaign.
Your last post is so off topic, and such poorly done deflection, in an attempt to drag the OP off of the breaking story, that I am surprised a mod has not deleted it yet.
Oh, and this is the last time I will bring it up, because it is obvious you don't want to discuss it, but where are those "facts?"
I do not think a sitting president can be indicted
Although nothing in the Constitution or federal law explicitly says presidents are immune from indictment while they remain in office, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has asserted that they are. A newly disclosed legal memo from the office of Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Clinton, challenges that analysis. The National Archives made the memo public in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The New York Times.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: bknapple32
Fox News Corp distanced themselves from the claim.
Sean Hannity did not retract his story or change his position and he spoke about that fact.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
Well good.
I hope the truth wins and justice prevails.
originally posted by: Outlier13
If Mueller has convened a grand jury this soon it means he knows he has nothing. He is going through the motions. Nothing will be found because he is realizing it is all total BS. He wants to get done with this and move on.
originally posted by: audubon
Well, impanelling a Grand Jury is one thing, getting a conviction afterwards is quite another.
But anyway, hopefully this will bring to a head the current brouhaha and things might calm down a bit (for better or worse).
(2) Secrecy.
(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).
(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:
(i) a grand juror;
(ii) an interpreter;
(iii) a court reporter;
(iv) an operator of a recording device;
(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;
(vi) an attorney for the government; or
(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).
(7) Contempt. A knowing violation of Rule 6, or of any guidelines jointly issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence under Rule 6, may be punished as a contempt of court.
originally posted by: Outlier13
If Mueller has convened a grand jury this soon it means he knows he has nothing. He is going through the motions. Nothing will be found because he is realizing it is all total BS. He wants to get done with this and move on.
originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: Xcathdra
Don't want to get off topic, but I was a reserve cop for about a year in a small town in Montana. We never saw a DA for traffic tickets.
I now work for the federal government, and believe me we do issue criminal complaints directly to the courts with no DA or prosecutor involved.