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.

 

Special Counsel Mueller Impanels Washington Grand Jury in Russia Probe

page: 16
39
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That was before so many of the unnamed sources stories turned out to be false or inaccurate.


Ahhh right....

So when unnamed sources were talking about NSA spying or when they were talking about other government goings on during pretty much every other administration they were right but when it's under your guy, premiere Trump now they become inaccurate

Sounds like a double standard to me


No it's an outgoing Presidents spying and and planting loyalists ans loosening survellance laws at the end of his term in order to undermine the incoming administration. This is unheard, illegal and a disgrace to our country. No former president would show so much disrespect for the Office and actually allow criminal activity like this.




posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: bknapple32
Mueller drops this bomb AS SOON as Trump starts his vacay... . Effing brilliant



Trump is on a Vacation more than he works, look how many Mara Largo visits he has made this year alone. Anyway I knew something was going to happen. Now they are saying this could take months more maybe years. Russia is and always has been a story, just yesterday someone said again, it was fake news, yada yada yada, and that people no longer believe that Russia is a story. No, far more people believe the Russia thing is real than do not. 61% of people think that trump has tried to obstruct the investigation. That means interfere, let alone the even more who think there is a Russia story. Only posting one link, I am sure there are more and the numbers may change a little bit. Here you go!


www.usatoday.com...[ed itby]edit on 3-8-2017 by kurthall because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2017 by kurthall because: fix



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32




Would Nixon have been caught without the help of unnamed sources???

Is this seriously an argument?


Yes it's a serious argument.



– Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.


Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics

Is that a serious rebuttal?



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So youd prefer that Nixon would not get caught?

Im seriously confused as to how anything would reach the public without sources
edit on 3-8-2017 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TacSite18

Meet the all-star legal team who may take down Trump

* - Robert Mueller
* - James Quarles
* - Jeannie Rhee
* - Aaron Zebley
* - Greg Andres
* - Michael Dreeben
* - Preet Bharara
* - Andrew Weissmann
* - Lisa Page

A breakdown of some of the ;awyers he hired, who came from Holders / Lynch's DOJ


Wow. A quick search on each showed massive political conflicts of interests. Am I the only one who sees anyone who supports the law should try to remain neutral in politics? Feel free to argue this reasoning.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Damiel

Whats the story based on?

according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations


Considering the Washington Compost has had to issue several retractions on their articles i don't trust them as a source, let alone unnamed sources given their track record.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: mkultra11




"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime"


Clearly a tax-payer funded fishing expedition.


A complete waste of money and resources. But hey they'll find some kind of mundane financial wrongdoing by someone. It's worth it to them.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: Xcathdra

For speeding? What the heck are you on about. I personally cited people. If they were from out of town or state, you brought them to the JP's house. The JP would try and usually fine them. Case closed. No DA, no one else.

You don't like the law, go pund sand.



If you dont understand the law dont get pissy with me. Your actions are done with the blessing of and on behalf of the prosecuting attorney.


Hey why aren't you busy going off to "pund sand" already?


Because my universal translator is still trying to figure out what the hell he is talking about.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: mkultra11
Totally agree, push Mueller
right now, this weekend
run young Padwan ...



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That was before so many of the unnamed sources stories turned out to be false or inaccurate.


Ahhh right....

So when unnamed sources were talking about NSA spying or when they were talking about other government goings on during pretty much every other administration they were right but when it's under your guy, premiere Trump now they become inaccurate

Sounds like a double standard to me


How many of the unnamed sources stories from those times were false or inaccurate?

I'm sure a few were, but did it have the same degree as they do now?



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The leaking of information is awesome when it involves informing the public about matters that affect them daily that they otherwise would never had known. Leaking of information to sway public opinion is just plain dastardly. I would wager damn near everything I have that a great majority of our elected federal officials and most any successful businessman have dirt on them, real, certifiable indictable dirt. But that's not what this is about.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32




So youd prefer that Nixon would not get caught?

Im seriously confused as to how anything would reach the public without sources


Did I say that? Or did you just imagine it?

Yes, if the leaker's life or well-being is at risk, that warrants anonymity. This isn't rocket science.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The leaking of information is awesome when it involves informing the public about matters that affect them daily that they otherwise would never had known. Leaking of information to sway public opinion is just plain dastardly. I would wager damn near everything I have that a great majority of our elected federal officials and most any successful businessman have dirt on them, real, certifiable indictable dirt. But that's not what this is about.


Just keep tapping on those keys eh and eventually you might even start to believe your own rubbish.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That was before so many of the unnamed sources stories turned out to be false or inaccurate.


Ahhh right....

So when unnamed sources were talking about NSA spying or when they were talking about other government goings on during pretty much every other administration they were right but when it's under your guy, premiere Trump now they become inaccurate

Sounds like a double standard to me


How many of the unnamed sources stories from those times were false or inaccurate?

I'm sure a few were, but did it have the same degree as they do now?


You only Claim them to be false because they do not support a narrative that is supporting of your political views.

If you were honest with yourself you would see this but right now the cognitive dissonance is clouding your perspective.

I apolitical you should try it
edit on 3-8-2017 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Lets see....


If there were no such thing as un named sources... like youd have it.. Then Nixon doesnt get caught. Thus doesnt cover up, thus doesnt get impeached.



So um...... How does Nixon get caught without the use of unnamed sources?



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Nope - many people who aren't blind see the conflict of interest, including with Mueller.

5 C.F.R. Part 2635: Standards of ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch


Subpart E - Impartiality in Performing Official Duties

There may be circumstances other than those covered by Subpart D in which employees should not perform official duties in order to avoid an appearance of loss of impartiality. Subpart E contains two disqualification provisions addressing those appearance issues.

The first provision, entitled "Personal and business relationships," states that employees should obtain specific authorization before participating in certain Government matters where their impartiality is likely to be questioned. The matters specifically covered by this standard include those:

Involving specific parties, such as contracts, grants, or investigations, that are likely to affect the financial interests of members of employees' households; or
In which persons with whom employees have specific relationships are parties or represent parties. This would include, for example, matters involving recent employers, employers of spouses or minor children, or anyone with whom the employees have or seek a business or financial relationship.


There are procedures by which employees may be authorized to participate in such matters when it serves the employing agency's interests. The process set out in Subpart E should be used to address any matter in which an employee's impartiality is likely to be questioned.

The second provision, entitled "Extraordinary payments from former employers," restricts employees' participation in certain matters involving former employers. If a former employer gave an employee an "extraordinary payment" in excess of $10,000 prior to entering Federal service, it bars the employee from participating for two years in matters in which that former employer is a party or represents a party. A $25,000 payment voted on an ad hoc basis by a board of directors would be an "extraordinary payment." A routine severance payment made under an established employee benefit plan would not.




5 C.F. R. § 2635.501 - 503 (Subpart E - Impartiality in Performing Official Duties)

In addition to the impartiality regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 prohibits a DOJ employee, without written authorization, from participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

edit on 3-8-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The kicker is that there absolutely no crime. They are looking for one.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



Here than read this. Subpoenas issued trumps son in law, over his meeting with a Russian Lawyer in 2016. When are you guys going to start to get it? Does the crap literally have to hit you in the face??? LOL!!!!


www.yahoo.com...



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

Nixon got caught because a director at the FBI leaked information to 2 reporters who were only identified 30+ years after the fact.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: bknapple32

Nixon got caught because a director at the FBI leaked information to 2 reporters who were only identified 30+ years after the fact.


Is that similar to what Comey has done?



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
39
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join