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.

 

Breaking: First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

page: 27
115
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I'm more Libertarian than anything.

But here is where this thread stands, two Forbes articles:

Lefties: www.forbes.com...

Righties:
www.forbes.com...




posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Throes

Believe it or not, most American's don't identify as Dem or Repub, they are independents. This is the base Trump tapped into.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I was more talking to his potential motivation and state of mind and how that might influence his testimony when I pointed out who his lawyers were.

I'd bet you have some opinion about somebody if Gloria Allred or her daughter were representing them though? How about Mark Elias?


He was hired by the FBI to be an informant to gather info on Russian criminals. He wants to testify about what he learned in that role.


Which says absolutely nothing about his actual credibility though.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Why would I care who is lawyer in when it comes to his testimony.

I assume what he says will be fact checked, so of he is lying because he is biased, it will be easy to see through.

And I can prove I feel that way, because I never said that Steele shouldnt have been to testify because of his conflict of interest.

But I am glad you are suddenly concerned with the political affiliations of lawyers.

I assume by the same standard you will not believe Muellers teams investigation due to the amount of DNC donors that he has hired.

Having an investigator or prosecutor with a political bia is far more troubling than having a witness with one.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Throes

I just thought of something. From the right-wing piece:


The Justice Department waited until December of 2015 – five years after the first evidence of criminal wrongdoing-- to offer a plea bargain and jail sentence for the Russian executive in charge of Tenex.


Why would they wait until 2015? (actually I believe the indictment was in 2014 but whatev)

If it had anything to do with the CFIUS vote, which was in October of 2010 — about a year after the investigation started — why wait an additional 4 years to pull the trigger? Why not do it at anytime before then? The Russian reset had fallen apart by the end of 2011.

If the timing was determined by the CFIUS vote — the correlation of time frames forming the singular tenuous "evidence" for the latest iteration of "she sold 20% of our uranium!" — why wait until 2014 to indict?



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes why indeed?

The guy was found guilty right?

The affidavit shows they knew of crimes in 2009, before the CFIUS vote.

So were the CFIUS members informed of this investigation before their vote?

If they were, then they should be called to testify as to why they still allowed the deal and didnt think that was a big deal.

If they weren't then Obama and Mueller need to explain why they didnt give relevant info to the CFIUS panel before thier vote.

I dont see how the time frame doesnt make it even more shady.

This is why wee need and investigation of the FBI's behavior here.
edit on 28-10-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


I assume what he says will be fact checked, so of he is lying because he is biased, it will be easy to see through.


I assume that he's going to say things that can't be fact checked. In fact, I suspect he's going to testify to hearsay about having overheard Russians saying *something.* Unless it shows up in the FBI case files somewhere, there's really no way to fact check it. Even then, it would still be hearsay but at least we could be certain that it wasn't hearsay created for the current state of affairs.

That's precisely the point I was arguing in the post before that:


What I'm curious about is what happens if he testifies that he heard some rumors from some Russians? Will that be treated like the contents of the dossier? As unvetted raw intel? Or will Trump supporters be falling all over themselves claiming it's definitive proof of wrongdoing by Hillary? I tend to think the latter.

To me, I don't have a problem with the dossier as a jumping off point as long as that's all it is. Clearly any information from it should be corroborated before being used in any sort of legal action (including obtaining a FISA warrant). I feel the same way about what CS-1 might have to say. The difference here is that if Manafort goes on trial, nobody is going to be reading excerpts from the dossier to jurors and claiming that they're facts.

It can't be used as testimony.

What are the evidentiary standards for testimony in a congressional probe? Are there any at all? And how can you prove perjury in a hearsay claim? So what's to stop him from saying pretty much *anything* ?


Rumors are rumors. Hearsay is hearsay. The point is that I don't know positively but I don't believe there's anything to stop hearsay in congressional testimony as there would be in a court of law — for good reason. And if you can't prove perjury (and how could you unless the conversation was recorded?) he could say he heard Russians say anything he wants and do so with relative impunity.

Agreed?



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

That could be true.

But whats the solution, to not leave him testify?

Even if it is hearsay, there can be facts about it checked. For example, did he tell the FBI this hearsay before he had a republican lawyer?

Isnt that tenfold of importance about the dossier though?

It has been admitted that much of the info was unverifiable.

Again, I assume you have a problem with Steele testifying then. And with Mueller hiring democratic donating lawyers?



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

If it is told directly to you or you are in a position where you hear it yourself its not hearsay and is admissible in court.

Secondly this guys testimony has already secured convictions.
edit on 28-10-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Because the investigation was ongoing. Consider the following from the indictment affidavit (my transcription):


14. In 2011, as part of the third contract with CS-1, MIKERIN claimed a wire transfer to WISER TRADING had been lost and directed CS-1 to make wire payments to a new recipient company. This company, LEILA GLOBAL LIMITED, is incorporated in the United Kingdom, but its bank accounts are in Latvia. LEILA's primary director is a Russian national. In coordination with Latvian and U.J. law enforcement authorities, I determined that LEILA is managed by a Cyprus-based, shell holding company connected with two Latvian national directors...


But more importantly, this:


19. Subsequent to (redacted)'s death in August 2011, the FBI met with his widow and requested her permission to examine the contents of a safe over which (redacted)' maintained control. The widow consented and, in October 2011, allowed the FBI to examine and photograph the contents of the safe, which she reportedly handed over to MIKERIN shortly afterwards. Among the contents of the safe were a checkbook belonging to MIKERIN for his Citibank account along with a debit card for this account; bank routing information for LEILA and WISER, documents pertaining to the HEU Agreement; an email to (redacted) from an email account know to facilitate...


They didn't have enough on the TLI guy by mid-2011 to get a warrant? And if you read the rest of the documents, they didn't serve warrants on the TLI offices or Mikerin until 2014, the year of the indictment.

What's the clear conclusion here? That it took *that* long to work the case.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Alice can't testify that she heard from Bob that Carol was taking kickbacks from Dan.

Alice could only testify that for instance, Carol told her that she was taking kickbacks from Dan.

Agreed?

I don't get the impression from what I've read (or haven't read) in the court documents that CS-1 (the confidential source) was in a position where he would be communicating with Mikerin's cohorts in Russia (that would be stupid of Mikrein anyway) let alone anyone who would be directly involved in the Rosatom/Uranium One deal.

My concern is that his testimony might be hearsay that would be inadmissible in court, al a the second example.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Obviously they are going after republicans because Trump stood up to the globalist......After that they will try to impeach Trump....Major media collusion with the 2 party system.Depending how this goes down could lead to major riots and a revolution and rebellion from Trump voters.
Also if Hillary Clinton is not done criminal acts no one has.She has done the worst criminal stuff than anyone else out of this inside the Obama admin.This country will collaspe at some point because of this kind of corruption.The media is one of the biggest culprits along with the globalist.
edit on 29-10-2017 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It's past time to stop the reality denial that has become the standard in the modern political discourse.

These indictments will remind everyone that there is truth that is sustained by evidence, and that all the political lies are smoke that can be blown away by just a little puff of truth and factual evidence.

That is why so many liars pile into every one of these threads, and they have a two word instruction set:

Create Doubt.

Those of us who care about the truth and rational debate must fight these liars at every turn not with more opinion but with cold hard facts.
There won’t be facts with this but political opinions operated by very powerful people who believe they are the ones who are correct.
Just like Watergate which was nothing but politics pretending to be facts.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   
BIg Headline....All Filler....No content....Please don't ask about Uranium....Any indictment handed down will be thrown out of court and laughed at but that does not mean it will not happen.

A waste of time and resources....and money.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

uhm... no

The only way testimony can be used is if the person was present at the time the conversation took place and participated in it or was present when 2 other people were talking about it in their presence.

They can testify as to what the 2 people were discussing in their presence. Hearsay applies when 2 people have a conversation and 1 of the people then goes and tells a 3rd party about what was said when that 3rd party was not present.

The CI testimony / collected evidence has already been used in court and secured convictions. They have verifiable information and documentation to support their claims.

Also there are about 18 exceptions to the hearsay rule in federal proceedings.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
BIg Headline....All Filler....No content....Please don't ask about Uranium....Any indictment handed down will be thrown out of court and laughed at but that does not mean it will not happen.

A waste of time and resources....and money.


really? The courts have already tried and convicted several people involved in the Uranium one debacle.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Jobeycool

"Stood up to the globalists".

Really?

You do realize Trump is the literal definition of a globalist, right?



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Some more info regarding FusionGPS.

CNN Fails to Mention Critical Detail In its Coverage of Fusion GPS; Here’s What They’re Hiding


As Daily Caller notes, CNN’s reporting on the Trump-Russia dossier leaves out the crucial fact that there are the close ties between the network and the opposition research firm at the center of the dossier controversy.

CNN’s main reporting on the dossier has been led by its justice correspondent Evan Perez.

On the whole, the reporting has been favorable to Fusion and seemed to push that the dossier could be credibie.

Perez’s reporting relies mostly on unnamed sources. He, however, fails to ever note in his reporting his relationship to the Fusion principals.


click link for full article...



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Looks good here...TEA anyone?..arcdigital.media...
edit on 29-10-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

No, I think I did not explain myself. I meant the Mueller indictments were to take away from the Uranium discussion.




top topics



 
115
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join