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: 28
115
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
You do realize Trump is the literal definition of a globalist, right?

Really? He's for open borders? Didn't catch that!




posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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?


Why the gag order then if there's nothing to see or hear that would be damaging?

We will find out soon enough what they know.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 01:14 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.


Your statement is why legal experts expect Mueller to issue a "long form" indictment on Monday. It will justify why he should keep spending money and hunting for criminals...forever and ever.


One option is a bare-bones indictment, which would tell little more than what crimes were committed by whom and when. A long-form speaking indictment, however, would detail the crimes and pull the curtain back on the investigation to show potential targets of additional indictments what kind of firepower Mueller has.

“Sometimes it’s strategically valuable to show your hand,” said Miriam Baer, a former federal prosecutor, adding that the speaking indictment “creates a more extensive record, so the rest of the world, the defendant and defendant’s attorneys sees where the government is coming from.”

Baer said the indictment could also open a can of worms by mentioning unindicted co-conspirators, without naming them — sparking a hunt for the details of who else is tied to any conspiracy.

Former federal judge Nancy Gertner said she expects to see a detailed indictment so Mueller can “make clear” his investigation so far has been “highly appropriate” — protection in case Trump seeks to boot Mueller since the special counsel can only be fired “for cause.”

FULL ARTICLE AT: www.bostonherald.com...
edit on 10/29/2017 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

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.


Your statement is why legal experts expect Mueller to issue a "long form" indictment on Monday. It will justify why he should keep spending money and hunting for criminals...forever and ever.


One option is a bare-bones indictment, which would tell little more than what crimes were committed by whom and when. A long-form speaking indictment, however, would detail the crimes and pull the curtain back on the investigation to show potential targets of additional indictments what kind of firepower Mueller has.

“Sometimes it’s strategically valuable to show your hand,” said Miriam Baer, a former federal prosecutor, adding that the speaking indictment “creates a more extensive record, so the rest of the world, the defendant and defendant’s attorneys sees where the government is coming from.”

Baer said the indictment could also open a can of worms by mentioning unindicted co-conspirators, without naming them — sparking a hunt for the details of who else is tied to any conspiracy.

Former federal judge Nancy Gertner said she expects to see a detailed indictment so Mueller can “make clear” his investigation so far has been “highly appropriate” — protection in case Trump seeks to boot Mueller since the special counsel can only be fired “for cause.”

FULL ARTICLE AT: www.bostonherald.com...


So you dont want to fund law enforcement?



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: carewemust

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.


Your statement is why legal experts expect Mueller to issue a "long form" indictment on Monday. It will justify why he should keep spending money and hunting for criminals...forever and ever.


One option is a bare-bones indictment, which would tell little more than what crimes were committed by whom and when. A long-form speaking indictment, however, would detail the crimes and pull the curtain back on the investigation to show potential targets of additional indictments what kind of firepower Mueller has.

“Sometimes it’s strategically valuable to show your hand,” said Miriam Baer, a former federal prosecutor, adding that the speaking indictment “creates a more extensive record, so the rest of the world, the defendant and defendant’s attorneys sees where the government is coming from.”

Baer said the indictment could also open a can of worms by mentioning unindicted co-conspirators, without naming them — sparking a hunt for the details of who else is tied to any conspiracy.

Former federal judge Nancy Gertner said she expects to see a detailed indictment so Mueller can “make clear” his investigation so far has been “highly appropriate” — protection in case Trump seeks to boot Mueller since the special counsel can only be fired “for cause.”

FULL ARTICLE AT: www.bostonherald.com...


So you dont want to fund law enforcement?


Why do you ask that weird question? There were no personal opinions in that post. It was simply conveying information.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Are the goal posts now that it's wasting money? Better stop because we're spending too much money investigating Trump for his possible collusion with Russia to undermine our democracy?

I think it's worth finding out if our president is a traitor and puppet to Russia.

edit on 29-10-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


It will justify why he should keep spending money and hunting for criminals...forever and ever.


I didnt miss that sorry attempt to say its a witch hunt.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 04:30 AM
link   
If anyone wants to see a longer timeline of Clinton involvement in regards to Uranium One:

drive.google.com...


edit on 29-10-2017 by Throes because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-10-2017 by Throes because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-10-2017 by Throes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
any leads yet on who is going to be facing the charges.

Sorry not really been keeping up with the news over the last day or so



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft



Comments from Jeffery Toobin (CNN legal expert) suggest the 1st indictments are designed to target individuals who may spill the beans on the bigger fish. This will be interesting (to say the least!!)


Mueller is a former organized crime investigator. He is following textbook procedure. Announce that arrests will be made on Monday. This might tempt the guilty to flee. In the old days, they would cover the train stations and steamship docks, but the fondness for private jets has made that irrelevant. If someone flees, it is an admission of guilt.

The first round of arrests are of lieutenants who know where the bodies are buried, and who can be tempted to turn state's witness by a deal. In this case, Paul Manafort springs to mind. This then exerts psychological pressure on the kingpin of the criminal organization, as he values personal loyalty.

The next round of indictments uses the testimony of the lieutenants to get warrants to get the goods on the higher ups. Get your popcorn.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: theantediluvian


Working overtime aye Anti?

Being you used Twitter as you source? I will hold off until more "substantial" evidence can be presented!

Seems like Uranium 1 has you a bit nervous?




Wow. There is so much fear and desperation that Trump's supporters have to keep flogging the Uranium issue even as Team Trump is being fitted for orange jumpsuits.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: theantediluvian


Working overtime aye Anti?

Being you used Twitter as you source? I will hold off until more "substantial" evidence can be presented!

Seems like Uranium 1 has you a bit nervous?





Wow. There is so much fear and desperation that Trump's supporters have to keep flogging the Uranium issue even as Team Trump is being fitted for orange jumpsuits.


Tag for Monday
edit on R162017-10-29T07:16:39-05:00k1610Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: theantediluvian


Working overtime aye Anti?

Being you used Twitter as you source? I will hold off until more "substantial" evidence can be presented!

Seems like Uranium 1 has you a bit nervous?




Wow. There is so much fear and desperation that Trump's supporters have to keep flogging the Uranium issue even as Team Trump is being fitted for orange jumpsuits.


Not sure why you'd be saying that. I don't think there's fear of anything other than the whole truth being found cross parties.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
This thread kills me with the stupidity of some people.

1. No one knows who is going to be indicted.

2. Nobody is going to be wearing orange jumpsuits. Whoever is indicted will post bail as soon as they are booked.

Ever heard of putting the cart before the horse?

And most important of all....Nobody knows until tomorrow.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: smurfy

TC? bugger, it can't be any of them then!


NBC reported pretty much the same thing, so writing it off just because Carlson reported it doesn't really work in this case.


Doh! 99% of all household germs would have known that was sarcasm!...you also could try reading my first post here to keep on track.
edit on 29-10-2017 by smurfy because: Text



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft



Comments from Jeffery Toobin (CNN legal expert) suggest the 1st indictments are designed to target individuals who may spill the beans on the bigger fish. This will be interesting (to say the least!!)


Mueller is a former organized crime investigator. He is following textbook procedure. Announce that arrests will be made on Monday. This might tempt the guilty to flee. In the old days, they would cover the train stations and steamship docks, but the fondness for private jets has made that irrelevant. If someone flees, it is an admission of guilt.

The first round of arrests are of lieutenants who know where the bodies are buried, and who can be tempted to turn state's witness by a deal. In this case, Paul Manafort springs to mind. This then exerts psychological pressure on the kingpin of the criminal organization, as he values personal loyalty.

The next round of indictments uses the testimony of the lieutenants to get warrants to get the goods on the higher ups. Get your popcorn.


Well I think you are right on arresting lower level people first.

But if you are implying Muller intentionally leaked news of an indictment to get people to run, then Mueller broke the law.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: theantediluvian


Working overtime aye Anti?

Being you used Twitter as you source? I will hold off until more "substantial" evidence can be presented!

Seems like Uranium 1 has you a bit nervous?




Wow. There is so much fear and desperation that Trump's supporters have to keep flogging the Uranium issue even as Team Trump is being fitted for orange jumpsuits.


Not sure why you'd be saying that. I don't think there's fear of anything other than the whole truth being found cross parties.


They cant see that.

Almost everyone discussing uranium one is saying if trump or people in his campaign are guilty, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

Yet they have to pretend that those that want corruption weeded out on both sides are traitors who only want to deflect from Trump.

Even Trump haters that are interested in looking in to hillarys corruption are called traitors who only want to deflect from trump.

Its pathetic.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

it's probably unrelated, but maybe not, but twitter has suspended roger stone's account for verbally attacking some cnn reporters.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

It could've easily been read either way, sorry I don't have your post history memorized.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You have no idea who Steeles information came from. It would seem more logical that it's citizens who are against the current regime in russia. Why would the government jeopardize themselves? Or tell on themselves lol .
More sloppy logic.




top topics



 
115
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join