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: 45
115
<< 42  43  44   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Conspiracy requires 2 or more people working together to commit a crime. The commit a crime portion is where your "conspiracy" crime fails. Can you tell us what foreign national Trump worked with in order to commit a crime under US law?




posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

The problem with your defense is the people who were charged committed their crimes between 2006 and ending in 2014. Kind of hard to be a policy advisor when Trump was not even elected, let alone having decided if he would even run for office.

These charges are a distraction from Clinton / DNC illegal activities and nothing more. I look forward to Mueller bringing similar charges against Democrats who committed the exact same crime, like both Podesta brothers.

If Mueller doesnt bring charges against anyone other than Trump people then he has confirmed what Trump and others have been saying all along. Also since Mueller is going on a fishing expedition into the past then that should also apply to Clinton and anyone else connected to her.

This is nothing more than a witch hunt to get Trump.

In that instance not only should Mueller and his staff be fired they should face prosecution for prosecutorial misconduct and malicious prosecution (just as Mueller and others on his team have done over the years).
Personally, I'd say you're better off letting the indictments roll out before hunting heads. Otherwise...you're simply hunting heads.


Maybe - From a legal aspect though if the investigations into Manafort and the others stemmed from the FISA warrants then the prosecutions will go no where as the judge will throw the case out since the evidence was illegally obtained.


Why are you assuming the warrants were not obtained legally?


CNN reported the FISA warrants were obtained when information from the dossier was used in the warrant application. Nothing in that dossier is verified. If the dossier was used to obtain a fisa warrant and information in that application misrepresented allegations as fact the then warrants were obtained illegally.

Those FISA warrants were used to start monitoring Trump and Trump associates which in turn led down the road to Manafort and the 2 other people being charged with a crime.

Because the initial FISA warrants were illegally obtained anything collected as a result of those warrants falls under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. It means any evidence collected as a result of the initial FISA warrants would be inadmissible in court and anything obtained as a result of additional investigations that stemmed from the initial FISA investigation would also be inadmissible in court.
edit on 1-11-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Condor7516

You are just getting around in these threads. Spreading all that fake news. good for you.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

Conspiracy requires 2 or more people working together to commit a crime. The commit a crime portion is where your "conspiracy" crime fails. Can you tell us what foreign national Trump worked with in order to commit a crime under US law?


That is the purpose of the investigation, isn't it? Why is Trump decrying it if he has nothing to hide?



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Is the legality of a warrant dependent on the accuracy of the evidence used to get it? I think not. All that matters is that a judge granted it legally. Then the evidence gathered under that warrant should be legal, right? Think about it: if you needed overwhelming legally gathered and 100% accurate evidence to get a warrant, you wouldn't need a warrant, would you?



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

That depends on the integrity of the judge



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


That is an abuse of logic.

If you get a warrant from a judge based on illegal information they it is known as "poisonous fruit" and anything found as a result of that illegal evidence should be struck down.

Source: me, LEO for decades.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

Conspiracy requires 2 or more people working together to commit a crime. The commit a crime portion is where your "conspiracy" crime fails. Can you tell us what foreign national Trump worked with in order to commit a crime under US law?


That is the purpose of the investigation, isn't it? Why is Trump decrying it if he has nothing to hide?


Why does the left keep pushing the lie when after 15 months no collusion is found?



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: burnsE
a reply to: DJW001

That depends on the integrity of the judge


In part yes and its possible they found a judge willing to look the other way. However I doubt that occurred being it was a FISA court judge. If its discovered a judge knowingly granted a warrant based on fraudulent information, especially in a FISA court, that judge is done. In addition it would cast doubts on all warrants he issued and all rulings he made. It would cast doubt on any convictions obtained that the judge is attached to (granting warrants etc). Anything the judge is attached to, regardless of involvement in the case, creates a massive cloud over it all.

Being federal investigations can go years and be costly the goal is not to throw part of the federal system into disarray. Especially the part dealing with national security.

and what J.Burns says.

Ive had issues with judges in the past for my own investigations and even then I have never sen any of them go corrupt. Especially Federal judges.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

You missed it. I should catch you up? I don't think so.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Deetermined

No the Podesta are not being investigated by Robert Mueller. This is trumps debacle. It's the Whitehouse.

Awkward... Increasingly awkward...



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

Conspiracy requires 2 or more people working together to commit a crime. The commit a crime portion is where your "conspiracy" crime fails. Can you tell us what foreign national Trump worked with in order to commit a crime under US law?


That is the purpose of the investigation, isn't it? Why is Trump decrying it if he has nothing to hide?


Why does the left keep pushing the lie when after 15 months no collusion is found?


Correction: no charges of conspiracy have been filed... yet!



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

So you are hoping and praying that a prosecutor who has successfully in investigated and won racketeering cases for decades has slipped up and made a stupid mistake that could get the case thrown out of court.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

Conspiracy requires 2 or more people working together to commit a crime. The commit a crime portion is where your "conspiracy" crime fails. Can you tell us what foreign national Trump worked with in order to commit a crime under US law?


That is the purpose of the investigation, isn't it? Why is Trump decrying it if he has nothing to hide?


Why does the left keep pushing the lie when after 15 months no collusion is found?


Correction: no charges of conspiracy have been filed... yet!


You can't charge a person for a non existent crime. There is no such thing as collusion in the federal body of law (criminal).



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


I think the term used in the post you replied to was conspiracy, not collusion. I could be mistaken about that, but I don't think I am...


Correction: no charges of conspiracy have been filed... yet!

Yup. I was right.
edit on 11/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If Trump broke a law it would have leaked by now. It would have leaked during the general. Randomly repeating legal terms is problematic when people dont know how it works.

The indictments from Mueller's investigation are finance related and are from 2006 thru 2014.


edit on 12-11-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Have you been paying attention at all? There are at least three investigations into his breaking the law.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra

Have you been paying attention at all? There are at least three investigations into his breaking the law.


which laws is he accused of breaking?



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
4h4 hours ago

I will be making a major statement from the @WhiteHouse upon my return to D.C. Time and date to be set.]/ex]



new topics

top topics



 
115
<< 42  43  44   >>

log in

join