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.

 

Robert Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Charge Michael Flynn, NBC News Reports

page: 10
69
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Kryties

That is a very interesting read.

If true, it shows how Mueller really knows what he is doing and is playing the game wisely.

Personally, I don't think Trump would just start pardoning people knowing Mueller could pass this on to the states.




Maybe this is where the illegally seized evidence comes into play. The raid, in question, happened in July. In August, Mueller began to coordinate and share evidence with the NY AG, Schneiderman.

But, I also found the article interesting. I expect shenanigans though.

***

ETA: Also, I don't know when the illegally seized evidence was returned...but this CNN article says 'sources' say it happened sometime before September 5 (the date of the article): Link

Maybe it was returned before Mueller shared evidence with Schneiderman, but maybe not.



As long as that evidence is not used in Mueller's case, they should be fine.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: aethertek

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Kryties




Good bye. Take your BS elsewhere. I'm out.




Well that didn't last long.


Well people get tired of responding to your ignorant circular BS, you wear them out with your mindbogglingly stupid posts.

K~




So in other words I trigger you, awesome.


So I'm right?

I knew it.



You knew what, That the poster is easily triggered by opinion?

Damn I didn't know I was that good.


Sigh.

You know damn well I meant that you have an agenda to rid all threads of people you disagree with. Stop playing games troll.
how would they do that exactly? I've tried to rid threads of people who disagree with me and I just get more flack. What's the secret. Lol



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I've tried to rid threads of people who disagree with me and I just get more flack. What's the secret. Lol


Pro tip: You need to call in your socks.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Ok
When something of note goes on down under I will be sure to ignore all the posts from you guys down there no matter the accuracy of the information.
Especially when one of you actually admits to having a source close to the event.

There was a fair amount of speculation about who the indictment was for when the news leaked that friday night. The ats member in question had accurate info posted here.
How can you hate trump so much when you are so far away?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: aethertek

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Kryties




Good bye. Take your BS elsewhere. I'm out.




Well that didn't last long.


Well people get tired of responding to your ignorant circular BS, you wear them out with your mindbogglingly stupid posts.

K~




So in other words I trigger you, awesome.


So I'm right?

I knew it.



You knew what, That the poster is easily triggered by opinion?

Damn I didn't know I was that good.


Sigh.

You know damn well I meant that you have an agenda to rid all threads of people you disagree with. Stop playing games troll.
how would they do that exactly? I've tried to rid threads of people who disagree with me and I just get more flack. What's the secret. Lol


The poster I was referring to does nothing but throw insults - despite how hard you try to have a respectful and intelligent conversation with him. It's a pattern with him, one that I've noticed over MANY threads and MANY months and concluded it's deliberate trolling with the intent of trying to put people off posting anything that disagrees with his own thoughts.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They have convened a grand jury in three locations. DC, Alexandria and New York.

Wait and see. If he pardons anyone they throw this over to the states Virginia or New York. Amazingly the two places I have called home in this great nation.

I hope he does try and pardon them. I think he will hold back on that until it's his son or daughter being indicted. Then he will pardon because trumps can't do jail. Then the Congress will turn on him and I wish I could make sound effects... I'd have Taps playing right now. Hmmm hmmm hmmmmmmmm.🎶
edit on 1162017 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kryties

Ok
When something of note goes on down under I will be sure to ignore all the posts from you guys down there no matter the accuracy of the information.
Especially when one of you actually admits to having a source close to the event.

There was a fair amount of speculation about who the indictment was for when the news leaked that friday night. The ats member in question had accurate info posted here.
How can you hate trump so much when you are so far away?


Are "unnamed sources" "fake news" or not? Simple question.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

I am simply referring to the members post about who will be indicted and the date.
The members post was accurate, no matter how you try to spin it.
Manafort was indicted, and for financial crimes. Perhaps you should give the member the benefit of the doubt as well.

As to you defection to fake news, the members post was proven true. Or do you dispute that as well?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Was Manafort indicted? Was it for money laundering charges? Show me where I could have gotten that info on october 16th. AFAIK it wasn't publicly available info at that time. This website is obscure enough that I can give you guys more info than I can put elsewhere.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

Good thing the grown ups are taking care of this.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Kryties

That is a very interesting read.

If true, it shows how Mueller really knows what he is doing and is playing the game wisely.

Personally, I don't think Trump would just start pardoning people knowing Mueller could pass this on to the states.




Maybe this is where the illegally seized evidence comes into play. The raid, in question, happened in July. In August, Mueller began to coordinate and share evidence with the NY AG, Schneiderman.

But, I also found the article interesting. I expect shenanigans though.

***

ETA: Also, I don't know when the illegally seized evidence was returned...but this CNN article says 'sources' say it happened sometime before September 5 (the date of the article): Link

Maybe it was returned before Mueller shared evidence with Schneiderman, but maybe not.



As long as that evidence is not used in Mueller's case, they should be fine.



I am referring to any potential state case brought by the NY AG. If Mueller shared illegally obtained evidence with Schneiderman and NY is building a case based/hinging on any of it, I assume Manafort will contest it on those grounds. So far, the illegally obtained evidence is an argument Manafort's legal defense team intends to use with Mueller (Link).



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kryties

I am simply referring to the members post about who will be indicted and the date.
The members post was accurate, no matter how you try to spin it.
Manafort was indicted, and for financial crimes. Perhaps you should give the member the benefit of the doubt as well.

As to you defection to fake news, the members post was proven true. Or do you dispute that as well?


Sure, he was right this time. Once. I still don't buy the story that he has the "inside info" though, and I most certainly do not believe a word he says when he claims it came from "unnamed sources" while railing against the very same thing.

He wants people to take him seriously? Give us more info. If not, then sorry I do not buy it. He could have just gotten lucky, or overheard someone in a bar talking about it.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Nope just people who think their imaginations are more important than they really are.
Mueller isn't compromised. Trump is scared #less. He will do and say anything now.
Mueller isn't going anywhere. He's going to continue removing nails until the whole thing collapses. If trump fires him he's toast. If he leaves him in he's toast . What a predicament. I feel like having some toast now.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
They have convened a grand jury in three locations. DC, Alexandria and New York.

Wait and see. If he pardons anyone they throw this over to the states Virginia or New York. Amazingly the two places I have called home in this great nation.


As I pointed out earlier, the New York DA might have to recuse himself. Trump could also fire Mueller and have the next prosecutor charge them with all crimes which would cover double jeopardy. There are ways around this but only time will tell what happens. Right now I am only seeing the outer circle being in trouble and not for Russia-related actions.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

I've never been inside a bar in my life. So that's out the window. I guess I could have gotten lucky, but that was pretty specific info. I just happened to guess manafort was laundering money? Ok...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

If this were true, Trump would fire Mueller yesterday and take his chances. Think about it, if option A results in removal from office but no criminal conduct found OR option B results in removal from office and criminal conduct found, which option would you choose?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Assessor

You'll see. His son's freedom is at stake. You don't really know him. You worked for him.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burntheships

I feel like having some toast now.


Whack some Marmalade on it, I'll join you. We can bask in the glory of orange-flavoured toast for hours!



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




Sure, he was right this time. Once.

And I thanked the member for the info. That is all.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kryties




Sure, he was right this time. Once.

And I thanked the member for the info. That is all.


And all I did was point out the hypocrisy of doing so.

That is all.



new topics




 
69
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join