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: 4
69
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: carewemust

No, the right said for months "nothing" would come of this. They were wrong.




Wrong.
The 'right' have always said there is no evidence of any collusion to influence the election between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
That remains the case.
The 'left' can try and hide the embarrassment of all their crazy claims by clinging onto indictments that have nothing to do with election collusion all they like, but the false associations don't wash.






Mueller has indicted those men with unrelated charges for several reasons. The first is to flip them, with the threat of imprisonment and more charges if they do not comply, and the second is to ensure they can be indicted on more serious charges if Trump decides to pardon them. The pardon will only cover the small unrelated indictments and leaves the more serious ones open to still be prosecuted, and therefore the collusion case is not compromised.

Mueller is playing this very smart. Apparently too smart for some people to grasp what he is doing.




posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Kryties




as you keep responding to my posts.



Only because it's fun watching you go full rere.
😜


Rere?

Nope. No "Rere" happening here lol.

Nice try at excusing why you still respond to my posts when apparently my opinion as an "outsider" doesn't matter lol. Keep responding though....keep proving my point....lol......



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: carewemust

No, the right said for months "nothing" would come of this. They were wrong.




Wrong.
The 'right' have always said there is no evidence of any collusion to influence the election between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
That remains the case.
The 'left' can try and hide the embarrassment of all their crazy claims by clinging onto indictments that have nothing to do with election collusion all they like, but the false associations don't wash.






Mueller has indicted those men with unrelated charges for several reasons. The first is to flip them, with the threat of imprisonment and more charges if they do not comply, and the second is to ensure they can be indicted on more serious charges if Trump decides to pardon them. The pardon will only cover the small unrelated indictments and leaves the more serious ones open to still be prosecuted, and therefore the collusion case is not compromised.

Mueller is playing this very smart. Apparently too smart for some people to grasp what he is doing.


Ah, so Trump would have to give very selective, limited pardons in such a way so as to make sure the indicted people are still pressured into squealing on him, for your scenario to pan out.

Cool beans.






edit on 11/5/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
The pardon will only cover the small unrelated indictments and leaves the more serious ones open to still be prosecuted, and therefore the collusion case is not compromised.


The President has nearly unlimited power to pardon, he can pardon them as many times as he likes for as many offenses they may accrue. This also includes preemptive pardoning for any and all crimes, charged or not.




edit on 5-11-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I think it would be wise to wait and see what comes of this before getting too far ahead of ourselves.

Blaming Obama or Trump at this point seems a bit illogical.

But I understand the need for some to want to blame the other side, someway...somehow.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Why would Trump pardon the very people he wanted exposed ?




posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Kryties

Why would Trump pardon the very people he wanted exposed ?







Lol, he doesn't know, he's only repeating what he has heard in the echo chamber.

😂



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

Good. I'll never forget the quote from Flynn's lawyer: "Michael has a story to tell and he really wants to tell it."

This won't be the wet dream liberals have made it out to be.
edit on 5-11-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Kryties

Why would Trump pardon the very people he wanted exposed ?





Wanted exposed? Proof please.

And he would pardon them to stop them from talking. I know you desperately want to believe they have nothing of value to add to the Russia collusion case but clearly the people who are trained in prosecuting think differently.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Kryties

Why would Trump pardon the very people he wanted exposed ?







Lol, he doesn't know, he's only repeating what he has heard in the echo chamber.

😂


Don't be baited by obvious trolling.

You're smarter than that.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Kryties
The pardon will only cover the small unrelated indictments and leaves the more serious ones open to still be prosecuted, and therefore the collusion case is not compromised.


The President has nearly unlimited power to pardon, he can pardon them as many times as he likes for as many offenses they may accrue. This also includes preemptive pardoning for any and all crimes, charged or not.






Ahh but he has no power to pardon state crimes, only federal. So Mueller, by limiting the amount of initial charges, is not only putting a wrench into any plans to pardon, but also gets away from any "double jeopardy" that might occur.

Basically Mueller has charged the 3 men with only a few unrelated crimes in order to threaten them with substantial prison time to get them to flip and talk about the Russia collusion. He also limited the crimes he indicted them with so that if Trump pardons them, he can pass them off to State prosecutors to threaten the same thing and get them to flip and talk.

It's a win-win for the investigation. Either way it goes, Mueller gets what he wants and Trump can't do squat about it.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
Ahh but he has no power to pardon state crimes, only federal. So Mueller, by limiting the amount of initial charges, is not only putting a wrench into any plans to pardon, but also gets away from any "double jeopardy" that might occur.


That would only be an issue if they broke specific state laws, once their actions cross state or international lines the Justice Department has authority. Even if charged with some irrelevant state-level crimes they could be pardoned by a Republican governor if there is one of that state.


Basically Mueller has charged the 3 men with only a few unrelated crimes in order to threaten them with substantial prison time to get them to flip and talk about the Russia collusion. He also limited the crimes he indicted them with so that if Trump pardons them, he can pass them off to State prosecutors to threaten the same thing and get them to flip and talk.


They cannot be charged with the same crimes since the ones Mueller is charging them with are Federal-level crimes. Any Federal criminal laws that fall under the purview of the Federal Government cannot be administered by the states.



edit on 5-11-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All of this is being drawn from an article I read written by a law professor. The page is saved on my PC but I'm not at home currently or I'd just post it instead.

I tend to believe what senior law professors say about legal matters.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Proof is already in the 2 released "indictments".

No tickie no washie.




posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Kryties

Proof is already in the 2 released "indictments".

No tickie no washie.



How is those indictments proof that Trump wanted them exposed?

LOL. You're really reaching low into that bag of nonsense now.
edit on 5/11/2017 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




You're really reaching low into that bag of nonsense now.



Lol, you are one to talk.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All of this is being drawn from an article I read written by a law professor. The page is saved on my PC but I'm not at home currently or I'd just post it instead.

I tend to believe what senior law professors say about legal matters.



What is the name of the law professor? I am curious about their take and can look it up on my own.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All of this is being drawn from an article I read written by a law professor. The page is saved on my PC but I'm not at home currently or I'd just post it instead.

I tend to believe what senior law professors say about legal matters.


Sure your out, always an excuse.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
All of this is being drawn from an article I read written by a law professor. The page is saved on my PC but I'm not at home currently or I'd just post it instead.

I tend to believe what senior law professors say about legal matters.


I tend to believe the Constitution over a law professor. What state level crimes are they potentially going to be charged with? It sounds like this guy is fapping over what he wants to happen and what can actually happen.

Nixon is a perfect example, he was pardoned preemptively and I'm sure he broke local/state laws in the Watergate fiasco, did anyone charge him?



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Fascinating.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join