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.

 

Mueller deputy praised DOJ official after she defied Trump travel ban order: 'I am so proud'

page: 2
45
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
The lady didn't support the ban on legal grounds, and said so, then got kicked out, neither did this investigator by the looks of it, but that's it... why should he have been kicked out of anything for having an opinion. Mueller's later investigation has nothing to do with unconstitutional travel bans.
The lady should be applauded for doing her job properly...in people's interests. But obviously, some guys here don't care about that, they want rid of a prosecutor because he's a Democrat. So what to do, replace him with a Republican?
Mueller's a Republican isn't he, there you have it, at least one of each...or maybe yu's all want to start on Mueller next...ffs wise up!




posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill




I'm sure some of harder ATS Alt-Left members will be here any minute to tell you how upstanding and honest Mueller is. And how his investigation is based on integrity and truth and remains above board. Mueller is a patriot and is beyond reproach in regards to his record as a law maker and just all around damn good individual!!


Ok I'll do it lol...
Honestly I am not familiar with the name of the guy who sent the e-mail, I do remember Yates being fired. Too many people coming and going to remember them all when I don't pay much attention to begin with.

That being said... per'haps and just perhaps, he is saying he is proud and in awe of her for standing up for what she believed was right??? Like if he would have added into the e-mail something along the lines of it's not what I would have done. Of course he did not and I am probably wrong. Just saying you may not have to agree with somebody to be proud of them taking a stance.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
So far Mueller's team has uncovered Fake News. The ABC news ran a false news piece, then other channels ran it as breaking news. Then they had to all apologize and reprimand people shortly after for doing Fake News.

Flynn was guilty when Trump fired him for not disclosing his dealings with Turkey when he applied for the advisor job, Mueller didn't find anything on him. After Trump fired him he lied in an ambush interrogation by the FBI fanatic Clinton operative who Mueller had to fire for conflict of interests for hating on Trump. He lied about legal duties he was to carry out in his job, it means nothing other than he is a dumbass.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
The lady didn't support the ban on legal grounds, and said so, then got kicked out, neither did this investigator by the looks of it, but that's it... why should he have been kicked out of anything for having an opinion. Mueller's later investigation has nothing to do with unconstitutional travel bans.
The lady should be applauded for doing her job properly...in people's interests. But obviously, some guys here don't care about that, they want rid of a prosecutor because he's a Democrat. So what to do, replace him with a Republican?
Mueller's a Republican isn't he, there you have it, at least one of each...or maybe yu's all want to start on Mueller next...ffs wise up!


You mean the order SCOTUS just said was legal??


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

The problem is he praised her for not following a legal order from the Commander in Chief. Basically he praised her for violating her oath of office and disregarding an official legal order..

It shows he is not a man who puts any faith in the legal system and feels it's ok to violate the law as long as he thinks it's the right thing to do. Slippery slope for a person charged with enforcing the law and investigating persons suspected of breaking it.






edit on 5-12-2017 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2017 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: tinner07

The problem is he praised her for not following a legal order from the Commander in Chief. Basically he praised her for violating her oath of office and disregarding an official legal order..

It shows he is not a man who puts any faith in the legal system and feels it's ok to violate the law as long as he thinks it's the right thing to do. Slippery slope for a person charged with enforcing the law and investigating persons suspected of breaking it.







Like Comey, these people consider themselves intellectually above Lady Justice. They truly believe they are special and can operate on what they consider "a higher level". Our Constitution means squat to them. Their version of right and wrong is all that matters to these so-called "intellectual giants".



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
When this guy - and others - were brought into Mueller's team we knew of their backgrounds and it was fairly obvious at the time they were biased. Mueller is running a lynching party, foaming at the mouth and trying to find anything in Trump's entire history to get him on. I think we can dispense with the Russian collusion nonsense now and just see it for what it is - a political team looking for ways to overturn an election.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: GuidedKill




I'm sure some of harder ATS Alt-Left members will be here any minute to tell you how upstanding and honest Mueller is. And how his investigation is based on integrity and truth and remains above board. Mueller is a patriot and is beyond reproach in regards to his record as a law maker and just all around damn good individual!!


Ok I'll do it lol...
Honestly I am not familiar with the name of the guy who sent the e-mail, I do remember Yates being fired. Too many people coming and going to remember them all when I don't pay much attention to begin with.

That being said... per'haps and just perhaps, he is saying he is proud and in awe of her for standing up for what she believed was right??? Like if he would have added into the e-mail something along the lines of it's not what I would have done. Of course he did not and I am probably wrong. Just saying you may not have to agree with somebody to be proud of them taking a stance.


Sure!

It would have been like if one of the higher ups to investigate Hillary was emailing about how proud of Juanita Brodrick he was for standing by her story that Bill Clinton was a rapist. Oh and he also donated a couple thousand bucks to Trumps campaign.

He would have just been proud of her standing up for what she believed in, and no one would have had a problem with him being a higherup in the investigation of Hillary.

Or....

People on the left would have lost their minds.
edit on 5-12-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

They are really going to lose it when Trump gets off. Hell at this point even if there were charges and it went to court all of these improprieties on Muellers behalf would result in a mistrial.



Winning!!












posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Please stop. I'm exhausted from all the laughing. Thank you ATS. Deutsche Bank bombshell fizzled out and now this. Did i mention that Trump plays 40D chess and the others checkers. Trump said we will never get tired of winning. Another promise kept.

edit on 5-12-2017 by Perfectenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: Grambler

They are really going to lose it when Trump gets off. Hell at this point even if there were charges and it went to court all of these improprieties on Muellers behalf would result in a mistrial.



Winning!!











Well honestly i would be a shame if Trump actually did cheat with Russia (which I have no reason to believe he did) for this incredible bias to let him off the hook.

I want justice to prevail, no matter where it leads.

But the intel community just had to be biased and avt in politically motivated ways, so that is looking more and more like a pipe dream.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
The lady didn't support the ban on legal grounds, and said so, then got kicked out, neither did this investigator by the looks of it, but that's it... why should he have been kicked out of anything for having an opinion. Mueller's later investigation has nothing to do with unconstitutional travel bans.
The lady should be applauded for doing her job properly...in people's interests. But obviously, some guys here don't care about that, they want rid of a prosecutor because he's a Democrat. So what to do, replace him with a Republican?
Mueller's a Republican isn't he, there you have it, at least one of each...or maybe yu's all want to start on Mueller next...ffs wise up!


originally posted by: GuidedKill
You mean the order SCOTUS just said was legal??


You like to leave bits out methinks, this is not a final ruling, nor was it unanimous...but I guess you don't know what that means, otherwise you would have replied honestly.

I'll grant you that Sessions is happy enough...so he says.
Funny thing, Sessions is the man that asked Yates at her senate hearing to stay on her job, would she ever say no to the President, and he was happy with her reply then.


Sen. Jeff Sessions (who happens to be Trump’s AG nominee) asked Yates during the hearing if she would feel empowered to say “no” to the president if he asks for “something improper?” “If the views that the attorney general are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say ‘no,”‘ Sessions asked.

The Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president,” Yates replied.

You go and ask her if she has changed her mind since?


edit on 5-12-2017 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
It's so nice of the members of the investigation team to show just how fair and impartial they are being. And yes, I'm being extremely sarcastic right now.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
To anyone reading this:

So, what did you think draining the swamp was going to look like?

It's kind of like the movie The Exorcist, you don't stop doing the exorcism just because "the possessed" in this case the system, is using every BS tactic available to them to try to keep you from proceeding. No, you stay the course no matter how much they freak out. And the very fact that they are freaking out is proof that you're touching a nerve. It's actually a good sign.

The real American people (read: ordinary people, not the Hollywood elite that use the media that they also happen to control to unfair advantage), they aren't falling for it this time.

😉



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: smurfy
The lady didn't support the ban on legal grounds, and said so, then got kicked out, neither did this investigator by the looks of it, but that's it... why should he have been kicked out of anything for having an opinion. Mueller's later investigation has nothing to do with unconstitutional travel bans.
The lady should be applauded for doing her job properly...in people's interests. But obviously, some guys here don't care about that, they want rid of a prosecutor because he's a Democrat. So what to do, replace him with a Republican?
Mueller's a Republican isn't he, there you have it, at least one of each...or maybe yu's all want to start on Mueller next...ffs wise up!


originally posted by: GuidedKill
You mean the order SCOTUS just said was legal??


You like to leave bits out methinks, this is not a final ruling, nor was it unanimous...but I guess you don't know what that means, otherwise you would have replied honestly.

I'll grant you that Sessions is happy enough...so he says.
Funny thing, Sessions is the man that asked Yates at her senate hearing to stay on her job, would she ever say no to the President, and he was happy with her reply then.


Sen. Jeff Sessions (who happens to be Trump’s AG nominee) asked Yates during the hearing if she would feel empowered to say “no” to the president if he asks for “something improper?” “If the views that the attorney general are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say ‘no,”‘ Sessions asked.

The Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president,” Yates replied.

You go and ask her if she has changed her mind since?



I think once this special counsel business wraps up Sessions will be gone. Trump is not interested in an AG that won't do their job. And I don't think many on the left will lose sleep over him being fired. Just going off Sessions stance on a lot things the left disagrees with.


Just my .02





posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Please stop. I'm exhausted from all the laughing. Thank you ATS. Deutsche Bank bombshell fizzled out and now this. Did i mention that Trump plays 40D chess and the others checkers. Trump said we will never get tired of winning. Another promise kept.





posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
This kind of thing is always going to happen. Mueller should get rid of bad eggs like this immediately and notify the proper officials that it was happening. I know he did eventually do it, but the last guy running things didn't.


WHAT? He's a bad egg for being proud of someone for refusing to disobey the law? The courts repeatedly didn't uphold his 'muslim ban", and she told him that.

And THEY are the bad eggs? Good God. What's happening?




posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Just to clarify, if the supreme court upholds the ban, then you are wrong, and she did not refuse to disobey the law, but refused to carry out a lawful order as her job duties required.

And it looks the the suprem court will most likely rule that way.


Soooo...



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: angeldoll

Just to clarify, if the supreme court upholds the ban, then you are wrong, and she did not refuse to disobey the law, but refused to carry out a lawful order as her job duties required.

And it looks the the suprem court will most likely rule that way.


Soooo...


He's got his Supreme Court now, so.

It wasn't a lawful order, as it was later adjudged by how many courts?
Three? So no. She was refusing to carry out an unlawful order, which was not a part of her job duties.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Why don't we call this what it is. It is a Coup.

Maybe it is time for these investigators to be tried for treason. Mueller should really think about what his master's are making him do.




top topics



 
45
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join