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: 3
45
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

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...


Ridiculous.

She refuses to carry out an order that she had no proof was unlawful, and it appears the SC with uphold that.

Yes, activist courts that have a history of being overturned challenged it, and will probably lose.

Your interpretation would allow anyone in government to refuse to do their job if they disagree with the law.

Classic social justice thinking.

The law only applies if you agree with it.


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 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll




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.


It has always been the President Job to determine threats to the U.S. and band those countries.
That alone makes it a lawful order.

But let us make believe that it was an unlawful order. How would you explain how Obama did the same thing to the same countries? Your bias is showing.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Believe me she is gone without much uproar for a reason. The fact that this dope is now caught emailing someone who was fired for being a never trumper is just icing on the cake. I predict this loser will be dismissed shortly from the special counsel as Mueller is most likely in panic mode trying to save face and the appearance of being impartial.



lol









posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Mueller should get rid of bad eggs .


Mueller should get rid of Mueller.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

No, the investigation is not "really coming off the rails" there's a desperate push to delegitimize the Mueller investigation by those afraid of where it might lead.

What precisely does this email show?

That a colleague of Sally Yates expressed admiration for her in a moment when she put her principals before her career? That translates to bias? You don't need any emails to know that people have biases. Isn't it to be expected that as living, breathing human beings who don't live on desert islands without any knowledge of the world at large, FBI agents have opinions?

Has this been a standard that we ever attempted to observe previously? No. We expect that people have opinions, even biases. But we also expect that professionals can do their jobs and act ethically despite not being perfectly neutral. And when it comes to law enforcement and prosecutors, let's get real here. Investigators and to an even greater degree, prosecutors, have an inbuilt bias against those who are being investigated/prosecuted.

How many of you would argue that... oh I dunno... Trey Gowdy... would be incapable of investigating a Democrat? I wouldn't. I think Trey Gowdy is a serious man who takes his responsibilities seriously and would act in a ethical manner despite his obvious political leanings.

Does this email somehow negate the fact that Flynn lied on his FARA filings? That he lobbied illegally for Turkey? That he lied to the FBI when interviewed about his communications? Does this email somehow demonstrate that Weissmann would act in an illegal or unethical manner?

Of course not. There's never been a standard by which a lack of political neutrality constituted a conflict of interest.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

I tried to give room to this Mueller to do the right thing.
In the beginning I thought,well, maybe he will find the truth.

Not anymore! This is a purely hyper partisan lynch mob,
With the power of the IC. Nothing good will ever come of this
it needs to be shut down. If for no other reason they have
An unlimited budget to pursue their political hatred.

This is unconstitutional!



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:56 AM
link   
There is another gal that worked for obama on the team that has some wonkie # wth Weissman. I'll try to find her name.

He should be disbarred, btw, for what he did to Anderson.

This mofo was overturned by the SC 9-0.

I'm surprised he's still breathing. 80+thousand jobs, gone.

That whole confederacy of dunces need to be investigated by a special council and ethics committee and have the books thrown at them.

At least mueller bunched them all up for easy pickin's.

Wake the F up, Jeff!!!


edit on 12 6 2017 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

What I think is missing from your analysis is that even people of honest intent act differently as members of a group, than they do if acting individually or independently. The "group dynamic" will influence their actions, their attitudes - and ultimately the outcomes.

For example, let's say that overall, as individuals, news reporters have high professional standards and intend to simply gather the facts and report the news. But, once inside of a newsroom, if the group lean is obviously to the left (and if the left-leaners are getting ahead faster than the right-leaners)...well then, one tends to start to use one set of filters more often than others.


A majority of American journalists identify themselves as political independents although among those who choose a side Democrats outnumber Republicans four to one, according to a new study of the media conducted by two Indiana University professors.


Seven Percent of Journalists are Republicans

So, should we be shocked or surprised to learn that...


The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump's initial time in office. They found, to no one's surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.



...the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC. Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative


And the Answer is...

But you already knew this.

So, when you stack an investigation team's leadership (and in all probability, a lot of the subsequent rank and file) with a high percentage of declared pro-Clinton/anti-Trump characters, then the group dynamic will tend to take on that collective personality - and the actions and results coming out of that group will be very far from neutral, fair or balanced.

The group's activities will become biased toward trying to find...and in failing to find, tyring to characterize discoveries as...damning information on the individuals the "group think" is predisposed to believe are "bad."

But, again, I know you already know this.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 05:36 AM
link   
We should fire any fbi agent investigating trump if they are happy and praise the scotus on it's recent travel ban ruling as well right?

In fact we should fire any fbi agent that is a trump supporter as well as any that were hillary supporters just so everything is fare. Right?
edit on 6-12-2017 by scraedtosleep because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

And he has admitted in another thread that the fbi "soft peddled" the investigation into hillatys team, and mills and huma lied to the fbi but weren't charged.

So it's not just we have these people saying anti trump pro Hillary things.

We also now know they went soft on Hillary's team, and let them go for some of the same things trumps team members are being charged with.

But apparently, tjats all ok

What it boils down to is that trump and his team are bad, and so it doesn't matter if the fbi is on the tank for Hillary's side, trumps people must be taken down.

Truly sad had people will cheer for corruption when it benefits their side.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
We should fire any fbi agent investigating trump if they are happy and praise the scotus on it's recent travel ban ruling as well right?

In fact we should fire any fbi agent that is a trump supporter as well as any that were hillary supporters just so everything is fare. Right?


Sure can you post any trump people praising anti hillary people or emailing mistresses about disliking Hillary and liking trump.

Abosultely they should be removed from the investigation.

I haven't seen that though.

In fact, find me evidence of anyone at the fbi being pro trump.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




find me evidence of anyone at the fbi being pro trump.


There must be some, I mean half the country voted for him.
My point is that this is a path that none of us are going to be happy about if we follow it.

A lot of people are suggesting that people get fired from their jobs based on their political beliefs.
Is that something you agree with?



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grambler




find me evidence of anyone at the fbi being pro trump.


There must be some, I mean half the country voted for him.
My point is that this is a path that none of us are going to be happy about if we follow it.

A lot of people are suggesting that people get fired from their jobs based on their political beliefs.
Is that something you agree with?


Its more than just political beliefs.

In this instance, we have a guy praising a person for defying a lawful order by trump.

That is not just a person that votes democrat.

And again, if this was all thats going on, I would agree with you.

But it is finding out these investigators wrote anti trump things or praised anti trump people, in conjunction with the other problems.

1. The huge disparity between how the trump investigation is being handled vs Hillary's. We now know for exxample that the FBI knew that Humaa and Mills lied to them, but decided not to charge them. But with Trumps people, everyone who lies to the FBI will be indicted.

2. The incredible amount of constant leaks to make trump look bad.

3. Mueller and the fbis stonewalling of Congress about relevant info.

4. And now agents involved at high levels sending texts that show their bias as shown in this thread.

Clearly this is showing a pattern that is not as innocent as some of the investigators having innocuous political leanings that we should ignore.



And yes, it is odd that we seemingly cant find a Trump supporter anywhere involved in these investigations.

Almost like the FBI and washington doesnt represent the rest of the people...



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




In this instance, we have a guy praising a person for defying a lawful order by trump.


You want people to fired because they praised a ruling by the scotus?




in conjunction with the other problems.

And what other actions has the deputy done? Other than praising the scotus ruling.



in conjunction with the other problems.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Its not just him though is it?

Again, I would want a guy taken off the case if he was seen in messages praising trump by calling him a hero for firing yates.

I would have wanted someone taken of the Hillary case that was writing praise for her SS agent that said what a horrible person hillary was.

And the fact we are now seeing all of the things I wrote above that show a bias among the investigators furtyher proves why we shouldnt allow people like this on the case.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: scraedtosleep


Mark my words.

We will all regret going down this path.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join