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.

 

Strzok text and why isn't anyone asking the obvious?

page: 10
57
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
True, except for the potential obstruction of justice issue in regards to Comey. Though I don't see much coming out of that.


Obstruction of justice requires a nefarious intent.

What Trump did is not obstruction of justice and given that he is the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government he has the same abilities as the chief law enforcement officers at the state / local levels.

As for firing Comey you cant have a violation of the law when a person is exercising their constitutional authority. As head of the executive branch the President can fire political appointees without cause. Secondly the termination of Comey had no impact on the investigations seeing he was not running any of the investigations. McCabe already testified to Congress Comey's termination had no impact on any investigations.

However the same cant be said for Mueller and his team. We already know Mueller has a conflict of interest because the DOJ had to sign off on the waiver so Mueller could do this job.

Finally Trump has stated time and again he has no intention of firing Mueller. Something the left cant seem to wrap their heads around since they repeat the lie Trump wants him gone on a daily basis.

Given Sessions has been cleared by the FBI over the bs russia crap he needs to unrecuse himself.

You guys need to learn how our Constitution / laws work before labeling.




posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Obstruction of justice requires a nefarious intent.

What Trump did is not obstruction of justice and given that he is the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government he has the same abilities as the chief law enforcement officers at the state / local levels.


How do you know what his intent was? That is why that is not being investigated.



As for firing Comey you cant have a violation of the law when a person is exercising their constitutional authority. As head of the executive branch the President can fire political appointees without cause. Secondly the termination of Comey had no impact on the investigations seeing he was not running any of the investigations. McCabe already testified to Congress Comey's termination had no impact on any investigations.


Violation of law is up in the air, though it has been grounds for articles of impeachment in the past.

Specifically, Nixon's article of impeachment include a very similar charge.



Finally Trump has stated time and again he has no intention of firing Mueller. Something the left cant seem to wrap their heads around since they repeat the lie Trump wants him gone on a daily basis.

Given Sessions has been cleared by the FBI over the bs russia crap he needs to unrecuse himself.


Irrelevant to the point here.



You guys need to learn how our Constitution / laws work before labeling.


Not sure you are in a position to point fingers about the constitution and laws.

I remember the conversation you were part of a few days ago in which you had proven to be ignorant of some very basic principles.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
How do you know what his intent was? That is why that is not being investigated.

By Comey's own testimony. No quid pro quo nor threat was made to end the investigation. Unless you are suggesting Comey was lying.




originally posted by: introvert
Violation of law is up in the air, though it has been grounds for articles of impeachment in the past.

Specifically, Nixon's article of impeachment include a very similar charge.

Nixon's mess came from a nefarious intent to hide facts and evidence from the investigator. That whole issue revolving around the tape recordings and his invocation of executive privilege. When the courts ruled against him he resigned shortly there after.

Again the big difference being intent... a word people should be familiar with.


originally posted by: introvert
Irrelevant to the point here.

quite the contrary actually. Being the left went down the same bs russia road with Sessions as they did Trump it speaks volumes.


originally posted by: introvert
Not sure you are in a position to point fingers about the constitution and laws.

I remember the conversation you were part of a few days ago in which you had proven to be ignorant of some very basic principles.



Not really but whatever works for you.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Exactly. We cannot say for certain it was a lie, unless we have proof she intended to lie or she knew what she was telling others was false.

That is the difference that is very important.


The difference that is even more important is that Hillary was handled differently than Flynn in how the discussions were held. Had Flynn been given an opportunity to invite in counsel he likely would have had the same type of advice that Hillary was given.

Im not saying Flynn is a good guy, or a bad guy. I am saying the FBI treated the 2 people differently to a great degree, from how they were questioned to how they treated the replies.



I disagree. It shows bias among a couple people within the FBI. Nothing more.

We need a lot more context to extrapolate any further than that.


And thus my belief that it needs to be investigated by an independant party. Because it looks a whole lot worse than the Trump Collusion thing looked, IMO.





Tomfoolery does not equal illegal or unethical action being taken.


How would you know without an investigation?




How do we know that? Investigation is not over yet.


And still, as of right now, they cannot seem to find any dirt.

They HAVE, however, uncovered evidence of something far more sinister on another party, and seem to be ignoring it (along with about half the country).




Completely out of proportion. We have very few facts and conspiracies have taken over...being pushed by many in order to obfuscate are deflect.


We have enough facts to investigate. Why can't that be done? Do you disagree that it should happen?

The entire Trump Collusion thing is an attempt to derail a Presidency. Looks like the partisans are having their way, huh?





You have the allegation, but you do not have evidence of it being absolutely true.


Because the FBI won't release the information that would prove or disprove it.






All I am saying is this should be presented in complete context and we should not get caught-up in the unfounded accusations and conspiracies...and try to push those off as being truth.


The evidence uncovered so far, combined with the refusal to release information and comply with congressional requests seems to be just as damning as someone accepting a plea deal. I just want them both to be given the same amount of effort. I believe Trump is a crooked SOB. I think the Federal Government is far, far, far worse.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



By Comey's own testimony. No quid pro quo nor threat was made to end the investigation. Unless you are suggesting Comey was lying.


So now you believe Comey? Aren't you arguing in another thread against want Comey said?

It seems...contradictory.



Nixon's mess came from a nefarious intent to hide facts and evidence from the investigator. That whole issue revolving around the tape recordings and his invocation of executive privilege. When the courts ruled against him he resigned shortly there after. Again the big difference being intent... a word people should be familiar with.


And also the difference is that you do not need intent to impeach someone. You can be impeached for damn near anything as long as they vote in the required numbers.



quite the contrary actually. Being the left went down the same bs russia road with Sessions as they did Trump it speaks volumes.


Again, irrelevant to our discussion.



Not really but whatever works for you.


You've already contradicted yourself.

Not sure your opinion has any value at this point, considering that you cannot be consistent in your arguments.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



The difference that is even more important is that Hillary was handled differently than Flynn in how the discussions were held. Had Flynn been given an opportunity to invite in counsel he likely would have had the same type of advice that Hillary was given.


Was he not given the opportunity to have counsel present?



And thus my belief that it needs to be investigated by an independant party. Because it looks a whole lot worse than the Trump Collusion thing looked, IMO.


I'm sure that investigation will take place. Whether it's warranted or not.



How would you know without an investigation?


By definition.



And still, as of right now, they cannot seem to find any dirt.


As far as we know. We are not in the loop.



They HAVE, however, uncovered evidence of something far more sinister on another party, and seem to be ignoring it (along with about half the country).


What is that?



We have enough facts to investigate. Why can't that be done? Do you disagree that it should happen?


Sure. Go for it.



The entire Trump Collusion thing is an attempt to derail a Presidency. Looks like the partisans are having their way, huh?


They cannot derail it without evidence and the support in congress to impeach.

Again, there would be nothing to this if Trump's team had not put themselves in this position.

Don't blame others for their own actions.



Because the FBI won't release the information that would prove or disprove it.


Of course they haven't. They are in the middle of an investigation.

Perhaps that's the problem. People want instant gratification and people such as myself are taken to task for simply saying "you don't know all the facts. Just wait it out".



The evidence uncovered so far, combined with the refusal to release information and comply with congressional requests seems to be just as damning as someone accepting a plea deal.


Highly-conflated evidence and the talking point that they are stonewalling congress is false. They have been working with congress. Problem is, people like Nunes and the others on the Right want everything now. Instant gratification.



I just want them both to be given the same amount of effort. I believe Trump is a crooked SOB. I think the Federal Government is far, far, far worse.


Fair enough.

Only thing I can say is be patient and don't fall for the conspiracies.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
So now you believe Comey? Aren't you arguing in another thread against want Comey said?

It seems...contradictory.

Interesting response... you cite Comey as fact and then find it contradictory when something Comey said is posted that doesnt support your narrative.

Try it this way -
Comey intentionally lied and cant be trusted.



originally posted by: introvert
And also the difference is that you do not need intent to impeach someone. You can be impeached for damn near anything as long as they vote in the required numbers.

Since impeachment is a political question and not a legal question you dont need really anything to impeach. High crimes and misdemeanors is defined by Congress and not by statute.

try again.



originally posted by: introvert
Again, irrelevant to our discussion.

Only because it destroys the false Russia narrative lie the left is desperately holding onto.



originally posted by: introvert
You've already contradicted yourself.

Not sure your opinion has any value at this point, considering that you cannot be consistent in your arguments.

actually I havent. what I have done is destroy your argument using facts.

You should try it sometime.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra


How do you know what his intent was?






Hmmm I seem to remember something about intent with somebody else, now who was that?

Something about a server of some sort of minor thing.....they had to prove intent.


Hmmm It will come to me.....

Funny how that works one way, isn't it.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Interesting response... you cite Comey as fact and then find it contradictory when something Comey said is posted that doesnt support your narrative.


What narrative? I already said I don't think there is much to anything Trump has been accused of, but his handling of Comey is/was cause for concern.



Since impeachment is a political question and not a legal question you dont need really anything to impeach. High crimes and misdemeanors is defined by Congress and not by statute. try again.


That is literally what I just said.



Only because it destroys the false Russia narrative lie the left is desperately holding onto.


No. It's irrelevant because we were not discussion that topic and for some reason you found it fitting to throw in there.



actually I havent. what I have done is destroy your argument using facts. You should try it sometime.




Such arrogance. It's quite entertaining.

Anyway, you were proven wrong on the thread the other day, in regards to law, and were just proven wrong, by me, in another. Perhaps you should spend more time reading up on the law and constitution you claim to know so much about and less time fluffing your fragile ego.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra


How do you know what his intent was?






Hmmm I seem to remember something about intent with somebody else, now who was that?

Something about a server of some sort of minor thing.....they had to prove intent.


Hmmm It will come to me.....

Funny how that works one way, isn't it.


No.

One was in regard to the law and the other is an assumption made by another member.

You guys are really not very good at this debate/logic thing, are you?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   

a reply to: introvert

Again, there would be nothing to this if Trump's team had not put themselves in this position.

Don't blame others for their own actions.


Are you saying Trumps team is responsible for the Dossier?

Or was he not bad enough without paying to make up crap about him?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
What narrative? I already said I don't think there is much to anything Trump has been accused of, but his handling of Comey is/was cause for concern.

His handling of Comey was based on recommendations of his AG and DAG. Never mind the fact he needed no justifications to terminate comey and doing so is not a violation of any laws.



originally posted by: introvert
That is literally what I just said.

you fixated on the intent thing again for some odd reason.



originally posted by: introvert
No. It's irrelevant because we were not discussion that topic and for some reason you found it fitting to throw in there.

Because it is all linked. Trying to pick and choose what story section you want to discuss while trying to dismiss other aspects that are in fact related and very much relevant is why your having issues with this topic.



originally posted by: introvert


Such arrogance. It's quite entertaining.

It is not arrogance but if thats what you have to tell yourself for your own sake do whatever you need to do.



originally posted by: introvert
Anyway, you were proven wrong on the thread the other day, in regards to law, and were just proven wrong, by me, in another. Perhaps you should spend more time reading up on the law and constitution you claim to know so much about and less time fluffing your fragile ego.


Actually i was not and you repeating the same lie doesnt make it any more true.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

so the doj did not release these?
lol
your version of this is the doj gave these to the house judiciary COMMITTEE then the COMMITTEE gave "edited" versions of the texts to the press?
Even if that were the case there are dems on the COMMITTEE as well so it still would not be the "GOP" releasing this it would be the COMMITTEE


whatever you say



It is my understanding that the DoJ released the info to congress, not the press or to the public.

It's also important to note that apparently the emails also contained disparaging comments about people on the Left as well. Specifically Bernie Sanders.


And Eric Holder



So the real question we have to answer is if those biases affected the way they conducted their jobs in any way.


THAT is the only question that matters.
Everyone has and had opinions on the 2016 election.
EVERYONE had and has opinions on Trump.

What happens when we "cleanse" government of people that have an unfavorable opinion of a President?

Everyone has political opinions.

Here is a fact no one is talking about.
Strzork was NOT removed/demoted for his unfavorable views of Trump.
They won't say the exact reason, but common sense is that it was due to Anti-Espionage Assistant Deputy (or whatever his title was) having an affair with a co-worker. Unethical and a Kompromat/blackmail risk and a bunch of stupid.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert
What narrative? I already said I don't think there is much to anything Trump has been accused of, but his handling of Comey is/was cause for concern.

His handling of Comey was based on recommendations of his AG and DAG.


Not according to Trump.


Never mind the fact he needed no justifications to terminate comey and doing so is not a violation of any laws.



He can fire anyone he likes, but attempting to obstruct justice or interfere with a lawful investigation is Illegal.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Not according to Trump.


Yes according to Trump as well as AG Sessions and DAG Rosenstein.


originally posted by: soberbacchus
He can fire anyone he likes, but attempting to obstruct justice or interfere with a lawful investigation is Illegal.


and since Trump never took an action that is required to obstruct, he didnt obstruct.
18 U.S. Code § 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations

Secondly he is the Chief Law enforcement officer for the United states (contrary to the popular, but wrong, belief that the Attorney General is). He never order Comey to stop his investigation of Flynn nor Russia.

Now - what Comey and other FBI / DOJ officials did with regards to the Clinton investigation and the Russia investigation is text book obstruction by protecting Clinton and illegally conspiring to cover her crimes in addition to illegally fabricating evidence and then presenting that fraudulent information to a FISA court to illegally obtain a FISA warrant.

We know this because the first time the FBI / DOJ tried for a FISA warrant they were told no.




top topics



 
57
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join