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.

 

Tying the conspiracy together: "The Russia Investigation Circus Is Over. Will There Be A Parade?"

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree whole heartedly. USA have probably largest investigative ability on planet so there should not be trouble to lead effective investigation. Instead of it we see war of cliques through prepaid media. USA are one step from witch hunt ala McCarthy.

From behind the ocean you look like mad ship sailors + nuclear arsenal.




posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

Maybe if you were talking about the Hillary investigations during the Obama years, but this Russian investigation keeps turning up dirt. That is indisputable.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




Mueller is finished with Trump and the entire White House staff


Say trumps lawyers. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I bet Robert Mueller thinks differently.

All the rest of that... Pfffft



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

But in the real world Mueller is still investigating criminal actions by this president.
And no amount of noise is changing that. Mueller is tuning out the noise and diligently working his case. So....

And please stop trying to stop me from expressing my views. I'm in America. Don't know where you are but I have rights.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What is indisputable? That both camps had shady deals with Russians? That Russia was actively influencing US elections? Yes, it is indisputable. USA are doing exactly the same or worse to others so it should not be big deal.

This "debate" is just red herring to lure folks out of substantial questions, like why are they poor or why is environment polluted beyond repair.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

The debate has nothing to do with those things and debates about those situations are occurring concurrently with this investigation. It's amazing that people feel like talking about a certain issue suddenly means we can't talk about another issue at the same time.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Fair enough, though my comments were specifically focused toward individuals like Kim Jong-un, Mao Ze Dong (sp?), and the like. I don't have any issue with the ideology itself, much like socialism or even far-right beliefs such as anarchism. Unfortunately there is usually a small group of people that will use, as you pointed out, any ideology (to include capitalism/republicanism) to enrich themselves at the expense of others.


As far as 'oppressing peoples', the uS does that to whole nations, waging aggressive war in foreign lands. At home we have the highest incarceration numbers on the planet, the highest police murder rate, the most oppressive police when it comes to demonstrations and protest, just like everywhere else (see "Occupy" beat down).


I also agree with some of your statements here too, in the sense that our incarceration rate is ridiculously high and that a wide variety of minor infractions are classed as felonies. I do not support incarcerating any non-violent offender, nor using non-violent crimes to limit natural rights. As a LE retiree, this is an important issue to me. Unfortunately it is lawmakers (acting in concert with various special interests) who codify their personal beliefs and opinions into law. Laws should always protect individuals from crimes, not some murky idea of preventing "crimes against all of society" and what not. If an action does not have a clearly identifiable victim, how can it be justified calling it a "crime"?

As usual, intrptr, thanks for the reasoned response and intelligent discussion


edit on 12/18/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


But there is no reason to investigate non-crimes. None of the allegations (even if every single one were true) constitute illegal activity. This is truly a waste of taxpayer funding. I was OK with that, however, since it appeared to placate a large segment of the population.

Now we've discovered the bombshells (including text messages, ties to Clinton sham investigation, etc) which have discredited Mueller and his team, but not the investigation itself.

The investigation is clearly free to continue. But for any actionable discoveries, a new special counsel will need to be appointed (or DOJ itself handles it) before any of us will accept any findings other than "nothing to see here." Removing a sitting President is simply too sensitive of a task to have *any* doubt whatsoever about the integrity of the investigation/investigators.

Trump obviously isn't concerned though, since he realizes that he isn't even accused of a crime. He's been accused of something that *some* people in this country find distasteful. I personally love Russia (and Russians), so I couldn't care less how true (or not) the allegations are. Our legal system (re: United States Code) agrees with this assessment.

If anyone can produce a statute criminalizing his alleged behavior, I will gladly shut up. Until then, no crime = nothing burger. Regardless, a new SC will need to come in before the investigation can be taken seriously again. This one is tainted, which any intelligent LE professional will tell you is unacceptable. Even the mere *appearance* of impropriety is enough for recusal/dismissal/etc.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


As a LE retiree, this is an important issue to me.

I bet. You see the inner workings of the broken justice system more than most.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

But there is no reason to investigate non-crimes. None of the allegations (even if every single one were true) constitute illegal activity. This is truly a waste of taxpayer funding. I was OK with that, however, since it appeared to placate a large segment of the population.

Someone has already been indicted! More indictments have confirmed to be coming too. There have been crimes committed. People are going to jail. Stop lying. I literally stopped reading your post after this paragraph because if you will flat out lie about reality like this then there is obviously no reason to read further.

Internet lawyers...
edit on 18-12-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


What "criminal" actions are you referring to? Thus far, every single allegation against him does not meet any definition of a crime in the USC. I invite you to quote the statute (or relevant language) criminalizing any alleged conduct.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest those allegations are true. Like I said though, even if they are no crime has been committed. You actually have to break the law before you can be charged with a crime. Unfortunately we are witnessing the politicization of our justice system, and along with it total loss of said system's credibility.

The damage done to our system of jurisprudence has been irreparably damaged thanks to the political aims of a small number of corrupt officials.

I hate to be a broken record, but you have still failed to answer one single question despite repeated requests on my part (eight times, actually). That is OK. Would you like to go over the evidence with me though? Piece by piece?

We don't have to do it in a public thread. Feel free to U2U me. This isn't about embarrassment or "told you so" or anything like that. It is 100% about objective analysis of factual and tangible evidence. It is up to you, but choosing the path of ignorance (to intentionally avoid knowledge or objective reasoning for example) is rarely advantageous or fruitful. It is up to you, but I'm more than willing to pursue this civily and intelligbly.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The indictments have nothing to do with the scope of the investigation. Clinton, Mills, Abedin and others are guilty of the exact same offenses (lying to federal agents, provably). They claimed to have no knowledge of Clinton's illegal email server. However, leaked emails show they very well did know and advised her against it several times. They lied directly to federal agents and obstructed the investigation. Where were there charges?

Further, Manafort and the like were charged with crimes starting around 2006 - almost 10 years before Trump even announced his candidacy. Every charge and indictment has been procedural, and has absolutely zero to do with any sort of "collusion." "Collusion" or any other action isn't a crime, sorry to inform you. I can prove that statement as well. Simply review the US code.

If Flynn, Manafort, etc would have simply 1) told the truth or 2) refused to answer questions, they would not be indicted/charged at this time. Their actions by themselves did not constitute crimes, it was actually the lying and obstructing part that is criminal. And like I said, if we're going to start looking at obscure unconstitutional "acts" like the Logan Act, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Rodman and dozens of other private citizens will also have to be charged for engaging in unauthorized diplomacy. No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act, because it would absolutely be ruled unconstitutional. We have free speech, and free association.

There is simply no law against talking to a foreign government's agents.

Furthermore, how do you explain the ground-shaking revelations that have discredited Mueller and his team? Need I lay them out individually for you? I will, if you continue to offer diversions instead of addressing the evidence presented.

Needless to say, the evidence thoroughly debunks the credibility of Mueller and his team. I have no problem with the investigation itself (other than its a waste of money), because there is zero chance Trump is in legal jeopardy. Nothing he's accused of is illegal. You have to break the law before you can be charged. The fact non-criminal acts are even being investigated in this manner demonstrates the extremely partisan nature of this effort.

At its core, this Russia hysteria was invented by Clinton and a few rogue federal agents. This is also provable. How else do you explain Obama/Clapper admitting Russia wasn't responsible for her major defeat?



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Regardless, we won't accept Mueller's findings. Attempting to remove a duly elected and lawfully installed President under anything but incontrovertible evidence of illegal activity is a dangerous proposition.

But it seems the far-left still hasn't learned, despite the many negative precedents they've set in congress and government they continue. Do these people not realize that these same bogus tactics can and will now be used against every single future President? What if (by some miracle) a Dem actually gets elected in a future election? Just remember this phrase: "You put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of yours in the morgue." GOP congressmen seem to live by this creed. The far-left has destroyed our judicial integrity and set a dangerous precedent that is truly a threat to this republic. All in the name of furthering hysterical anti-Trumpism and political retribution.

Damn you all for that.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


You quit reading because you're scared to answer the questions I posed. You realize that by providing an answer to those questions will force you to address factual, provable, reproducible and irrefutable evidence of impropriety (at a minimum).

Go ahead though, keep engaging in logical fallacies to avoid the truth. I tried extending an olive branch, which was unfortunately denied. So I'll have to be blunt. You're entirely mistaken in your assertions and analysis.

How about you quit inventing arguments, and simply examine the questions below (or just look at the raw evidence, your choice)? I realize that discovering the past year has been a total waste of effort/time/resources can be a devastating blow. But the intellectual expansion is certainly worth it.

If you can provide an answer to one single question below, I will offer my sincerest apology and admit defeat. Until that time, however, you are simply another partisan poster attempting to discredit undeniable facts. It isn't your fault. Your party has trained you to react this way. It is the same reason Sillyolme goes into hyperbolic hysterics every time they see the word "Russian." It is why they started making ridiculous and name-sake accusations about "Russians in the closet" and what not. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you guys sound to the moderate left/entire right?

Answer the questions, or admit you're engaging in alarmist lies and malicious propaganda. It is one or the other. There is no third option, there is no deflection and there is no accusation that will make these questions go away (see below)


If you honestly ask yourself the following questions (and do the appropriate independent research - don't take my word for it) I trust you'll expand your awareness of this conspiracy. If you're totally convinced of your position, what harm can come from exploring these alternatives?

Dems and media like to say 17 intelligence agencies agreed unanimously - this is untrue. In actually, only three agencies provided input and NSA only expressed "moderate confidence" in the reports. Later, Clapper admitted that only a select handful of people within these agencies came to these findings - hardly the unanimous claim he'd made initially. In fact, the three agencies couldn't even be described as "unanimous." How much do you want to bet that FBI's opinion came from Pete Strozok (the lead counterintelligence SA at that time)

The accusations against Russia are entirely based on the findings of a private company (CrowdStrike) that the DNC hired in response to the leaks. 16GB of data was transferred in just a couple of seconds, so we already know it was transferred locally (via USB 3.0+ no less).

How come the same agents/lawyers who steered this standard counter-intelligence probe to an attack against Trump were involved in the Clinton investigation? Why is a special counsel needed now, but not when a Democrat administration was investigating a former SOS and DNC Presidential candidate?

What about the extremely suspicious text messages between Strozok, Lisa Page and others? What "insurance policy" against Trump were they referring to? Knowing the extent people went to in the 2016 election, what makes you believe these people maintained their professional standards? Wouldn't the right thing to have done been to recuse themselves?

What about the laundering of millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious unverified (mostly unverifiable) charges against Trump? What if that was used to obtain intrusive FISA warrant(s)? How about Bruce Ohr meeting with the writers of the slanderous "dossier" ?

How about Andrew Weissmann, who congratulated disgraced acting-AG Sally Yates for refusing to follow what is universally termed a "lawful Presidential order"?

Why was Clinton, Mills, Abedin and dozens more interviewed without being put under oath by Peter Strozok no less? Why would co-conspirator Cheryl Mills be allowed to sit in on the interrogation?

Why did Strozok decline to charge Mills and Abedin for lying about knowledge of Clinton's illegal server? They clearly had the knowledge (as proven by their own emails), yet lied directly to federal agents (a crime whether under oath or not). They also were not prosecuted for this offense - yet it is precisely what the likes of Mike Flynn and company are charged with. Precisely the same offense. Once again, two sets of rules.

If this entire nonsense is based on the erroneous and malicious actions of these corrupt and tainted agents as well as the phony "dossier" (aka Democrat op-research hit-job stuff), then I fully expect the investigation will be shut down without warning. And rightfully so. A new investigator can easily be appointed, who is not tainted like Mueller and virtually his entire team.


edit on 12/18/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

No. I just feel like it is a waste of time to talk to and read the opinions of someone who can't get basic facts right in the opening paragraph of his point. ESPECIALLY if that person pretends to be an internet lawyer.

ETA: And who doesn't source his quoted text either.
edit on 18-12-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you for proving my point. You can take your malicious agitprop and anti-Trump hysterics elsewhere. Thanks.

......and for the TENTH da## time.



If you honestly ask yourself the following questions (and do the appropriate independent research - don't take my word for it) I trust you'll expand your awareness of this conspiracy. If you're totally convinced of your position, what harm can come from exploring these alternatives?

Dems and media like to say 17 intelligence agencies agreed unanimously - this is untrue. In actually, only three agencies provided input and NSA only expressed "moderate confidence" in the reports. Later, Clapper admitted that only a select handful of people within these agencies came to these findings - hardly the unanimous claim he'd made initially. In fact, the three agencies couldn't even be described as "unanimous." How much do you want to bet that FBI's opinion came from Pete Strozok (the lead counterintelligence SA at that time)

The accusations against Russia are entirely based on the findings of a private company (CrowdStrike) that the DNC hired in response to the leaks. 16GB of data was transferred in just a couple of seconds, so we already know it was transferred locally (via USB 3.0+ no less).

How come the same agents/lawyers who steered this standard counter-intelligence probe to an attack against Trump were involved in the Clinton investigation? Why is a special counsel needed now, but not when a Democrat administration was investigating a former SOS and DNC Presidential candidate?

What about the extremely suspicious text messages between Strozok, Lisa Page and others? What "insurance policy" against Trump were they referring to? Knowing the extent people went to in the 2016 election, what makes you believe these people maintained their professional standards? Wouldn't the right thing to have done been to recuse themselves?

What about the laundering of millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious unverified (mostly unverifiable) charges against Trump? What if that was used to obtain intrusive FISA warrant(s)? How about Bruce Ohr meeting with the writers of the slanderous "dossier" ?

How about Andrew Weissmann, who congratulated disgraced acting-AG Sally Yates for refusing to follow what is universally termed a "lawful Presidential order"?

Why was Clinton, Mills, Abedin and dozens more interviewed without being put under oath by Peter Strozok no less? Why would co-conspirator Cheryl Mills be allowed to sit in on the interrogation?

Why did Strozok decline to charge Mills and Abedin for lying about knowledge of Clinton's illegal server? They clearly had the knowledge (as proven by their own emails), yet lied directly to federal agents (a crime whether under oath or not). They also were not prosecuted for this offense - yet it is precisely what the likes of Mike Flynn and company are charged with. Precisely the same offense. Once again, two sets of rules.

If this entire nonsense is based on the erroneous and malicious actions of these corrupt and tainted agents as well as the phony "dossier" (aka Democrat op-research hit-job stuff), then I fully expect the investigation will be shut down without warning. And rightfully so. A new investigator can easily be appointed, who is not tainted like Mueller and virtually his entire team.



edit on 12/18/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


You're grossly mistaken. The quoted text is my own writing. Nice try though. Once again, your deflections will fail. Readers will find it telling that you've all avoided the tough questions now ELEVEN times.

You've asked questions about the questions, attempted to poke procedural holes, engaged in logical fallacies and even levied personal attacks.

Why in the hell won't you just answer the questions? You're afraid. That must be it.


If you honestly ask yourself the following questions (and do the appropriate independent research - don't take my word for it) I trust you'll expand your awareness of this conspiracy. If you're totally convinced of your position, what harm can come from exploring these alternatives?

Dems and media like to say 17 intelligence agencies agreed unanimously - this is untrue. In actually, only three agencies provided input and NSA only expressed "moderate confidence" in the reports. Later, Clapper admitted that only a select handful of people within these agencies came to these findings - hardly the unanimous claim he'd made initially. In fact, the three agencies couldn't even be described as "unanimous." How much do you want to bet that FBI's opinion came from Pete Strozok (the lead counterintelligence SA at that time)

The accusations against Russia are entirely based on the findings of a private company (CrowdStrike) that the DNC hired in response to the leaks. 16GB of data was transferred in just a couple of seconds, so we already know it was transferred locally (via USB 3.0+ no less).

How come the same agents/lawyers who steered this standard counter-intelligence probe to an attack against Trump were involved in the Clinton investigation? Why is a special counsel needed now, but not when a Democrat administration was investigating a former SOS and DNC Presidential candidate?

What about the extremely suspicious text messages between Strozok, Lisa Page and others? What "insurance policy" against Trump were they referring to? Knowing the extent people went to in the 2016 election, what makes you believe these people maintained their professional standards? Wouldn't the right thing to have done been to recuse themselves?

What about the laundering of millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious unverified (mostly unverifiable) charges against Trump? What if that was used to obtain intrusive FISA warrant(s)? How about Bruce Ohr meeting with the writers of the slanderous "dossier" ?

How about Andrew Weissmann, who congratulated disgraced acting-AG Sally Yates for refusing to follow what is universally termed a "lawful Presidential order"?

Why was Clinton, Mills, Abedin and dozens more interviewed without being put under oath by Peter Strozok no less? Why would co-conspirator Cheryl Mills be allowed to sit in on the interrogation?

Why did Strozok decline to charge Mills and Abedin for lying about knowledge of Clinton's illegal server? They clearly had the knowledge (as proven by their own emails), yet lied directly to federal agents (a crime whether under oath or not). They also were not prosecuted for this offense - yet it is precisely what the likes of Mike Flynn and company are charged with. Precisely the same offense. Once again, two sets of rules.

If this entire nonsense is based on the erroneous and malicious actions of these corrupt and tainted agents as well as the phony "dossier" (aka Democrat op-research hit-job stuff), then I fully expect the investigation will be shut down without warning. And rightfully so. A new investigator can easily be appointed, who is not tainted like Mueller and virtually his entire team.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

You're going to play the "He didn't engage me so I win the argument" game huh? I'll pass. You win all the internets. If you can't accept my criticism of you then we aren't going to move on so I'll just disengage. Have fun arguing your erroneous point.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


You and silly shouldn't fear the truth, Krazy. I know it upsets your entire bogus worldview, but someone had to snap you guys out of it at some point.

Sadly you'll just continue doubling down on your hypocrisy and unsubstantiated hysterics while yet again ignoring the true questions.

That is your perogative, but it betrays the weakness and incredibility of your collective argument.

Surely if your anti-Trump rhetoric is iron-clad, answering some silly questions posited by an "internet lawyer" should be an easy win, right?



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Yes, I agree. You've proven my point by ignoring every single piece of evidence (which I converted into question format for comprehension) presented by myself and the OP article.

By refusing to address the claims (and engaging in fallacies), you've absolutely conceded your point. Otherwise, why not simply defend it now? Why keep engaging in ridiculous behavior?

It is 100% because the social conditioners have trained you to behave this way. Operant conditioning at its finest.

Yet again, if I'm merely an "internet lawyer" as you suggest, what harm could come from answering the questions? Aren't you eager to dispute the facts? There is only one reason to continually shy away from answering a simple question regarding tangible evidence (which I find it odd that the three of you have continually chosen to do......) and that is because *you* are personally aware of the specious nature of your assertions.
edit on 12/18/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join