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.

 

There's No Way Mueller Indicts Trump

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer
@ shooterbrody

No it doesn't, it makes you look like you're dodging an obvious and easy question because you can't bring yourself to admit publicly that there is no evidence that would change your mind about Trump. I would be embarrassed by such a vacuum of self agency or critical thinking skills as well.

You should be embarrassed. You played amateur telepath to the amusement of all here.
You have provided no evidence of any wrongdoing by POTUS.
With no evidence why would any rational person change their mind?
When actual evidence of ANY wrongdoing is presented and can be evaluated perhaps the discussion would be different.
Actual evidence is actually important.


I'm not sure how I can be more clear about this.

Is there any source from which you would accept evidence of Trump's malfeasance. I think it pretty clear you have bought into the propaganda that anything from Mueller can't be trusted, so who would it have to come from for you to believe it?

Are you implying that because you haven't seen any evidence yet, that there isn't any, and there never will be?

If you would be kind enough to source evidence I will be happy to look at it.
Your powers of telepathy are again a fail.
I have no problem with Mueller. I think he is trying to do a proper job. I would be happy to see any evidence from his investigation.
So far we have 3 plea bargains to process crimes, and 2 charged with crimes from before POTUS even declared his candidacy. None of which approach POTUS with a 40 ft pole.
I haven't implied anything, but you have assumed alot. Seems an ongoing issue with you. Perhaps you should remedy that.




posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: GuidedKill

You are lashing out like a petulant child, so I'm not sure who you think you're embarrassing here....

Maybe when you have some actual valid points to make you can return to the discussion.


I'm not trying to embarrass you.

You're doing one hell of a job all by yourself.


Keep up the good work!



Again, nothing of value added to the discussion. I'll pose the same question I just asked of Shooterbrody (again...):

Is there any entity that could present evidence of potential Trump malfeasance that you would believe?


Yes.

Now a question for you. Is there any entity that would find Trump not guilty that you would trust? Or are you so politically biased you think any good news for Trump must be false or designed by the Russians?





Of course, and I welcome the return to actual discussion. If Mueller's probe finds only petty issues with Trump (or no issues at all), I would drop the matter entirely. His investigation has been the most thorough and professional of any actual inquiry, and I can think of no other entity which would supersede their final determination.

May I inquire as to which source you respect enough to believe should they delivery bad news about Trump?



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I'd believe nothing without seeing the data myself. Its my SOP in this world where figures don't lie....but liars can figure.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer
@ shooterbrody

No it doesn't, it makes you look like you're dodging an obvious and easy question because you can't bring yourself to admit publicly that there is no evidence that would change your mind about Trump. I would be embarrassed by such a vacuum of self agency or critical thinking skills as well.

You should be embarrassed. You played amateur telepath to the amusement of all here.
You have provided no evidence of any wrongdoing by POTUS.
With no evidence why would any rational person change their mind?
When actual evidence of ANY wrongdoing is presented and can be evaluated perhaps the discussion would be different.
Actual evidence is actually important.


I'm not sure how I can be more clear about this.

Is there any source from which you would accept evidence of Trump's malfeasance. I think it pretty clear you have bought into the propaganda that anything from Mueller can't be trusted, so who would it have to come from for you to believe it?

Are you implying that because you haven't seen any evidence yet, that there isn't any, and there never will be?

If you would be kind enough to source evidence I will be happy to look at it.
Your powers of telepathy are again a fail.
I have no problem with Mueller. I think he is trying to do a proper job. I would be happy to see any evidence from his investigation.
So far we have 3 plea bargains to process crimes, and 2 charged with crimes from before POTUS even declared his candidacy. None of which approach POTUS with a 40 ft pole.
I haven't implied anything, but you have assumed alot. Seems an ongoing issue with you. Perhaps you should remedy that.


I'm not sure what telepathy you are constantly referring to. If you are conflating a hypothetical situation with telepathy then I suggest you educate yourself on the topics therein to understand how they are different.

Secondly, I appreciate you stating your opinions on Mueller, as that is more to the thrust of what I was after originally after. Am I understanding correctly that you would believe a determination from Mueller's report (either for or against the President)?



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: GuidedKill

You are lashing out like a petulant child, so I'm not sure who you think you're embarrassing here....

Maybe when you have some actual valid points to make you can return to the discussion.


I'm not trying to embarrass you.

You're doing one hell of a job all by yourself.


Keep up the good work!



Again, nothing of value added to the discussion. I'll pose the same question I just asked of Shooterbrody (again...):

Is there any entity that could present evidence of potential Trump malfeasance that you would believe?


Yes.

Now a question for you. Is there any entity that would find Trump not guilty that you would trust? Or are you so politically biased you think any good news for Trump must be false or designed by the Russians?





Of course, and I welcome the return to actual discussion. If Mueller's probe finds only petty issues with Trump (or no issues at all), I would drop the matter entirely. His investigation has been the most thorough and professional of any actual inquiry, and I can think of no other entity which would supersede their final determination.

May I inquire as to which source you respect enough to believe should they delivery bad news about Trump?


lol well don't be too welcoming. I have no desire to stay around and play "hypotheticals" in your fantasy Miss Cleo land. I really just wanted to get you on record saying you will shut up about Russians once Mueller finds Trump free and clear of everything Russia related.

You can inquire all you want, I only deal in real world issues and will wait for Mueller's obviously tainted investigation to wrap up. I have no desire to play dream land.





posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer

I'd believe nothing without seeing the data myself. Its my SOP in this world where figures don't lie....but liars can figure.


You and I see entirely eye to eye in that regard.

That being said:

Are you expecting Mueller to present his conclusion with no supporting evidence, or rather that the evidence will be barred from public disclosure? I had imagined that whatever the report details, the public would get to see the evidence that allowed Mueller to arrive at his conclusion.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: GuidedKill

You are lashing out like a petulant child, so I'm not sure who you think you're embarrassing here....

Maybe when you have some actual valid points to make you can return to the discussion.


I'm not trying to embarrass you.

You're doing one hell of a job all by yourself.


Keep up the good work!



Again, nothing of value added to the discussion. I'll pose the same question I just asked of Shooterbrody (again...):

Is there any entity that could present evidence of potential Trump malfeasance that you would believe?


Yes.

Now a question for you. Is there any entity that would find Trump not guilty that you would trust? Or are you so politically biased you think any good news for Trump must be false or designed by the Russians?





Of course, and I welcome the return to actual discussion. If Mueller's probe finds only petty issues with Trump (or no issues at all), I would drop the matter entirely. His investigation has been the most thorough and professional of any actual inquiry, and I can think of no other entity which would supersede their final determination.

May I inquire as to which source you respect enough to believe should they delivery bad news about Trump?




You can inquire all you want, I only deal in real world issues and will wait for Mueller's obviously tainted investigation to wrap up. I have no desire to play dream land.




Lol, so you are saying that Trump is the only authority on earth capable of the truth, and anyone that says anything bad about Trump or has evidence showing Trump in the pocket of Russians is a lie.

Again I asked a simple question, one in which you seem patently unable to answer. If you are unable to comprehend/reconcile a hypothetical situation then I suggest you have far greater cognitive issues to deal with.

At least your honest about your biased nature.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer




I'm not sure what telepathy you are constantly referring to.


Your original statement in which you claim to know the minds of a large number of people when in reality you know squat.



you and those like you have already made up your minds that should any evidence come to light it is immediately false

Perhaps you are in need of the education you mentioned?

Perhaps you don't even know how Muellers investigation will wrap up?
You do know Mueller will turn in his report to the doj, and the doj takes it from there?



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I have few expectations honestly.

I have some reservations. Namely, that the people performing work for him have been shown to have a poisoned bias. So I have to wonder how much of what gets presented is fact insomuch as "altered form 302's" or some such. The FBI sets up the DOJ to have a near perfect conviction rate by using the screwing 302 process instead of simply recording interrogations.

I've had little faith in the FBI for a long time. I remember Waco and Ruby Ridge. I've seen the entrapment schemes they run. And after seeing Flynn hang for the same thing that Hillary was let off the hook for, it makes me wonder exactly how impartial the investigation has been.

This is why I need to see the data myself. If there are clear cases of money laundering, etc...then hang the SOB. But if its conflated via typical FBI fashion (i.e., form 302 games) then I cannot support any assertions arising from it.

Especially if it all comes as fruit from a poisoned tree.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer



Perhaps you don't even know how Muellers investigation will wrap up?
You do know Mueller will turn in his report to the doj, and the doj takes it from there?



I have no idea how Mueller's investigate will wrap up, though I suspect he will find rather minor malfeasance/violations that while damming are not directly related to Russian election interference. I am reserving judgement of course until the investigation concludes. Secondly, yes I am well aware of the chain of command regarding releasing the report, and that's why I chimed in on this topic in the first place, since I don't believe it ultimately matters even if Mueller's report finds direct evidence of Russian involvement, since neither Sessions nor the Republican controlled congress would do anything about it anyways.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer



Perhaps you don't even know how Muellers investigation will wrap up?
You do know Mueller will turn in his report to the doj, and the doj takes it from there?



I have no idea how Mueller's investigate will wrap up, though I suspect he will find rather minor malfeasance/violations that while damming are not directly related to Russian election interference. I am reserving judgement of course until the investigation concludes. Secondly, yes I am well aware of the chain of command regarding releasing the report, and that's why I chimed in on this topic in the first place, since I don't believe it ultimately matters even if Mueller's report finds direct evidence of Russian involvement, since neither Sessions nor the Republican controlled congress would do anything about it anyways.

Sessions has recused himself so he will not be involved in this in any way.
Mueller will be giving his report to Rod Rosenstein.
The same Rosenstein that may have signed off on sketchy fisa requests.
The same Rosenstein that asked the president to NOT release Nunes' memo.
You want that guy to be the one to decide what happens to Muellers report? No conflict of interest there at all?

Look I want those who committed crimes to be prosecuted to the FULLEST extent of the law. I just don't think the fbi,doj,cia, or nsa should be able to break laws to do that. I do think there are valid reasons to look into how this investigation has been handled, and I think those issues are being looked at. I do not think pulling the "national security" blanket over this works in this instance.

Even after all of this, impeachment is a political event, and unless something like treason is found I don't see congress doing much.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer



Perhaps you don't even know how Muellers investigation will wrap up?
You do know Mueller will turn in his report to the doj, and the doj takes it from there?



I have no idea how Mueller's investigate will wrap up, though I suspect he will find rather minor malfeasance/violations that while damming are not directly related to Russian election interference. I am reserving judgement of course until the investigation concludes. Secondly, yes I am well aware of the chain of command regarding releasing the report, and that's why I chimed in on this topic in the first place, since I don't believe it ultimately matters even if Mueller's report finds direct evidence of Russian involvement, since neither Sessions nor the Republican controlled congress would do anything about it anyways.



Even after all of this, impeachment is a political event, and unless something like treason is found I don't see congress doing much.


Thanks for the reminder/correction re: Session, I brain-farted on that.

I find your opinion heartening that congress would be spurned into action vis-a-vis treason findings. I suppose I'm a bit jaded since it seems like there has been such a drive to discredit anything/everything against Trump that I can't help but feel uneasy that congress has an easy way out of acting at all on something as damning even as treason.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer




I suppose I'm a bit jaded since it seems like there has been such a drive to discredit anything/everything against Trump that I can't help but feel uneasy that congress has an easy way out of acting at all on something as damning even as treason.

You do understand that drive began when NO ONE would answer how it was found out that flynn lied to the vp?
Flynn is an american citizen.
American citizens are protected by the 4th amendment.
A FULL YEAR into this mess and flynn was made to plea to lying to the fbi. Thats it....that is all they have....So are you going to tell me stomping on the constitution was warranted by getting flynn to plea to lying to the fbi?
bs
3 process crimes and 2 charged with crimes that they spoke to the doj about in 2014 and were not charged then.....that is all this investigation has gotten....no evidence of anything else
So unless POTUS was a witness to manaforts tax problems, or the process crimes in question tell me exactly what mueller has to speak to him about?
Comey has already testified under oath in front of congress that POTUS was not under investigation before he was 86ed.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer




I suppose I'm a bit jaded since it seems like there has been such a drive to discredit anything/everything against Trump that I can't help but feel uneasy that congress has an easy way out of acting at all on something as damning even as treason.


A FULL YEAR into this mess and flynn was made to plea to lying to the fbi. Thats it....that is all they have....


What exactly was the lie that Flynn had to make a deal with the FBI about? Was that in any way an avenue into further investigation?

Also could you explain (since your not on the investigatory team I assume) how you are certain that is all they have at this point?



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Talk about dumb, although it would be ironic if Trump did release fake tax returns after calling Obama’s BC fake. In any case, Mueller already has Trumps tax records, the criminal division of the IRS working with him, and Trumps foreign bank records.


Let me guess...anonymous sources told CNN that, eh?



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer




I suppose I'm a bit jaded since it seems like there has been such a drive to discredit anything/everything against Trump that I can't help but feel uneasy that congress has an easy way out of acting at all on something as damning even as treason.


A FULL YEAR into this mess and flynn was made to plea to lying to the fbi. Thats it....that is all they have....


What exactly was the lie that Flynn had to make a deal with the FBI about? Was that in any way an avenue into further investigation?

Also could you explain (since your not on the investigatory team I assume) how you are certain that is all they have at this point?


Have they illegally kicked in anyone elses door yet?

www.politico.com...



Manafort, for example, voluntarily met with the DOJ and FBI on July 30, 2014 and “provided a detailed explanation of his activities in Ukraine, including his frequent contact with a number of previous U.S. Ambassadors in Kiev and his efforts to further U.S. objectives in Ukraine on their behalf," the lawsuit says. He also discussed his offshore banking activity in Cyprus, his attorneys said. DOJ signaled at the time that their inquiry related to helping the Ukrainian government “in locating stolen assets” and said the investigation “closed soon” after Manafort was interviewed. But Manafort’s team contends that Mueller charged him “with the very conduct he voluntarily disclosed to DOJ almost three years prior to the appointment” of the Russia special counsel.

yeah nothing shady about that at all......

www.cbsnews.com...


In late January, Yates had warned McGahn that Flynn apparently had misled the administration about his communications with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador. Flynn initially claimed that he did not discuss sanctions with Kislyak, a remark that turned out to be false.

It appears Flynn was already under investigation before the inauguration. Short of a fisa warrant how was that accomplished?
Remember spying on an american citizen WITHOUT a fisa warrant is illegal.
So how did yates know flynn lied? Means are actually important in this country. One does not get to spy on american citizens "just because".
What crime was committed to unmask flynn?



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer




I suppose I'm a bit jaded since it seems like there has been such a drive to discredit anything/everything against Trump that I can't help but feel uneasy that congress has an easy way out of acting at all on something as damning even as treason.


A FULL YEAR into this mess and flynn was made to plea to lying to the fbi. Thats it....that is all they have....


What exactly was the lie that Flynn had to make a deal with the FBI about? Was that in any way an avenue into further investigation?

Also could you explain (since your not on the investigatory team I assume) how you are certain that is all they have at this point?



It appears Flynn was already under investigation before the inauguration. Short of a fisa warrant how was that accomplished?
Remember spying on an american citizen WITHOUT a fisa warrant is illegal.
So how did yates know flynn lied? Means are actually important in this country. One does not get to spy on american citizens "just because".
What crime was committed to unmask flynn?


I'm not a legal expert so I can't comment conclusively here (and if someone else is please feel free to chime in and correct me) but wasn't Flynn charged with lying to the FBI in his disclosure regarding his involvements with Kislyak? His other potential issues/crimes (if there are any) haven't resulted in charges yet (that I'm aware of).



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

So how did the fbi KNOW he was lying?



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

So how did the fbi KNOW he was lying?


Couldn't they have been listening in on Kislyak (and caught Flynn by proxy)? Is there a moratorium (expected or otherwise) on listening in on our adversaries as well?



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

So how did the fbi KNOW he was lying?


Couldn't they have been listening in on Kislyak (and caught Flynn by proxy)? Is there a moratorium (expected or otherwise) on listening in on our adversaries as well?

They should be.
The question is did they follow the rules when unmasking flynn. Just like in any case if the cops dont follw the law what happens?

It is not so much a question of if they did this but did they have justification.
www.nbcnews.com...


At the end of the Obama administration, the FBI and the NSA were sifting through intelligence reports on Russian hacking. One goal of their investigation, FBI Director James Comey has made clear, was to learn whether any Trump associates colluded with the Russian effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf.




That brings up another point: "unmasked" does not equal made public. The surveillance reports containing the names of Trump and his aides were still highly classified and viewable by a limited number of cleared individuals.


Using the USA intelligence community to spy on what was then an incomming administration without a warrant is really really bad. Much worse than watergate bad. It appears to me that is exactly what was done.

So now you tell me how Yates knew flynn lied.




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join