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 Indictments for 13 Russian Nationals in US Election Meddling

page: 32
67
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: soberbacchus


2: Do you believe that the electoral college voters are easily manipulated by Facebook, Twitter, websites with no credibility, and they based their votes on propaganda? Keep in mind, these voters must meet in their state's capital to vote, and submit a Certificate of Vote from their state with their signatures, and their votes must be Certified by Congress.



Your explanation of the process leads me to believe you are not from the United States. Where are you from?
The electoral college voters are bound in most states to cast a vote in accordance with how the majority of their district voted, where they are not "bound" it is considered highly controversial and suspect for them to vote not in accordance with how the people in their district voted.

How much influence FB, Twitter and Fake News sites actually have on elections is a question for Data Companies like Cambridge Analytica and Statisticians and Political Scientists and still being figured out as it is a relatively new phenomena as the platforms have only recently emerged as a force in elections.

That said, countries like Russia have invested Hundreds of Millions of dollars worldwide to exploit the internet platforms to influence elections, so certainly they believe it to be an effective means.

And if we simply think of information on the internet as a variation of information that used by in Newspapers or the US Nightly News...it would make sense it does have influence. Not rocket science.


edit on 21-2-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


I will be the first to march in protest in the streets if Trump was to be impeached due to false or insufficient evidence

Sorry, but based on your previous posts I simply do not believe this for one moment. What I do believe is if Trump were impeached and removed from office because he was proven to have stated ten years ago that he preferred Russian salad dressing to ranch dressing, you would celebrate in the streets and the next day turn your attention to Pence.

You can argue that until the cows come home, but I simply do not believe you.


Hillary? I have yet to see any argument that she has done anything worthy of charges
  • Classified government emails stored on a private server... proven, but charges dropped.
  • Willful destruction of subpoenaed records... proven, but never pursued.
  • Selling government access to foreign powers via the Clinton Foundation... alleged with multiple examples of circumstantial evidence.
Excuse me, your bias is showing like a flashing neon sign hidden behind a magnifying glass.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: soberbacchus


3: The main purpose of the electoral college is to prevent against the "desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils". Are you saying that failed? How exactly did it fail,


I don't think we knew enough then have the electoral College serve as a safeguard.
We are still working to understand if any "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils".
If the answer is yes, then we have criminal and political processes to address those things.

Sidenote: Strange definition of the purpose of the Electoral College. It's purpose was not exclusively that and likely not even primarily that. It had to do with balancing federal power amongst the states as well.

That is a different discussion.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Advertising isn't new. Advertising works.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus


I will be the first to march in protest in the streets if Trump was to be impeached due to false or insufficient evidence

Sorry, but based on your previous posts I simply do not believe this for one moment.


No surprise that someone that values their Country and it's Principles of Truth and Justice above partisan politics would seem alien to you.

It is entirely possible for someone to "feel" strongly about something and still submit to facts and truth and act accordingly. Our entire system of Justice is NOT based on people not "feeling" one way or another, "liking" someone or not, or belonging to one political party or another. It is the blind and equal deliverance of justice based on clear acts and evidence.

That said, I have lost interest in what you believe, mostly because you do not understand the above.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus



Hillary? I have yet to see any argument that she has done anything worthy of charges
  • Classified government emails stored on a private server... proven, but charges dropped.
  • Willful destruction of subpoenaed records... proven, but never pursued.
  • Selling government access to foreign powers via the Clinton Foundation... alleged with multiple examples of circumstantial evidence.
Excuse me, your bias is showing like a flashing neon sign hidden behind a magnifying glass.

TheRedneck




Whatabout! But, But, But...Hillary!!!

These items have been thoroughly investigated and litigated to conclusion.
By 9 plus separately led GOP investigations.
Over multiple years.
None of it was found prosecutable by anyone apart from talking heads on Fox News.

It really is sadly desperate. Have anything relevant to contribute on the Current Administration? Or something that didn't happen 6 years ago?
edit on 21-2-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yep, you need a dictionary.

TheRedneck


I entertained error as an explanation.
But once again you confirm that dishonesty is the motive.

AFTER THE LATEST INDICTMENT YOU CLAIMED:
"I actually admitted I would not be surprised if a few more (indictments) came out connected with Manafort/Gates. "

WHAT YOU ACTUALLY POSTED BEFORE THE LATEST INDICTMETN:
"it would be very unusual for there to be further indictments against Americans pertaining to charges already being pursued. I expect it will officially be declared finished soon."



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Three responses in a row? Someone is showing signs of frustration...


No surprise that someone that values their Country and it's Principles of Truth and Justice above partisan politics would seem alien to you.

Again, I repeat, I am not a Republican. I am, have always been, and will continue to be, an Independent. Since you base your entire argument on that false premise, it follows that your entire argument against me is moot.

I hold no political party in esteem over the other, therefore I cannot be 'partisan.' I can agree on the basis of policy and factual evidence with members of either major political party. It just so happens I disagreed with the vast, vast majority of Obama's policies, and agree with more than half of Trump's policies. That's not partisan; that is one man doing massive stoopid and another doing much less stoopid.


Our entire system of Justice is NOT based on people not "feeling" one way or another, "liking" someone or not, or belonging to one political party or another. It is the blind and equal deliverance of justice based on clear acts and evidence.

Exactly true, however, your posts seem to bear out the opposite.


Whatabout! But, But, But...Hillary!!!

When one brings up a subject, then accuses one who replies concerning that subject of bringing up irrelevant points, one is speaking a false narrative. By definition.


These items have been thoroughly investigated and litigated to conclusion.
By 9 plus separately led GOP investigations.
Over multiple years.
None of it was found prosecutable by anyone apart from talking heads on Fox News.

You forgot James Comey. He stated that anyone else except Hillary Clinton would be prosecuted. Did he get hired by Fox News? I must have missed that.

I guess 'blind' justice can still read names... maybe using braille?


I entertained error as an explanation.
But once again you confirm that dishonesty is the motive.

It would be very unusual, in light of Rosenstein's public statements, to see this investigation move any further along the present lines of investigation (Trump-Russia collusion). It would not be overly surprising if a few more related indictments already being processed were to surface (which one did), but Rosenstein stated there were no Americans connected with these indictments. It would not be surprising if the overall investigation moved into a new phase of pursuing other events surrounding the Russian interference. If not, I believe Mueller will soon announce the investigation is over. If so, the investigation will move from Trump to the other Presidential candidate (who I will not name here because it seems to drive you into more hysterics than normal).

Any reasonable person should have been able, based on my previous statements and the context under which they were written, to make the conclusions I outlined in detail above. However, since you were unable to do so, I spelled it out for you. No thanks necessary.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Three responses in a row? Someone is showing signs of frustration...



Not frustration. Misplaced courtesy in responding to your multiple claims.

Good point all the same. No longer going to respond to your dishonesty and trolling.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck


You forgot James Comey. He stated that anyone else except Hillary Clinton would be prosecuted. Did he get hired by Fox News? I must have missed that.


Yes, Fox news said that. James Comey did not. Your susceptibility to propaganda is illuminating.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


Fox news said that. James Comey did not.

Au contraire. Here's the clip in it's entirety from C-Span.

To save you some time, the conclusions start at 9:21. The following statement starts at 14:19:

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person engaged in this activity would face no consequences; to the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that's not what we are deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate for this case."

In other words, yes, Comey did say that. No, it was not some figment of Fox News' imagination. You are wrong, and your reckless abandonment of facts has again been shown.

Dishonesty? Thy name is soberbaccus.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus



"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person engaged in this activity would face no consequences; to the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that's not what we are deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate for this case."

In other words,


No. In his exact words.

"in similar circumstances" as in not identical or same circumstances.
"those individuals are often subject " Often, as in not always
"to security or administrative sanctions" Doesn't say prosecution.

So when you falsely claimed:
"He stated that anyone else except Hillary Clinton would be prosecuted. "

you were wrong with
"He stated"
"anyone else"
"Would Be Prosecuted"

The whole sentence was BS.

You were quoting Fox News, not Comey.

Out of time to debate with proud liars.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus



Hillary? I have yet to see any argument that she has done anything worthy of charges
  • Classified government emails stored on a private server... proven, but charges dropped.
  • Willful destruction of subpoenaed records... proven, but never pursued.
  • Selling government access to foreign powers via the Clinton Foundation... alleged with multiple examples of circumstantial evidence.
Excuse me, your bias is showing like a flashing neon sign hidden behind a magnifying glass.

TheRedneck




Whatabout! But, But, But...Hillary!!!

These items have been thoroughly investigated and litigated to conclusion.
By 9 plus separately led GOP investigations.
Over multiple years.
None of it was found prosecutable by anyone apart from talking heads on Fox News.

It really is sadly desperate. Have anything relevant to contribute on the Current Administration? Or something that didn't happen 6 years ago?


Well aren't you a right old #? You dress yourself up in the garb of Truth and Justice, then turn around and ignore the fact that Hillary committed multiple crimes, as established beyond a reasonable doubt due to multiple investigations as well as independent leaks, and yet never faced justice for her crimes due to her privileged status as a member of the political class. There was never a need for anyone to show intent in her action of transferring classified materials to her private server and storing them there, the law itself makes even the unknowing execution of such acts to be subject to prosecution, as can be seen in the cases of low-rankers, non-politicrats being prosecuted after accidentally removing classified materials from the secure system and being found out because they incriminate themselves by doing their duty to return the material (rather than illegally trying to hide the act by cleaning the server after receiving a subpoena). By every measure of Truth and Justice, Hillary should be rotting behind bars instead of coughing her last few breaths out on the shill circuit again. Of course, none of that matters to someone like you, who is either too sycophantic to acknowledge the Truth and Justice you will readily claim to adore in order to bolster your image (just like grandma!), or you're paid to protect the status quo. Gods help you if it's the latter, for those paychecks are also death warrants when it comes time to enact Justice.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   
This is nothing but domestic consumption. Russia is the great Shaytan. Evil. It's just what Iranians portray America as. It's only for diverting public issues.

As for 13 Russians, I do not trust the FBI's words. Pictures or it's fake, as the saying goals. You say there are 13 Russians, where are their photos? Anyone can make up fake names.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: justinmind
This is nothing but domestic consumption. Russia is the great Shaytan. Evil. It's just what Iranians portray America as. It's only for diverting public issues.

As for 13 Russians, I do not trust the FBI's words. Pictures or it's fake, as the saying goals. You say there are 13 Russians, where are their photos? Anyone can make up fake names.


Shaytan? Never heard of that before.

The correct phrase is "as the saying goes" BTW, not "goals"
Where did you say you were from again?

When is your first review at the farm?



edit on 21-2-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Pure semantics. Perfectly acceptable to you when it's one of your chosen ones. A single uttered word from one of your targets, though, and you want to hang 'em high.

Keep talking. People are seeing you for what you are.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 09:11 PM
link   
It's been like this for decades. People meddle in other countries all the time. I bet far more Chinese meddle in US election than Russians do. It's okay. China is ally. Russia is enemy. That's the narrative.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Having studied history and looked at various media, I have seen this kind of rhetoric before. It was dangerous then, just as it is dangerous now.

How ironic that now that the shoe is on the other foot, it is now being found so distasteful, yet when it was against someone unpopular it was alright then.

Political discourse is a time honored tradition in the country, going back to the founding fathers.

To make a statement without proof, to make an accusation of collusion and a hinting that treason was being committed. And I would ask that any other Mod to come in and look at your statement.

Your very statement reeks of McCarthyism, where dissension was often viewed as unamerican and disloyal. And by attempting to shut it down by false accusations is far worse for the country, than the calls for justice to be done and for it to be equal.

I have never stated that Russia is the Great Satan. I have maintained that they did interfere with the US election and even that members of Trump's team participated in such, if not Trump himself.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


Having studied history and looked at various media, I have seen this kind of rhetoric before. It was dangerous then, just as it is dangerous now.

Extremely dangerous. Whenever one group is protected against prosecution and another is subjected to extreme prosecution, dictatorship cannot be far behind.


To make a statement without proof, to make an accusation of collusion and a hinting that treason was being committed.

Is that not exactly what you do regularly?

Step back and look at yourself. Remove the log from your own eye, then you can more clearly see how to help me remove the splinter from mine.


I have never stated that Russia is the Great Satan. I have maintained that they did interfere with the US election and even that members of Trump's team participated in such, if not Trump himself.

Neither have I stated that the Mueller investigation should not continue. I have expressed a concern to its fairness, which has been mostly allayed. I have been patient to see what the results were. Now, after over a year has passed, I am stating that it appears Trump did not collude with Russia and the Trump campaign itself did not collude with Russia. If I am proven wrong, so be it... but proof does not include accusations without merit as you so readily provide.

On the other hand, we have Comey's statement, combined with a history of aggressive prosecution for anyone who compromises classified data (anyone remember General Petraeus?), to indicate that Clinton was excluded from a thorough investigation into her potential issues. We have the Uranium One deal made under her tenure as Secretary of State, questionable at best. We have a public statement from Obama himself to Putin, on tape, indicating that he will be able to deal with Russia easier after his last election. We have clandestine meetings between Clinton's husband and then Attorney General Lynch on a tarmac, days before Comey's decision on her case.

Any one of these can be explained away as misrepresentation, coincidence, bad timing, misunderstandings... but taken together, they form a massive collection of highly questionable actions concerning the US dealings with Russia. Trump's actions, on the other hand, have been highly transparent and in some cases directly antagonistic toward Russia. One group is protected from prosecution... another is prosecuted at a drop of a hat. As you state above, this is dangerous... and you, sir, are the one promoting it.

Not me.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 07:47 AM
link   
There was a new sealed indictment entered yesterday. I know I know but there is actually evidence that it is true unlike twelve sealed indictments listed on a site that told me it had my arrest records which I could view for 2.99 but since I've never been arrested I passed.
The sealed indictment was entered into the criminal folder at the D.C. courthouse we know Mueller works through.
The envelope said sealed but in the upper right hand corner it said Crim. No. 17-201 and that is Paul Manaforts case number. This was noted by journalists who pretty much planted themselves at the court house.
There are reports all over this morning saying they believe it's to do with a deal Manafort tried to make with a Chicago banker to get him a cabinet position in trumps Whitehouse if he'd approve sixteen million dollars in mortgage loans for real estate.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Additional charges after an initial indictment are not unusual especially when it's part of an ongoing investigation. This is Mueller putting the screws on Manafort probably based on information he is now getting from Rick Gates who it is rumored has reversed and entered a new plea.
Mueller is driving home the point that Manafort could spend the rest of his life in jail based on what he already has. He must really think Manafort has valuable information to impart.
edit on 2222018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
67
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join