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.

 

Eric Holder Rats Out His Buddy Mueller; Searching For Evidence

page: 3
73
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

ANALYSIS/OPINION:


Gotta love when people report opinion articles as factual reporting.




posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I thought Mueller is a Republican....? How could a fellow Republican running the investigation on Trump be upset at losing an election when it's the other side that lost?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: theantediluvian


As far as what Holder did say — he's not claiming insider knowledge — he's making assumptions based on what he's seen in the media. He's basically projecting his own opinions over what he guesses might be Mueller's behavior. He really has no idea.


Not really. Again, if you read the context provided in the article, the characterization of holder's statement is a reasonable interpretation. Yes, holder tried to take plausible deniability steps by saying "I'm guessing." Like all things that happened in the holder DOJ, it was a two faced statement. On one hand he was claiming he had known mueller for thirty years (expecting credence to be given) but CYA'd by saying he was just guessing. Again, the article shows the pattern of behavior that holder has displayed.


We have no idea if Mueller actually thinks there's a case to be made for obstruction or not

His friend of 30 years seems to think so. But then again, he's only guessing.


much less whether it has to do with the firing of Comey.

I can only make analysis based on the information I have. If new information arises I will then change my analysis. Until then I stand by what I said.


Me personally? I'm not comfortable saying at this point that I believe that Mueller is trying to bolster a case for obstruction against Trump.

Have you been friends with Mueller for 30 years?


Either way, what you should keep in mind is that Mueller will not be attempting to indict Trump for anything. The consensus has long been that a sitting president cannot be indicted. If Mueller thinks that there's a case for anything against Donald J. Trump, I would expect that it will be presented to the House Judiciary to do with what they will.

It's plausible that the House could vote to impeach (it takes a simple majority) but I wouldn't be overly concerned about Trump's fate even if *all of that* takes place. Removing the President would require a 2/3 vote in Senate. Unless somebody produces audio of him saying, "I know my friends are all guilty and I'm firing Comey to obstruct this investigation!" — there's not a chance in hell of getting enough Republicans onboard to remove Trump over firing Comey. It's just not going to happen.


Agree. You've got to be one of the only lefties out there that understands these points.


You keep talking about context but what you miss is.. THIS WAS ON TV...
The piece in the OP is literally worthless, doesn't matter how much 'context' you try and sprinkle it with, the FACTS are what is said in the OP@s article is NOT what was said.

If this was in person, I'd write it in crayons so you could understand it better.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

So all these cooperating witnesses and lies mean nothing right? I'll let you in on a secret, people don't act guilty unless they are you know, guilty. Why did Cohen pass along private testimony to the other attorney? Why can't Jared get clearance? At some point you guys have to put country over racism and admit you backed the wrong guy.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Dfairlite

I thought Mueller is a Republican....? How could a fellow Republican running the investigation on Trump be upset at losing an election when it's the other side that lost?


Because Mueller is a RINO. Plain and simple.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: c2oden

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Dfairlite

Here, I'll help you out. This garbage you're posting is an unhinged interpretation of statements Holder made to Bill Maher. Here's how The Hill did it. Notice that they actually quoted Holder and identified where the statements were made. The reason David Keene of the Unitarian Church's mouthpiece didn't do either is because he wanted to lie straight to your face and have you run and disinform your peers.

Holder predicts Mueller trying to bolster obstruction of justice case


Former Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday that special counsel Robert Mueller likely already has a case for obstruction of justice against President Trump, and is waiting to bring the case before a grand jury.

In an interview on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," Holder expressed faith that the sprawling Mueller probe would result in more charges.

"Well I think that you technically have an obstruction of justice case that already exists," Holder said. "I've known Bob Mueller for 20, 30 years. My guess is, he's just trying to make the case as good as he possibly can."


What he actually said was that he thinks Mueller has a case for obstruction and he's being very thorough to make sure the case is as good as it can be — which you'll note is nothing like the garbage from Mr. Keene-to-deceive-you.


Do you think Eric Holder is a honest politician or do you think he is something else?

Do you believe that Eric Holder has been honest?

At this point, it has become clear that you are what you appear to be.
A message board attorney for the Democratic Party.




So the original post was taking Holder's word as fact... now that its been shown in context, he is a lying sack? What a dishonest thread...



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Dfairlite

I thought Mueller is a Republican....? How could a fellow Republican running the investigation on Trump be upset at losing an election when it's the other side that lost?


Because Mueller is a RINO. Plain and simple.


He was a loyal republican until the special prosecution... now he's a RINO... try to keep up with the logic!



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: scauma

Trump was elected because Hillary was a disaster waiting to happen . No matter what you say Trump will not be impeached and has a good chance of being a two term president . I personally do not like him , but it bothers me how far people will go to stop a elected president from doing his job



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Heh, good luck getting our GOP-controlled congress to provide the requisite number of votes to do it.

Too bad the President can't obstruct justice on the federal level. He IS federal law enforcement. Besides, it is *never* a crime to take action that is otherwise lawful and Constitutionally permissable.

Nothing is more important (including the administration of "justice" and laws) than the President exercising his authority.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: 10uoutlaw


She was a disaster waiting to happen

No one has been less qualified to hold public office. Actual accomplishments/individual bonafides are irrelevant when you're as corrupt as a Clinton

The mere chance she'd be elected was an undeclared national emergency.

Whatever circumstances lead us to where we are today, we had no choice but to get here. If Hillary would've been elected, we'd certainly be at war with Russia by now (and completely destroyed, both sides). She's a war mongering establishment puppet who doesn't deserve the title "American"



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ausername

which is exactly how fbi always works. its why it needs to either have a top to bottom purge doing away with all appointed management positions and switched to a merit based organization or it needs to be replaced.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Dfairlite

I thought Mueller is a Republican....? How could a fellow Republican running the investigation on Trump be upset at losing an election when it's the other side that lost?


Because Mueller is a RINO. Plain and simple.


He was a loyal republican until the special prosecution... now he's a RINO... try to keep up with the logic!


This isn't something new my friend. Mueller has always been part of the establishment. A true RINO with his tight ties to the Bush family, McCain, etc.

These folks wear the Republican name like a costume in order to further the agenda of their superiors. Hence, why both George H.W. And George W supported them Democratic party during the 2016 elections. Do some research into Mueller and the 9/11 cover-up and you'll see what him and the neo-con RINO's were really up to.




posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
The left used to be so good at manufacturing evidence against their political enemies. What happened and why is Holder looking like a fish flopping on dry land? Is he hoping to avoid some nasty repercussions from his past crimes?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dfairlite

ANALYSIS/OPINION:


Gotta love when people report opinion articles as factual reporting.

Especially when people star and flag it to the front page.



The article in the OP contains no statement from Holder, and is a complete mischaracterization of the actual statement which ante thankfully provided a link to. People wonder why ATS is flying down the crap hole, and one of the main reasons is because obvious fake OP's like this are allowed to live outside of the gray area. And not only live, but make it to the top of the front page.

Lmao.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

You cannot indict someone for obstruction of justice when the action is a constitutionally granted authority.



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I watched the show in question yesterday.

That is not what Holder said as has been pointed out previously.



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

The only question left is, is this going hoax or LOL?



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Jesus Christ..This is the worst written and sourced trash I have seen in a while.

It's like some grade-schooler fiction piece.

The already questionable "Washington Times" tries to distance itself with explaining it away as a 3rd party "opinion piece", but it really doesn't even meet the blah-blah talking head standard of an opinion piece.




edit on 8-3-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Dfairlite

You cannot indict someone for obstruction of justice when the action is a constitutionally granted authority.


WOW....THAT is what your desperation has brought you to??

Uh...NO..

We do not have Kings in the USA.

No President is above the law.

Presidents are not granted "constitutional authority" to commit illegal acts.

YES..Trump could shoot someone in the middle of the street and his supporters would not abandon him, BUT he sure as # would go to jail.

Sorry...No dictatorship here..




top topics



 
73
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join