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.

 

Judiciary Committee hearing on IG report - Wray and Rosenstein - 6/28 live feed

page: 16
22
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



Prove what? Innocence until proven guilty?


No. Prove exactly what I asked you to prove. Here it is again:



Please prove that the length of this investigation has been nothing more than a political tool to create false narrative and impact the midterm elections.




posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



Are investigations stopped once charges are brought? Or guilty parties are properly charge with initiating charges while a stronger case is built? With expanding lists of allegations?


It depends. There is no one, hard rule that applies to all cases.



It would only take one credible allegation of a felony to impeach trump? Is that false?


A president can be impeached for any reason, credible or not.



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




It depends. There is no one, hard rule that applies to all cases.



Is the Mueller investigation even based on a chargeable crime?




A president can be impeached for any reason, credible or not.


If there is a valid reason to impeach Trump, not just for politics, do it now. If he is that bad, get him out of office!



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



Is the Mueller investigation even based on a chargeable crime?


No. They are based on evidence of potential crimes, which has led to guilty pleas, etc.



If there is a valid reason to impeach Trump, not just for politics, do it now. If he is that bad, get him out of office!


Ok. That is your opinion.

Can you now please prove the assertions you have made.

First you deflected, now you're seem to be avoiding it.



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

He refused to say if he read the FISA warrant - fact
He said they used 4 different FISA judges - fact.



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

and not one person charged or who has plead guilty has been charged with anything related to Trump or Trump Russia collusion.

It is a fishing expedition and nothing more.



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neutronflux

That's ridiculous. Investigations, especially if they branch out in to many aspects, take time. Due process takes time. The length of an investigation does not automatically make it an obvious political tool.

Here's an idea: You made and extraordinary claim. Why don't you provide that extraordinary evidence.

Please prove that the length of this investigation has been nothing more than a political tool to create false narrative and impact the midterm elections.


Easy -

Newsweek - Everyone Mueller Has Charged in Russia Election Probe, All 22 of Them

Not one person indicted or who has plead guilty has any relation to Trump or Trump Russia collusion. All charges stem from over a decade ago before Trump even ran for President. They range from lying to the FBI / failing to register under FARA / financial crimes.

Not one for Trump-Russia collusion.



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Not one person indicted or who has plead guilty has any relation to Trump or Trump Russia collusion.


The first sentence of your sources proves that to be incorrect.


Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates became Friday the latest to fall prey to the special counsel’s office investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election


And there are many more on the list. By definition, they are "related" to Trump and/or his campaign.



All charges stem from over a decade ago before Trump even ran for President. They range from lying to the FBI / failing to register under FARA / financial crimes.


Sure. That seems to be correct. Though you are still technically wrong on the "related" aspect. They are connected to Trump, regardless if that means anything of value or not.



Not one for Trump-Russia collusion.


True, but I hope you will notice that the person I responded to and my posts do not mention anything about Russia or collusion.

He made a specific claim, which you have not proven. In fact, you have done quite the opposite. You have shown that this investigation is producing results, not just being used as a political tool.



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
The first sentence of your sources proves that to be incorrect.


Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates became Friday the latest to fall prey to the special counsel’s office investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election


and what are his charges? source

The twelve-count indictment charges the two men with conspiracy against the United States, making false statements, money laundering, and failing to register as foreign agents for Ukraine as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[9] The charges arise from his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and are unrelated to the Trump campaign


Unrelated to Trump or Trump-Russia collusion. The source has his indictment and the dates for his crimes were from 2006 to 2015. The same holds for Manafort.



originally posted by: introvert
And there are many more on the list. By definition, they are "related" to Trump and/or his campaign.

No they are listed that way so Mueller would have jurisdiction. Not one person on the list who has been indicted has any relation to Trump/Trump-Russia collusion. Why do you think Mueller had to have Rosenstein cover his as with expanded jurisdiction to section B after the fact? Judge Ellis's ruling takes Mueller to task for his malicious prosecution. You should read his ruling.



originally posted by: introvert
Sure. That seems to be correct. Though you are still technically wrong on the "related" aspect. They are connected to Trump, regardless if that means anything of value or not.

I am connected to Trump via sending out tweets defending some of his positions. If I am charged with drunk driving is it related to Trump or Trump-Russia collusion?



originally posted by: introvert
True, but I hope you will notice that the person I responded to and my posts do not mention anything about Russia or collusion.

and my response and sources cited shows the people charged have nothing to do with it either.



originally posted by: introvert
He made a specific claim, which you have not proven. In fact, you have done quite the opposite. You have shown that this investigation is producing results, not just being used as a political tool.

No I have shown the people indicted by Mueller have nothing to do with Trump / Trump-Russia collusion, which is the mandate of the SC. The oft repeated results arent results given the mandate. Why do you think when certain media outlets report on the people charged they leave out the details.

They do that for a reason.

The charges occurred before Trump became President and have nothing to do with Trump-Russia or collusion. Mueller has wasted more than 15+ million dollars. He needs something to show for that and the best way to do it is indict people for crimes unrelated while his allies in the media fail to disclose the crimes occurred more than a decade ago.

Given the latest setbacks for the SC in court for Flynn's case and the 13 Russians / Russian companies Mueller is in trouble. The Russia case alone has more than 70 Brady violations committed by the SC.
edit on 29-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Unrelated to Trump or Trump-Russia collusion.


By definition he is "related" to Trump. He was a former aide, correct?

As far as Russia and collusion, that was not an aspect we were discussing. Not sure why you are mentioning it.



No they are listed that way so Mueller would have jurisdiction. Not one person on the list who has been indicted has any relation to Trump/Trump-Russia collusion. Why do you think Mueller had to have Rosenstein cover his as with expanded jurisdiction to section B after the fact? Judge Ellis's ruling takes Mueller to task for his malicious prosecution. You should read his ruling.


Are you denying that these people were connected to Trump through their work in some capacity? Again, they are "related" by definition. Whether not their alleged crimes reflect on Trump is another matter altogether.



I am connected to Trump via sending out tweets defending some of his positions.


I suppose that is correct, but it's not the same as being a former aide, business associate or other capacity. What I am proposing is reasonable. What you are proposing is a "six degrees" sort of relation.



If I am charged with drunk driving is it related to Trump or Trump-Russia collusion?


No. That's quite a silly question and it appears you may not be understanding the premise behind what I posted.



and my response and sources cited shows the people charged have nothing to do with it either.


That's not true. Your sources show they are directly related to Trump through their work in whatever capacity. By definition.

As far as collusion, that was not an aspect mentioned until you entered the discussion. You appear to be arguing against something that was never even asserted.



No I have shown the people indicted by Mueller have nothing to do with Trump / Trump-Russia collusion, which is the mandate of the SC


Incorrect. You have proven they are connected, or related, to Trump. Again, that does not mean the crimes they are accused of committing, or plead guilty to, are related to Trump.

Not sure why you are arguing against something that is verifiable and true.



The oft repeated results arent results given the mandate. Why do you think when certain media outlets report on the people charged they leave out the details. They do that for a reason.


That has nothing to do with anything I have said.



The charges occurred before Trump became President and have nothing to do with Trump-Russia or collusion. Mueller has wasted more than 15+ million dollars. He needs something to show for that and the best way to do it is indict people for crimes unrelated while his allies in the media fail to disclose the crimes occurred more than a decade ago.


I did not say it had anything to with Trump-Russia or collusion. I said it is verifiably false to say the people are not connected or related to Trump. That is easily proven, which your sources have done.



Given the latest setbacks for the SC in court for Flynn's case and the 13 Russians / Russian companies Mueller is in trouble. The Russia case alone has more than 70 Brady violations committed by the SC.


Ok. Again, that has nothing to do with what I said.



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Screw all this BS where y’all pretend you scored a victory that really doesn’t exist..


I bet dollars to donuts NOTHING HAPPENs!!!


McCray , Rosenstein , Comey , hillary, obama , (fill in the blank)are never even charged..


The gop will do the same thing they do every time.

The same thing they did in Trump’s IG report..


The same thing ANYONE could predict..


They will say “ we found a bunch of stuff that sounds concerning, but no need to hold anyone accountable or take any further action”..


TRUMPS OWN IG SAID HILLARY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CHARGED!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Screw all this BS where y’all pretend you scored a victory that really doesn’t exist..


I bet dollars to donuts NOTHING HAPPENs!!!


McCray , Rosenstein , Comey , hillary, obama , (fill in the blank)are never even charged..


The gop will do the same thing they do every time.

The same thing they did in Trump’s IG report..


The same thing ANYONE could predict..


They will say “ we found a bunch of stuff that sounds concerning, but no need to hold anyone accountable or take any further action”..


TRUMPS OWN IG SAID HILLARY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CHARGED!!!



Perhaps you already know this, but it doesn't matter if they are charged or held accountable. What matters is that this makes for very effective propaganda.

They take the smallest bit they can find, make outrageous claims and create conspiracies around those claims. When those claims turn out to be false, they still continue to perpetuate those conspiracies because it keeps the sheep right in line.

Literally, Right Wing politicians could stand on a stage and lie out of their asses, claiming Hillary and Obama are criminal murderers that killed JFK and are hiding the truth about aliens from the American people, and the Right would celebrate that person for speaking the "truth", even though there is no evidence to prove what they say.

We are talking about people in which politics has become a form of fantasy role playing, that they actually believe is somehow real.

It's interesting. Disturbing, yet interesting.



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
By definition he is "related" to Trump. He was a former aide, correct?

As far as Russia and collusion, that was not an aspect we were discussing. Not sure why you are mentioning it.

and yet the crimes they are charged with occurred long before Trump ran for President and before they were a part of his campaign staff.

I raised the issue because thats the focus of your question.

Please prove that the length of this investigation has been nothing more than a political tool to create false narrative and impact the midterm elections.

The people charged have absolutely nothing to do with the mandate which is Trump Russia collusion. By doing this Mueller is confirming his actions are political. Given the fact not one of the 22 people thus far are charged with crimes related to Trump or collusion it is political. Charging 13 Russians who are unrelated to Trump Russia collusion is political. That's even more evident in the fact Mueller has failed to comply with more than 70 disclosure requests, massively violating Brady. One of the companies targeted didnt even exist at the time the Mueller claimed. By going after the Russians Mueller is getting the optics in while hoping no one realizes its, again, unrelated. Even Judge Ellis in Manaforts case has called out the SC's actions noting they are trying to get to Trump by going after Manafort even though, again, the charges against Manafort arent related.



originally posted by: introvert
Are you denying that these people were connected to Trump through their work in some capacity? Again, they are "related" by definition. Whether not their alleged crimes reflect on Trump is another matter altogether.

I am saying the crimes they are charged with have absolutely nothing to do with Trump or collusion. A political move and nothing more. Also playing 6 degrees of separation is not a valid argument.

What do financial crimes from 2006 have to do with Trump?




originally posted by: introvert
I suppose that is correct, but it's not the same as being a former aide, business associate or other capacity. What I am proposing is reasonable. What you are proposing is a "six degrees" sort of relation.

No you are ignoring facts and placing charges before the cart. The crimes were from 2006. Explain how those crimes, long before he even ran for President or had them on staff is related.



originally posted by: introvert
No. That's quite a silly question and it appears you may not be understanding the premise behind what I posted.

No I understand it fully. The example I gave is what you are trying to argue. Charges from 2006 have nothing to do with Trump or collusion. Just as if I had a DWI back in 2003 and worked for the Trump campaign in 2016. My law violation has absolutely nothing to do with Trump or collusion.



originally posted by: introvert
That's not true. Your sources show they are directly related to Trump through their work in whatever capacity. By definition.

No read it again. The crimes these people are charged with are unrelated to Trump or collusion. Guilt by association does not work and I am surprised you are taking that angle.



originally posted by: introvert
As far as collusion, that was not an aspect mentioned until you entered the discussion. You appear to be arguing against something that was never even asserted.

and again, as I said before its very pertinent to the question you asked regarding using the SC as a political tool. Its plain as day that is what is going on and as I said even Judge Ellis noted that in his ruling.




originally posted by: introvertIncorrect. You have proven they are connected, or related, to Trump. Again, that does not mean the crimes they are accused of committing, or plead guilty to, are related to Trump.

Not sure why you are arguing against something that is verifiable and true.

No I have proven they are political prosecutions. Knowing Trump / working for Trump decades after a crime does not implicate Trump in those crimes.Prosecuting those crimes have nothing to do with Trump or collusion.

Your 6 degrees of separation game is not valid.


originally posted by: introvert
That has nothing to do with anything I have said.

But it does because of the politics involved. We know left wing media outlets are out to get Trump and have been caught pushing false stories to harm Trump. By claiming 22 people are charged or plead guilty and then repeating Trumps name without explaining what they were charged with is political.

You asked the question. I am answering it and ignoring facts doesnt help your position.



originally posted by: introvert
I did not say it had anything to with Trump-Russia or collusion. I said it is verifiably false to say the people are not connected or related to Trump. That is easily proven, which your sources have done.

and I said the crimes they are charged with have nothing to do with Trump or collusion. Your attempt to split hairs and deflect is not working.



originally posted by: introvert
Ok. Again, that has nothing to do with what I said.

It absolutely does. You asked the question and asked for proof the SC was essentially a political tool.

It is and the evidence supporting that is overwhelming.

Trying to deflect by trying to limit the facts to the ones that only support your position doesn't work.




top topics



 
22
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join