It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: AboveBoard
It's so obvious. I honestly don't get how someone wouldn't see it for what it is.
Get ready for all the evidence that they will now so easily recognize that they didn't see before. This is the hypocrisy I've been expecting.
originally posted by: Kharron
The title is not mine. For once I actually agree with the President and I think his assessment and fear is justified. I also think it is interesting he has stated this, which means that internally he may finally be coming to terms with the fact that Russia meddled and most likely swayed the election his way, with or without his knowledge. Coming to terms on this so late in the game would indicate he did not know, or he did not want to believe it.
His fear is -- now that he is starting to understand what has been going on -- that they will go the other way the next time, in an attempt to destabilize us and potentially create conflicts. This is what I think as well. Putin is playing games and he is messing with our politicians, elites and all the way down to our households and our lives. He is dividing people and he will do even worse with the next election.
I believe that if Hillary's health allows it, she will run again, and I suspect it would serve Putin's interests best to change tactics and push the opposite story this time. I believe it to be the Deep State plan as well, for Hillary to get her turn. Just like the President, I have no proof of this, but it is a feeling.
What do others think? Will Russia change sides and start an online campaign against the Republicans this time around?
President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he believes Russia will work hard to sway November U.S. congressional elections toward Democrats and not his fellow Republicans, but provided no evidence to back up his assertion.
American intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia had interfered in the 2016 U.S. election with a campaign of propaganda and hacking to disparage Trump’s Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and aid Trump’s candidacy, and that Moscow is now targeting the Nov. 6 congressional races.
Putin himself acknowledged he wanted Trump to win the 2016 presidential race during a joint news conference with Trump after their July 16 summit in Helsinki. Putin denied meddling in the election.
p.s. Reuters links sometimes don't work for me here, don't know why. I'll leave the link in there as is, and it can be copied and pasted. Thanks for reading.
originally posted by: Gandalf77
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Gandalf77
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gandalf77
I'm choosing not to be a gullible, low information voter. Just because an alphabet agency or elected representative says something, doesn't mean it's accurate. We're a long, long ways from the 1950s.
That's BS, and you're smart enough to know it.
Do you have any factual evidence to counter the information in that indictment?
Or let me guess: It's all one giant fabrication. They made all of that evidence up just to waste tax-payer dollars.
The depths of the liberal deep state I suppose?
America's justice system is built on a principle of the prosecution proving their case, not the defendant proving their guilt. So far no evidence has been brought public... (yeah, yeah, the old fall back has become "they know things they haven't yet disclosed.") There's something significantly askew about the Resistance taking the position that it is somehow Trump and/or Trump supporter's responsibility to prove he didn't collude with Russia. Can't prove a negative, ya?
I'm not talking about Trump or his campaign working with Russia. That hasn't been officially addressed one way or the other yet. Let's let Mueller do his job, run every angle to the ground, and issue his report.
I'm talking about the 12 Russian GRU operatives who were indicted for attacking our electoral process.
Yes, the burden of proof is different for grand juries than an actual criminal trial. They're not deciding guilt.
They see the EVIDENCE and decide whether or not there is probable cause to bring an indictment.
A grand jury of Americans decided there was enough EVIDENCE to charge 12 Russians.
Now I ask you again: Do you have some facts to present that contradict anything presented in that indictment?
Are you going to show us something that proves those guys were NOT doing the things OUR GUYS caught them doing?
Or are you going to tell us these people are just gullible too?
Talk about confirmation bias...
Prosecutorial Dependence One of the most common criticisms of grand juries is that they have become too dependent on prosecutors (Beall, 1998). Instead of looking at the evidence presented to them, grand juries are simply issuing the indictment that the prosecutor asks them to (Beall, 1998). No longer are grand juries serving in their 5 “shield” function, but instead have become a tool of the prosecutor. Originally prosecutors were not always present at grand jury hearings, but by the twentieth century it was quite common (Fouts, 2004). Control of grand jury proceedings is constantly left to the prosecutor and their discretion. Only if the jurors themselves decide to take some control do prosecutors take a slightly less influential role. Prosecutors in theory should remain neutral and give correct and unbiased legal advice to the jurors, but this often is not the reality (Hoffmeister, 2008).
The order in which evidence is presented, how witness are questioned, and what subpoenas are to be issued are all largely under the control of the prosecutor (Hoffmeister, 2008). Unless grand juries realize they have more power than they are often informed of, the prosecutor controls much of what the grand jury does. . Since the prosecutor is customarily the only actor in grand jury hearings with a legal background, jurors quite often listen to the advice that is given. Based on these facts a grand jury is more likely than not to issue an indictment, becoming a “rubber stamp” for the prosecution instead of serving as a separate body (Fouts, 2004). In a trial court victims and the accused are all given certain due process rights protected by the Constitution and other legal decisions (Christofferson, 1998). This is done to protect these individuals from an unfamiliar and complicated legal process. In grand juries these rights are not given (Christofferson, 1998).
Jury makeup The most persistent criticism of grand juries is that jurors are not a representative sampling of the community, and are not qualified for jury service, in that they do not possess a satisfactory ability to ask pertinent questions, or sufficient understanding of local government and the concept of due process. Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors. They are rarely read any instruction on the law, as this is not a requirement; their job is only to judge on what the prosecutor produced. The prosecutor drafts the charges and decides which witnesses to call.
Intimidation tactic: After a grand jury was commissioned to investigate whistleblowers organization WikiLeaks, grand juries have been accused of being used as an intimidation and persecution mechanism against whistleblowers who have been accused of leaking classified information.
Rubber stamp for the prosecution
According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the grand jury has come under increasing criticism for being a mere "rubber stamp" for the prosecution without adequate procedural safeguards. Critics argue that the grand jury has largely lost its historic role as an independent bulwark protecting citizens from unfounded accusations by the government.
Grand juries provide little protection to accused suspects and are much more useful to prosecutors. Grand juries have such broad subpoena power that they can investigate alleged crimes very thoroughly and often assist the prosecutor in his or her job. Grand juries sometimes compel witnesses to testify without the presence of their attorneys.
Evidence uncovered during the grand jury investigation can be used by the prosecutor in a later trial.
Grand jurors also often lack the ability and knowledge to judge sophisticated cases and complicated federal laws.
This puts them at the mercy of very well trained and experienced federal prosecutors.
Grand jurors often hear only the prosecutor's side of the case and are usually persuaded by them. Grand juries almost always indict people on the prosecutor's recommendation.
 A chief judge of New York State's highest court, Sol Wachtler, once said that grand juries were so pliable that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich."
 And William J. Campbell, a former federal district judge in Chicago, noted: "[T]oday, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury."
change the course of history in our great nation, by posting meme's