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.

 

FBI DOJ will still redact documents Trump called to be released

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Trump can accuse anyone of whatever he wants. He already does. It is the DOJ's job to investigate these things though. You never answered my question on why you believe Trump is an authority on government corruption.


Yes but unlike Obama we have no evidence that trump has used his intel agencies to spy on his political opponents. You standard would allow him to do that, and drag out investigations for years, no matter if it harmed his opponent for all of those years.

Will you please acknowledged that you would be ok with trump using fisa warrants to spy on any of his opponents, and you would not want to see any of the documents that went into that decision until after the investigation concluded?

As to your question, I dont get the relevance, nor have I ever said Trump is an authority on corruption.

He has been asked to release these documents by oversight people, he is legally allowed to do so.



Yes the House... The group of jackwagons that said there is nothing to the Trump investigation and closed it despite the Senate and Mueller investigations carrying on. The Mueller investigation has now resulted in jail time for people too. I really don't see the House intel committee as anything but a bunch of bootlickers to Trump. Devin Nunes is literally the poster child for shameless partisanism at this point.


And here we have it. You first stated it was bad for trump to want the release because he is potentially being investigated, now that extends to not wanting the house intel committee to call for the release.

So if trump spies on cory Booker if he runs for president, and dems on the house intel committee call for the release of those documents, we could just call them shameless bootlickers as well and say its muddying the waters for them to want documents released?

This comment is starting to make it seem you are clouded by partisanship.



No. They all gave reasons on why those redactions are necessary. Why don't you believe them? BTW, all those reports talking about bias also said that there wasn't any reason to assume that bias affected their judgements with the investigations. Yet you left that detail out just now.


Wrong on both accounts.

First, the FBI lies all the time about the need to redact things.

Them and their media mouth pieces and the dems wailed that if the nunes memo came out, people would have their lives jeopardized and sources and methods would be revealed. That was a lie. So why believe them now.

As for the IG report, he did say that many were biased, and some seemed ready to act on that bias. He was only looking at the case into hillary though, and is getting to the russia investigation now. You dont think the fact we have an independent investigator saying that an fbi agent in charge of both of these cases showed bias and a willingness to act on it justifies the people being able to make sure he didnt act on that bias?

He did say that they were not sataisified that strzoks bias did not affect his decision to sit on the weiner laptop emails in favor of pushing the russia investigation.

Perhaps you missed that?




posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Comey's hatred of Trump? Do you not remember October of 2016? Comey dropped a bombshell that many argue caused Clinton to lose the election. It is literally laughably insane to assume that Comey had it out for Trump regardless of whatever bias he had for the man.


This has been debunked over and over again.

First comey admitted he thought he was helping hillary, because he assumed she would win and didnt want the fcat he didnt release details about these emails to hamper the beginning of her presidency.

Secondly, it has been shown that Strzok intentionally set on these emails on weiners laptop until a whistle blower at the ny fed who saw the emails went above the FBI to oversight, and they forced Comey to act.

So yes, comey and his cohorts strok tried their best to bury this evidnce, and had no choice but to acknnowledge it the week before the election because they were outed by a concerned fbi agent who was appalled the were trying to hide the evidence.

In addition, it is clear by comeys actions and statements that he disliked trump. He selectively leaked to the press (something you still havent responded if you were ok with) with the expressed purpose of getting a special counsel against trump.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The entire idea seems to be for Trump to try to release anything he can to the right wing media so they can tear it apart out of context and spin things to make the Deep State look real and vindicate Trump. It's a fishing expedition disguised as transparency.

And this is from the guy that promised to release his tax records but for some reason (cough...moneylaundering...cough) has not seen fit to pony-up.
Oh well, in the words of the Prophet...



again with this. Intelligence is gone. I'm just glad that the federal investigation into Donald J. Trump doesn't have the authority to look into his financial history. Why, if that guy Mueller wasn't so inept and such a doofus, he could try to look into stuff like that. Lucky for Trump, they just really are that stupid.......or, perhaps it's you.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou
Ok. Consider for a moment you're the President and you KNOW the investigation was a set-up from the beginning, and you KNOW the FISA Warrants were illegally obtained.

Would you choose to keep going with the illegal investigation that already costed your country $20 million and lots of precious time lost?

The investigation has already paid for itself for the next two years thanks to asset forfeitures from Paul Manafort, who of which is INCREDIBLY guilty. I really don't see how you can reasonably even make an argument about wasted tax money considering this.


Well, you say "hindering an ongoing investigation". I say "exposing a corrupt investigation".

The only corrupting influence on the investigation I see is from Donald J. Trump and his sycophants.
edit on 19-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

with all the facts that are known, it's purely the political side of the brain being used by those you debate. If they weren't so wrapped up in their political bias, they would be angry at the abuse that is known, and want to uncover more that might exist. Sure I'm biased, but facts aren't, they are just facts. And wanting more of them hidden to suppress the truth is wrong on many levels.

If Trump's tax returns proved he was laundering money, I sure wouldn't want it hidden, I'd want him exposed and arrested. I'm just glad nobody in the government has the ability to see such documents. (what does IRS stand for?)



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How does releasing the evidence they had against Trump and his team to start an investigation hinder the investigation?

You do relize that in the US a defendant has a right to see all evidence that was used against him? Why does the president not have the same rights as a citizen.

You do realize that Trump isn't on trial right now right? Since when do prosecutors dump all the evidence they have into the public record mid-way through collecting it?


Trump is not just asking for the evidence to be released to him, he is asking for total transparency. They have been working on the case for over a year. At this point there cannot be any evidence that was used to begin the investigation that has not been thoroughly explored by the Special Council.

Says who? Where is this crazy logic coming from that investigations have to have time limits for them to bare fruit? In any case, the investigation HAS born fruit with the Manafort convictions.


Trump is not asking for the details of the ongoing investigation. He is simply asking for the evidence that lead to the investigation in the first place. Which is something every defendant in the US has a right to know, including the president.

Again. He isn't a defendant right now.


People get away with crimes in this country when they can prove law enforcement violated their 4th amendment rights. You may not like the 4th amendment but it is part of our constitution. Trump has a right to know, and so does the real government of this country. "we the people"

In a court of law! You keep jumping the gun on how due process works with your post here.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The entire idea seems to be for Trump to try to release anything he can to the right wing media so they can tear it apart out of context and spin things to make the Deep State look real and vindicate Trump. It's a fishing expedition disguised as transparency.

And this is from the guy that promised to release his tax records but for some reason (cough...moneylaundering...cough) has not seen fit to pony-up.
Oh well, in the words of the Prophet...


This is a good example of Trump's hypocrisy on transparency. He wants these investigations to be transparent, but he can't be transparent with his own history. We should never let his sycophants downplay this hypocrisy.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The investigation has already paid for itself for the next two years thanks to asset forfeitures from Paul Manafort, who of which is INCREDIBLY guilty. I really don't see how you can reasonably even make an argument about wasted tax money considering this.

so you are for asset forfeitures by the government?



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you decided to ignore my questions because your answer might conflict with whom you pretend to be here?

Gotcha.



And you're right. It's the way you see.


The only corrupting influence on the investigation I see is from Donald J. Trump and his sycophants.


Good thing you don't use your vision for living.
edit on 19/9/2018 by vinifalou because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Yes but unlike Obama we have no evidence that trump has used his intel agencies to spy on his political opponents. You standard would allow him to do that, and drag out investigations for years, no matter if it harmed his opponent for all of those years.

Nice little non sequitur you slipped in about Obama there even though I wasn't ever talking about him.


Will you please acknowledged that you would be ok with trump using fisa warrants to spy on any of his opponents, and you would not want to see any of the documents that went into that decision until after the investigation concluded?

As to your question, I dont get the relevance, nor have I ever said Trump is an authority on corruption.

Then why do you believe him now?


He has been asked to release these documents by oversight people, he is legally allowed to do so.

Let's not be coy here. We both know that the oversight committee has HUGE sycophancy issues with Devin Nunes. If you think this argument will hold up past your fellow Trump supporters, you are SORELY mistaken. Most of American isn't buying that this is anything but a partisan farce.


And here we have it. You first stated it was bad for trump to want the release because he is potentially being investigated, now that extends to not wanting the house intel committee to call for the release.

I want the House to do its damn job. Not hinder the DOJ from doing theirs. They already said they were finished with the investigation, so if that were true they should butt out already.


So if trump spies on cory Booker if he runs for president, and dems on the house intel committee call for the release of those documents, we could just call them shameless bootlickers as well and say its muddying the waters for them to want documents released?

This comment is starting to make it seem you are clouded by partisanship.

I think you are trying to paint me out of context. I literally already said that different situations would require different calculus.


Wrong on both accounts.

First, the FBI lies all the time about the need to redact things.

Them and their media mouth pieces and the dems wailed that if the nunes memo came out, people would have their lives jeopardized and sources and methods would be revealed. That was a lie. So why believe them now.

Trump lies ALL the time. Why believe him at all? Yet you seem to trust him over the FBI.


As for the IG report, he did say that many were biased, and some seemed ready to act on that bias. He was only looking at the case into hillary though, and is getting to the russia investigation now. You dont think the fact we have an independent investigator saying that an fbi agent in charge of both of these cases showed bias and a willingness to act on it justifies the people being able to make sure he didnt act on that bias?

No. I think, unlike apparently you do, that people can separate their politics from their job. Such assumptions used to be a given pre-Trump.


He did say that they were not sataisified that strzoks bias did not affect his decision to sit on the weiner laptop emails in favor of pushing the russia investigation.

Perhaps you missed that?


Great. More carrots for you guys to chase when these distractions don't pay off.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It wasn't debunked that Comey announced a new investigation into Hillary Clinton a week before the election most likely prompting a last minute bump for Trump. That actually happened.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The investigation has already paid for itself for the next two years thanks to asset forfeitures from Paul Manafort, who of which is INCREDIBLY guilty. I really don't see how you can reasonably even make an argument about wasted tax money considering this.

so you are for asset forfeitures by the government?

In certain cases, yes. If the defendant has been shown to be guilty of crimes then I see nothing wrong with taking their fortunes away. Cops stealing money from people driving down the highway is a different story though.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Of course they won't release them fully redacted. And the courts will rule with the FBI and against Trump.

Just what we need is a bunch of delusional US citizens trying to make legal decisions. The fact that you all think that is a good idea shows what a bad idea it is.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou

Sorry. I don't see crooks behind every face that doesn't like Trump.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Of course they won't release them fully redacted. And the courts will rule with the FBI and against Trump.

Just what we need is a bunch of delusional US citizens trying to make legal decisions. The fact that you all think that is a good idea shows what a bad idea it is.

They don't want to hear that. They all seem to think they are expert sleuths digging out encrusted corruption.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
So, another bombshell?

Lol.

Maybe if 10 more redacted reports are issued Obama will go to jail and Trump will be vindicated!



I’m curious at what point people will realize they’re being taken for a ride. 10 reports? 20 memos? What’s the magic number?

How many times do you have to get played before you realize what you’re looking at?



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Special Council was appointed to look into Trump Russia collusion. This was never a secret. How is he not the defendant? The charge against him, the only reason for the investigation is Collusion. If they had no charge to bring against him and no evidence then why appoint the special council in the first place? Because it's legal to go on a fishing expedition for crimes? Not according to the 4th amendment.

If Trump can prove by the declassification of documents that the appointment of a special council was a violation of his and others 4th amendment rights why would you be against transparency?

I keep hearing that Trump is cherry picking. How the hell does anyone come to that conclusion? Trump is saying Declasify Everything they have that lead to the appointment of a Special Council while the intelligence community is saying we can only declasify portions.

One side is being open because he believes he committed no crimes. The other side is cherry picking to hide their crimes. The Intelligent community is the only side cherry picking.

edit on 19-9-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
So, another bombshell?

Lol.

Maybe if 10 more redacted reports are issued Obama will go to jail and Trump will be vindicated!



I’m curious at what point people will realize they’re being taken for a ride. 10 reports? 20 memos? What’s the magic number?

How many times do you have to get played before you realize what you’re looking at?




Kind of like wasting time and resources to find dirt on Trump?


Wanna go for a ride.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: underwerks
So, another bombshell?

Lol.

Maybe if 10 more redacted reports are issued Obama will go to jail and Trump will be vindicated!



I’m curious at what point people will realize they’re being taken for a ride. 10 reports? 20 memos? What’s the magic number?

How many times do you have to get played before you realize what you’re looking at?




Kind of like wasting time and resources to find dirt on Trump?


Wanna go for a ride.


Trying to find dirt on Trump is like trying to find a blue sky on a sunny day.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: underwerks
So, another bombshell?

Lol.

Maybe if 10 more redacted reports are issued Obama will go to jail and Trump will be vindicated!



I’m curious at what point people will realize they’re being taken for a ride. 10 reports? 20 memos? What’s the magic number?

How many times do you have to get played before you realize what you’re looking at?




Kind of like wasting time and resources to find dirt on Trump?


Wanna go for a ride.


Trying to find dirt on Trump is like trying to find a blue sky on a sunny day.



Yet after all this time nothing.







 
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join