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.

 

Reports that Rod Rosenstein Has Verbally Resigned To John Kelly

page: 15
42
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown


Although it was already mentioned when when I said no one can make a judgment without all the evidence .


Good luck finding any on this case. NYT would have to give up their source, or the White House would have to take it from them illegally, again. I doubt both of those scenarios.

So my guess is Roenstein gets clipped with no criminal charges of sedition, because that would have to be proven.

Orrrr, Trump sits down with Sessions, tell him since he hired Rod, he has to fire him (or he goes).




posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: JasonBillung

Read the thread instead of hopping in on the tail end of it.


Oh the deflection....

Who did that.
Specifically who engaged in "recording a conversation in order invoke the 25th amendment "

Source please.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler






There is nothing illegal about suggesting removing a president because you dont think they are mentally fit, even if you work for him Now maybe the wearying a wire would be illegal, but no where near the crime of sedition.


It's about pretext. Yes, if someone was acting insane and what'not perhaps a discussion about the amendment would be warranted. This was not the pretext. This was "what do we have left to use on him ?" pretext. Just look at who else was in the meeting.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Their source was McCabe.

And

I never said Rosenstein would be charged with sedation. I only provided proof that he could .
edit on 24-9-2018 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

I agree with you that what rosenstein did was within his rights regarding the 25th amendment.

Wouldnt it also apply that trump firing comey or rosenstein is also within his rights, and not a crime such as obstruction?


Trump was definitely operating within his authority as President to fire Comey. What's less clear is whether or not doing so with a corrupt intent is impeachable. I'm no expert obviously but given that impeachment is a political process and what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not spelled out, I think it's ultimately up to Congress to make that determination.

Firing Rosenstein would also be within his authority as President of course and given the circumstances, I think it would be near impossible to successfully argue corrupt intent being behind the decision. That said, if Rosenstein's replacement immediately ends the Mueller investigation, there's going to be a political backlash.


Agree with your second paragraph. Whoops no i dont, I misread it.

What would be the corrupt intent if trump truly believes rosenstein floated using the 25th to remove him? None at all. I would expect every single president to fire any cabinet member that was threatinging to secretly record them to try to get them removed from office.

As to the first, the question of intent you raise is fair, but isnt that the argument being raised about rosenstien committing sedition?

If rosenstein was pushing the idea seriously to remove trump using the 25th, and to wear a wire, it raises serious questions seeing as how even rosenstein now says there is no reason to use the 25th.

Therefore, if intent would be looked at with trump even though he was lawful in his actions, why not rosenstein?

For the record, I feel neither trump firing comey or rosenstein or rosenstein if he did push the 25th are illegal, I am just saying if we have to look at intent for one, why not the other?
edit on 24-9-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

My 16 year old son is not clinically insane, but he is also not fit to be president.

That is what the problem with the 25th conspiracy. It does not really detail what fit to serve means.

Ultimately it is up to Congress.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown


I never said Rosenstein would be charged with sedation. I only showed proof that he could .


You showed allegations that you think could be used to charge him with a high crime.

Even if the allegations were true, IF he got charged, it would most likely be with something much lighter.

Prosecuting attorneys take cases they know they can win, even if they drafted the charges on sedition, you and I both know it would get knocked down after using the leverage.

Hyperbole aside, we've all seen these things play out, it is what it is.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

My 16 year old son is not clinically insane, but he is also not fit to be president.

That is what the problem with the 25th conspiracy. It does not really detail what fit to serve means.

Ultimately it is up to Congress.



The reason your son is unfit is because he's 16, and well below the minimum age requirement. 25'th amendment doesn't even play into the situation.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
a reply to: Grambler

Reports are Noel Francisco will take over until the President names a replacement.

Any guesses on who Trump will appoint?

Noel Francisco: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know


Judge Napolatino or maybe Rosanne Barr
edit on 24-9-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Their source was McCabe.

And

I never said Rosenstein would be charged with sedation. I only provided proof that he could .



I don't think you know the legal definition. I provided it below. Notice the "by force" stuff?



If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


source
edit on 24-9-2018 by JasonBillung because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


I alleged nothing. I gave everyone circumstances that could cause him to be charged .



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

My 16 year old son is not clinically insane, but he is also not fit to be president.

That is what the problem with the 25th conspiracy. It does not really detail what fit to serve means.

Ultimately it is up to Congress.



The reason your son is unfit is because he's 16, and well below the minimum age requirement. 25'th amendment doesn't even play into the situation.


I was going to throw that in there, but I felt that no one would be so petty to bring it up. Even if he was 35, in his current mind-set he would still be unfit.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian


Trump was definitely operating within his authority as President to fire Comey. What's less clear is whether or not doing so with a corrupt intent is impeachable. I'm no expert obviously but given that impeachment is a political process and what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not spelled out, I think it's ultimately up to Congress to make that determination.



Didn't the Democrats Scream for his firing first and Trump said lets wait and see how he does, which pissed off the left to no end. Then after X months Trump said, yes we need to fire him and now the left screams impeach!!!

You just can't make this crap up... Just some quick quotes of what I means here...


Sen. Harry Reid has called for FBI Director James Comey to resign ...



“I do not have confidence in him any longer,” Schumer — who is poised to be the Senate's top Democrat in 2017 — told Bloomberg on Wednesday



“The FBI director has no credibility,” said Rep. Maxine Waters of California.

“My confidence in the FBI director’s ability to lead this agency has been shaken,” said Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia.



Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN), November 2016, writing in the Hill:


For the sake of the FBI, Comey should resign

As a nearly ten-year veteran of the House Judiciary Committee — the committee responsible for oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice — and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, earlier this week I called on FBI Director James Comey to resign his position after his recent communication with members of Congress regarding the bureau’s review of emails potentially related to Hillary Clinton‘s personal email server


I could go on but I think you get my point...



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Their source was McCabe.

And

I never said Rosenstein would be charged with sedation. I only provided proof that he could .



I don't think you know the legal definition. I provided it below. Notice the "by force" stuff?



If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


source


Hmm, yeah.. I noticed the 'by force section' just after the 'OR' in the text.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


I would assume that it was assumed with the writing of the 25th amendment that were it to be enforced, people in a presidents cabinet would be talking about getting people to push for it. How else would it ever be used.

There is nothing illegal about suggesting removing a president because you dont think they are mentally fit, even if you work for him Now maybe the wearying a wire would be illegal, but no where near the crime of sedition.


Exactly.


However, the important issue here is that rosenstein did not recuse himself from signing fisa warrants or appointing a special counselor, which is especially troubling given I think you a right when you say

And neither does any sane reasonable person.

Which means IF the story is true, and rosenstein did try to get people to invoke the 25th and wear a wire, he is especially needed to recuse himself from investigations into trump or his team.

He didnt do that, and now the entire appointment of Mueller should rightfully be questioned.


I agree with this to a point. However, if he recuses himself now or quits/is fired, it's important to define what "rightfully be questioned" means. I don't think there's a mechanism for retroactively nullifying the appointment so it falls down to whoever takes over for Rosenstein to question the appointment and whether the investigation should be ended.

In either case, it would be up to Mueller's new boss to decide whether to end it, let it continue or I suppose, even appoint a new SC to replace Mueller.

Whatever his decision, there would be political backlash.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: CriticalStinker


I alleged nothing. I gave everyone circumstances that could cause him to be charged .


We're not talking about a White House aid, we're talking about the Deputy Attorney General.

With all do respect, you're acting like you know more about the law than him. Anyone can read a law and come up with their own interpretation, but that is up to judges. When you deal with charges with the gravity such as sedition, you have to back it up with prior court decisions as well as present the hard proof, not allegations.

Even if he knowingly broke some laws, my guess would be he buffered himself from it coming back to him with more than getting fired or a slap on the wrist.

We will find out, but if Vegas had odds posted, I'd bet the house he doesn't get convicted with sedition, and I'd put a hearty amount they don't even try and charge him with it.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: JasonBillung


two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


Read the bold and pay particular attention to the comma after it .



edit on 24-9-2018 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

My 16 year old son is not clinically insane, but he is also not fit to be president.

That is what the problem with the 25th conspiracy. It does not really detail what fit to serve means.

Ultimately it is up to Congress.



The reason your son is unfit is because he's 16, and well below the minimum age requirement. 25'th amendment doesn't even play into the situation.


I was going to throw that in there, but I felt that no one would be so petty to bring it up. Even if he was 35, in his current mind-set he would still be unfit.




I don't know your son, I can't speak to that.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I kind of hope Trey Gowdy is appointed to Attorney General.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler



I agree with this to a point. However, if he recuses himself now or quits/is fired, it's important to define what "rightfully be questioned" means. I don't think there's a mechanism for retroactively nullifying the appointment so it falls down to whoever takes over for Rosenstein to question the appointment and whether the investigation should be ended.

In either case, it would be up to Mueller's new boss to decide whether to end it, let it continue or I suppose, even appoint a new SC to replace Mueller.

Whatever his decision, there would be political backlash.


Completely agree with this.

I know we disagree on how much or if there was any corruption regarding the intel community and the investigation into trump russia collusion.

Well here at the very least we see that the person who appointed the special counsel should have recused themselves, if this story is true.

(and lets not forget, lynch refused to recuse herself from the hillary investigation)

So at least this is some provable area of at the very least very bad judgement on behalf of the investigators.

But yes, it will be up to whoever replaces rosenstein to determine what effect that should have on the mueller investigation.

But even if rosenstein keeps his job, there is enough here to warrant an investigation itno why he didnt recuse himself, and as to rather bias affected his decsion of who to appoint, and as to the creation of his mandate for what the special counsel should investigate.

It deosnt seem a far stratech to see that someone who wanted trump out of office may have purposefully drafted a mandate for the special counsel to investigate many things that have nothing to do with russia, in the attempt of finding any dirt to hurt trump.

This may come back to bite Mueller and the fbi who used this seemingly massive mandate to investigate everything to go after decades old finance crimes, raid trumps lawyer over unrelated russia crimes, etc.


edit on 24-9-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join