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.

 

AG Jeff Sessions resigns....

page: 17
56
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The idea that anything has been obstructed is absurd. It's continued on for over 16 months since the "obstruction" occurred.




posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: shooterbrody

The idea that anything has been obstructed is absurd. It's continued on for over 16 months since the "obstruction" occurred.


It's entirely possible that the Special Counsel would conclude the same.

The fact that Trump and Trumpites are so utterly terrified of the Special Counsel reaching an informed conclusion suggests the obvious.




edit on 8-11-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

I'll remember that for when the house shuts down all of their investigations into dems. They must be guilty, right?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: soberbacchus

I'll remember that for when the house shuts down all of their investigations into dems. They must be guilty, right?


You are conflating an Independent Special Counsel led by a life long republican with a political entity (House of Representatives)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

You're conflating the party with the swamp.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Wayfarer

Because it is non-sensical. It has been utter nonsense ever since the conflicting narrative between the bitter Clinton campaign and then-President Obama began. Remember Obama saying Russia "knocked it off" once he gave them a stern talking-to? Remember him chastising Trump (and his voters) for even daring to imply that our elections aren't secure?

Trump didn't "collude" with anyone. All the evidence offered to the contrary has been nothing but extreme logical leaps (A->B->L->Z) based on a house of cards without one single substantial shred of evidence implicating the President in any violation of the US Code.

Please, show me where in the US Code you feel he violated one of our statutes? Making off-hand statements on stage doesn't count, he was clearly being sarcastic attempting to draw attention to Clinton's destruction of evidence (by way of nearly 30,000 emails on a server subject to federal search warrant - IE: destruction of evidence)

The evidence shows nothing but gross misconduct on part of those attacking Trump, from government employees to elected officials (like Adam Schiff lying about seeing evidence of "collusion") and their pundits in the MSM (like Rachel Maddow, who has a new paranoid crack pot theory nightly)

Further, Trump was already investigated by the FBI and cleared for any sort of "collusion". Mueller himself chided CNN and MSNBC by name for publishing knowingly false misinformation on his investigation.


All this jibba jabber belies the fact that you can make no assumptions about Mueller's findings/report before actually seeing the report. To believe anything less is to buy into super special prognostigative powers which, if real, would have already made you a millionaire in the lottery or stock market.

Nobody knows what Mueller has or has not found. Period.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Wayfarer

Since I am certain the US President didn't "collude" with any foreign power to win the election...


Holy geeze, you are the only person in the world with this knowledge! Surely this must be shared. Pray-tell precisely how you discovered the President didn't collude with any foreign power to win the election.


Pray-tell how have you discovered he has?

We now know the investigation was opened based almost entirely on the dosier. You know the one that dozens of news organizations and Mueller have spent thousands of dollars on trying to verify any of it and have failed.

You know - the one that was paid for by Hillary's campaign and the DNC.

You know the same one the DNC fought like hell to hide the fact they financed it.

You know the dossier that was partially written by Nelllie Ohr - who used her husband to keep feeding info to the FBI after Christopher Steel was ruled as an unreliable source for feeding info to news agencies secretly as supporting evidence to justify it's truthfulness.

You know Christopher Steel who said he must stop Trump from being elected.

Or is it Strock who said that there was no there there in the Russia Investigation and he wished there was.

Or is it the fact the trump campaign was wire tapped - and they still found nothing.

[sarcasm]That is such compelling evidence[/sarcasm]



I've never directly stated that Mueller's finding are filled with Trump's downfall (though I've certainly speculated as such). I've perpetually been saying we know NOTHING until the report is actually released. To imply that you have super secret special inside knowledge/intuition is just a fallacy easily detected by those with any kind of logical sense.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Firing Comey was not illegal, it was however strong EVIDENCE of Obstruction of Justice.

That only amounts to circumstantial evidence at best, and even then, that's only believed because of ideology in most people. There are plenty of valid reasons why Comey was fired--to ignore those is willful ignorance. To completely ignore them so that you can say his firing was "EVIDENCE of Obstruction of Justice" is intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
You are conflating an Independent Special Counsel led by a life long republican with a political entity (House of Representatives)

You mean a legislative entity also charge with initiating investigations?

Mueller's politics, for whatever that's worth anymore these days, is irrelevant to the reality that his special counsel is going beyond its intent and leading to nothing in regards to Trump. That's not to say it never will lead to something, but after nearly two years, this should be either figured out or the investigation cease to exist, because this indicates that there's either nothing on Trump, and/or the investigation is rather incompetent.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

I'm not gay, but I concede manliness as accolades.

You can tell that guy produces turds bigger than most posters here.

In fact, I'd pit his jawline up against Mueller's for a right proper showdown for the Dick Tracy Jawline Awards, hosted by Bruce Willis.




posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Firing Comey was not illegal, it was however strong EVIDENCE of Obstruction of Justice.

That only amounts to circumstantial evidence at best, and even then, that's only believed because of ideology in most people. There are plenty of valid reasons why Comey was fired


It would have been circumstantial evidence if Trump himself hadn't publicly explained his reason for firing Comey was because of the Russia Investigation, let alone what he might have said and done privately, which the Special Counsel is no doubt privy to after gathering a tonnage of sworn testimony.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:46 AM
link   
www.bbc.com...



Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

www.al.com...



"I must recommend that you remove Director James B. Comey, Jr."


Guess these 2 are on the hook for "obstruction" as well?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   
news.grabien.com...



upset over President Trump firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is organizing mass marches. The protests are slated for today at 5 PM. “It’s happening,” she wrote online. “This is a ‘break the glass in case of emergency’ plan to protect the Mueller investigation.” “We knew this would happen at some point,” she added. “The day has arrived.” Maddow posted the messages to her Twitter account, which has 9.54 million followers.


Hey look, that handsome and charming young man on msnbc is organizing protest marches over the presidents decisions.
What do you call it when the "news" people organize protests against elected officials?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

You're still missing the obvious problem: How did Comey's firing obstruct justice? How were any investigations impeded by this? You do realize that James Comey was not going to be running any investigations himself, right?



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: soberbacchus

You're still missing the obvious problem: How did Comey's firing obstruct justice? How were any investigations impeded by this? You do realize that James Comey was not going to be running any investigations himself, right?


Red Herring's are not problems, they are fallacies of logic.


originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Swills


I do not see how firing Comey is obstructing justice. Was the Mueller probe cancelled or hindered in someway that because of it, that would affect the outcome?




People charged with Obstruction of Justice are by definition unsuccessful in their attempts to obstruct justice.

If they were successful in their attempt then they would have never been charged.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Trump stated many reasons as to why he fired Comey, from recommendations by Rosenstein and Session, to Comey just doing a 'bad job,' to the FBI being in "turmoil," amongst a few other things.

Yes, Trump made a few comments about the investigation after the firing of Comey, but unless you feel like supplying a link, I've never seen Trump say that he fired Comey in order to remove him from the investigation or to affect the investigation in any way.

I'm open to seeing/hearing something that I've missed, though.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
People charged with Obstruction of Justice are by definition unsuccessful in their attempts to obstruct justice.

If they were successful in their attempt then they would have never been charged.

That is silly.

Obstuction is obstruction, not attempted obstruction. Nowhere in 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 do I see anything that talks about attempting to obstruct.

I presume that you think that 18 U.S. Code § 1505 applies to Trump's firing of Comey?

No, it doesn't. Care to cite a specific federal law that you think does apply to the situation? Just claiming generalized "obstruction of justice" and then making comments like, "people charged with Obstruction of Justice are by definition unsuccessful in their attempts to obstruct justice," really stop those of us working in federal investigatory agencies and who understand this stuff from taking you seriously.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Isn't it awesome how the left hates Sessions for being a horrible, hateful, bigoted racist ... right up until he resigns?

Now, he's worth having countrywide mass protests over?

This shows even more cognitive dissonance than the whole James Comey affair.
edit on 8-11-2018 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: soberbacchus
People charged with Obstruction of Justice are by definition unsuccessful in their attempts to obstruct justice.

If they were successful in their attempt then they would have never been charged.

That is silly.

Obstuction is obstruction, not attempted obstruction. Nowhere in 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 do I see anything that talks about attempting to obstruct.



What is silly is quoting US Code when it has no bearing on impeachment proceedings.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: soberbacchus

You're still missing the obvious problem: How did Comey's firing obstruct justice? How were any investigations impeded by this? You do realize that James Comey was not going to be running any investigations himself, right?


Red Herring's are not problems, they are fallacies of logic.


originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Swills


I do not see how firing Comey is obstructing justice. Was the Mueller probe cancelled or hindered in someway that because of it, that would affect the outcome?




People charged with Obstruction of Justice are by definition unsuccessful in their attempts to obstruct justice.

If they were successful in their attempt then they would have never been charged.

LOL! I love how you quote yourself as an authority. Obstructing justice normally means things like making false statements, or tampering with witnesses, or destroying evidence.

Firing James Comey did not stop the investigations, and Trump himself is on record as saying he knew it wouldn't, so there is neither successful obstruction nor attempted obstruction.




top topics



 
56
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join