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.

 

Rosenstein is no longer overseeing the Mueller probe per the DOJ

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Yeah one where you put your queen and your bishops out front to guard the pawns. LOL


That's sort of funny because pawns in concert frequently control most of the board in the early game (creating what is sometimes called the "terrain" of the game), and are often vital pieces well worth defending in the end game.


I doubt you've lasted that long in a chess match, so I'm not surprised you're unaware.




posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   


@MattWhitaker46 was campaign chair for Sam Clovis, a witness deposed by Mueller’s Grand Jury. Under DOJ regulations, his recusal is mandatory. #WhitakerMustRecuse





Title 28 § 45.2 Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.


Link



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

Try again.. Unless you want to explain why those same DOJ policies dont apply to Mueller and Rosenstein.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Your assuming that the Special Counsel is an ethical investigation.
We know from the texts of Peter Stzok that it is a politically motivated
firewall to stop Trump. What is ethical about that now, tell me!



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Right now whiticker is only the acting AG.

It would be funny if trump just put him there for a few days while he picks his real guy, just to mess with the left.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: underwerks

Why didnt you throw a fit with Rosensteins conflict of interest? He signed off on terminating Comey (the obstruction bull#) and he signed off on the FISA warrant.

You should not be lecturing anyone on conflict of interest.


Yes and he has the nerve to claim no trump supporters care about rule of law

When many of us have been consistent if trump broke the law he should be held accountable

Meanwhile they say someone having an opinion on mueller not having unionized power being I charge is against the law

But had korbproblem at all with the conflicts of interest if lynch or Rosenstein

But trust him, it’s us who don’t care about the law!


That hypocrite street runs both ways.

If you don’t care about the ethics of Trump scuttling the investigation into himself you can’t claim to care about the ethics of the people who started that investigation.

It’s really that simple. Regardless of the mental gymnastics you do to try to make it into something else.


Except for when that investigation is based on illegally obtained or manufactured evidence, as in this case. You seem to ignore the fact this crap was occurring back when Trump was a candidate and before he got the Republican nomination.


That’s your interpretation of it, and nothing more. Obviously the people tasked with doing these investigations think differently than you do. And guess what? They’re actually privy to real information about the case, unlike you, random internet person.

I believe that the surveillance of Trump has been going on since well before the election when (as a matter of public record) he accepted a bail out from government controlled banks of a hostile foreign nation.

Why do I believe this? Because it’s the job of our intelligence agencies to keep people involved in things like that under surveillance. If they didn’t it would mean someone isn’t doing their job.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

and yet if you look at the FBI agents who did the investigations and the DOJ people who oversaw it, they were handpicked. When you have the top senior leadership of the DOJ and FBI get fired via internal investigations and the inspector general for intelligence there is a problem.

I guarantee you agents involved near the bottom were not privy to the info the top had access to. Have you never bothered to research why the FBI/DOJ leadership close holed the investigation? By keeping it at the senior levels of the FBI and DOJ they were able to bypass several critical levels of review of the info in question. FISA process dealing with US citizens is extremely restrictive and goes thru 3 to 4 levels of review by the FBI divisions and then thru several layers of review at the DOJ.

Those lower levels were completely bypassed.

Have you ever asked why?

For the first time in modern history senior level bureaucrats at the FBI and DOJ resigned / fired / charged over this.

Have you ever asked why?
edit on 7-11-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

Would you say Sam Clovis is substantially involved in the Mueller investigation? A couple hour interview as a witness? How many man hours do you think this investigation has generated? Is that a substantial involvement? Does Whitaker have a personal stake in the investigation? If those answers are no, then he's clear of the statute.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
Right now whiticker is only the acting AG.

It would be funny if trump just put him there for a few days while he picks his real guy, just to mess with the left.



Or if as acting, he just boots Rod and appoints some other third party to overlook Mueller so Trump's hands are clean by a degree of separation for optic's sake.
Just a guess.
edit on 7-11-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

So what you're saying is that anyone else's opinion is invalid but yours is gospel.

Seriously,



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT



@MattWhitaker46 was campaign chair for Sam Clovis, a witness deposed by Mueller’s Grand Jury. Under DOJ regulations, his recusal is mandatory. #WhitakerMustRecuse





Title 28 § 45.2 Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.


Link


Personal or political relationships are reason for recusal?

Seeing as how comey is a potential suspect due to the fact he leaked evidence, and a key witness in the russia investigation and claims of obstruction, I guess that means we can be confident that mueller doesnt have any personal relationship with comey.

Oh wait.....



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
Right now whiticker is only the acting AG.

It would be funny if trump just put him there for a few days while he picks his real guy, just to mess with the left.



Or if as acting, he just boots Rod and appoints some other third party to overlook Mueller so Trump's hands are clean by a degree of seoa for optic's sake.
Just a guess.


I was under the impression, when we went thru the Rosenstein comments a few months back about wearing a wiretap, that if he were to be fired / resign the Solicitor General would oversee the Russia probe. With sessions gone I am not sure if that is still an option.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: underwerks

So what you're saying is that anyone else's opinion is invalid but yours is gospel.

Seriously,


No, I’m saying your opinion isn’t an objective reality that you should expect anyone else to honor.

Seriously, if all you’re going to do is try to put words in others peoples mouths to make some half-baked point,



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks




Seriously, if all you’re going to do is try to put words in others peoples mouths to make some half-baked point


Yea? To wit:



That’s your interpretation of it, and nothing more. Obviously the people tasked with doing these investigations think differently than you do. And guess what? They’re actually privy to real information about the case, unlike you, random internet person.


An opinion which you highly disagree with. Directly followed by:



I believe that the surveillance of Trump has been going on since well before the election when (as a matter of public record) he accepted a bail out from government controlled banks of a hostile foreign nation.


Your own opinion backed up by supposition. Nevermind the legality of the situation.




No, I’m saying your opinion isn’t an objective reality that you should expect anyone else to honor.


Likewise, glad you agree.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
Right now whiticker is only the acting AG.

It would be funny if trump just put him there for a few days while he picks his real guy, just to mess with the left.



Or if as acting, he just boots Rod and appoints some other third party to overlook Mueller so Trump's hands are clean by a degree of seoa for optic's sake.
Just a guess.


I was under the impression, when we went thru the Rosenstein comments a few months back about wearing a wiretap, that if he were to be fired / resign the Solicitor General would oversee the Russia probe. With sessions gone I am not sure if that is still an option.


Whitaker is the de facto AG as of a few hours ago. He can oversee it himself until stopped by a court order or hand it off to anyone any time for any reason.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Those lower levels were completely bypassed. Have you ever asked why?


Maybe because the investigation was more advanced at the time than you’re thinking? Maybe because it concerned a target who was running for the president of the United States and they were worried about leaks at the lower levels?

Why wouldn’t there be pressure to resign if the entire government is ran by Republicans, who you’re being accused of impropriety towards?

There are a myriad of explanations for every point you make that doesn’t rely on suspension of belief.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: underwerks




Seriously, if all you’re going to do is try to put words in others peoples mouths to make some half-baked point


Yea? To wit:



That’s your interpretation of it, and nothing more. Obviously the people tasked with doing these investigations think differently than you do. And guess what? They’re actually privy to real information about the case, unlike you, random internet person.


An opinion which you highly disagree with. Directly followed by:



I believe that the surveillance of Trump has been going on since well before the election when (as a matter of public record) he accepted a bail out from government controlled banks of a hostile foreign nation.


Your own opinion backed up by supposition. Nevermind the legality of the situation.




No, I’m saying your opinion isn’t an objective reality that you should expect anyone else to honor.


Likewise, glad you agree.


I can’t believe you’re actually admitting to being wrong. Maybe ATS has turned a corner.




posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: underwerks




Seriously, if all you’re going to do is try to put words in others peoples mouths to make some half-baked point


Yea? To wit:



That’s your interpretation of it, and nothing more. Obviously the people tasked with doing these investigations think differently than you do. And guess what? They’re actually privy to real information about the case, unlike you, random internet person.


An opinion which you highly disagree with. Directly followed by:



I believe that the surveillance of Trump has been going on since well before the election when (as a matter of public record) he accepted a bail out from government controlled banks of a hostile foreign nation.


Your own opinion backed up by supposition. Nevermind the legality of the situation.




No, I’m saying your opinion isn’t an objective reality that you should expect anyone else to honor.


Likewise, glad you agree.


I can’t believe you’re actually admitting to being wrong. Maybe ATS has turned a corner.



I think he is pointing out that you criticize others for just having a personal opinion not backed up by fact,

immediately followed by you posting a personal opinio0n not backed up by fact.

SO ummm, not sure he is agreeing with you.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: underwerks




Seriously, if all you’re going to do is try to put words in others peoples mouths to make some half-baked point


Yea? To wit:



That’s your interpretation of it, and nothing more. Obviously the people tasked with doing these investigations think differently than you do. And guess what? They’re actually privy to real information about the case, unlike you, random internet person.


An opinion which you highly disagree with. Directly followed by:



I believe that the surveillance of Trump has been going on since well before the election when (as a matter of public record) he accepted a bail out from government controlled banks of a hostile foreign nation.


Your own opinion backed up by supposition. Nevermind the legality of the situation.




No, I’m saying your opinion isn’t an objective reality that you should expect anyone else to honor.


Likewise, glad you agree.


I can’t believe you’re actually admitting to being wrong. Maybe ATS has turned a corner.



I think he is pointing out that you criticize others for just having a personal opinion not backed up by fact,

immediately followed by you posting a personal opinio0n not backed up by fact.

SO ummm, not sure he is agreeing with you.


Shhh.

Statements like that are my favorite part of posting on ATS.




posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: BlackJackal

What is the conflict of interest

Having an opinion on the scope of special counsel investigations is not a conflict of interest!

Show me the law saying it is.

Ok, here is the rub. Having an opinion is one thing, but it is obvious Whitaker was choosing sides by writing that op-ed. How do I know that? Simple really, the entire story line about it not being ok to investigate Trump’s finances is nothing but another Republican/Trump manufactured nothing story.

But, Mueller can’t look at Trump’s finances because he doesn’t have authorization, he is only supposed to look into Russia. Wrong…. Dead wrong. This is taken directly from the appointment letter authorizing the investigation:


The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

  • any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
  • any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
  • any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.


Special Counsel Appointment

For completeness sake, here is the text of Title 28 Chapter 6 Section 600.4 outlined above:


(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

Jurisdiction of Special Counsel

As you can see, the mandate for the special council specifically allows him to investigate any crimes that he discovers during his investigation. This is standard practice for any investigation. So, if Mueller was investigating Trump’s finances that means he found evidence of crimes and was following those leads. He was doing his job.

Anyone that has taken freshman law classes knows that during investigations it is common to discover other wrong doing and take the investigation down multiple paths. As a lifelong prosecutor Whitaker knows that too, and knows Mueller is well within his rights to investigate Trump’s finances, so his op-ed is just a thinly veiled hack piece.



originally posted by: Grambler
Rosenstein made many comments on the special counsel and fbi investigation

Why wasn’t it against the law for him to be in charge?


Making comments about an investigation you are in charge of to the press is your job…… Surely you aren’t that dense, right? Unless you have a quote of Rosenstein saying “I hate Trump” or “I hope this investigation will take Trump down” you aren’t making a lick of sense here, sorry.


originally posted by: Grambler
Your argument is literally only a person who think muellers investor should be allowed to do whatever it wants should be allowed to be in charge of the inevestigatiom, or its illegal


Nah, like I pointed out above, Mueller is well within his mandate to go where the crimes lead him. But you’re smart, I’m sure you knew that already right?


originally posted by: Grambler
Meanwhile you make excuses for lynch not refusing herself from the Hillary investigation


This is called Whataboutism, it is a logical fallacy, its proper name is appeal to hypocrisy. You are attempting to compare two distinctly separate events to justify your non-action in the event actually being discussed. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric. Again, I am sure you knew this already, you were just testing me right?


For those of you unfamiliar with the term "whataboutism", it is the logical fallacy where someone tries to discredit another by claiming hypocrisy without actually refuting or disproving the other person's argument.

WhatAboutisms


originally posted by: Grambler
If the next guy is a dem, I fully expect them to appoint a attorney general that agrees with them

I would expect that person to be fully capable of looking in to matters involving that president


You completely gloss over my question because you are incapable of answering it. The reasoning you attempt to use in your arguments is fallacious and you don’t even understand the basics of the legal system.

Jeff Sessions did the correct thing when he recused himself. Since he served as a member of the Trump campaign he clearly had a conflict of interest that would prevent him from overseeing the Mueller investigation. Trump obviously believes that the Attorney General is supposed to watch his back and protect him from investigations but that is not the purpose of the Attorney General. Just because the Attorney General and the President do not agree on everything is not a problem. So long as both of them do their job, which is to uphold the Constitution then everything is fine.
I posted the link to the recusal law in my last post so I’m not going to post the whole thing over again but I will highlight a section.


The U.S. Code provides:
1. "Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Here is plainly states that you should recuse yourself if your impartiality might be “reasonably questioned”. If for any reason someone can say, hey that guy might be partial to one of the parities then that person should recuse themselves.

Here is another section of the recusal law:


Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or a personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;


That op-ed definitely could be viewed as a bias to an impartial observer even if you don’t think it could. Additionally, he criticized the investigation as a whole prior to joining the Justice department last year.

Oh, another part of the recusal law I would like to point out that applies in this case:


Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
[/qu



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join