It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 12:20 PM

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: BlackJackal

If you want to investigate his finances do it the way it should be done. Get enough information and move forward. Do not do it under the guise of "but Russia".


If Mueller is investigating his finances, he can only do that if he has evidence of a crime. He is doing his job.

posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 06:10 PM
a reply to: carewemust

Gowdy is Not a Lackey . Trump Needs to show the Public that . No Yes Mr. President Man there .

posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 12:47 PM
Ok, lets's have some fun...

originally posted by: BlackJackal
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.


As you can see, the mandate for the special council specifically allows him to investigate any crimes that he discovers during his investigation.


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?


Sure... and has been pointed out to you, unless his investigation, that is limited in scope to Trump/Russia collusion, uncovers/leads to said crimes, then he can not go there. He cannot just go on a fishing expedition looking through his finances hoping to find something - I'm sure you knew that, right?

As you yourself stated, he would have to be lead there by the investigation, and it is plainly evident to all but those def dumb and blind kids, there is no there there.

That op-ed definitely could be viewed as a bias to an impartial observer even if you don’t think it could.

To an impartial observer who has no legal training, sure/maybe... but that doesn't make it so. In this case, if they did, they'd obviously be wrong.

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;

Has Whittaker been any of those? No? then it is irrelevant, no?

Oh, another part of this fiasco I would like to point out to you that applies in this case...

The appointment of a SC in the very first place requires the suspicion or evidence of a crime having been committed.

Since collusion is not a crime, can you please state the specific crime the suspicion of which was the basis of thie SC being appointed?

Oh, there isn't one? then that little fact all by itself totally negates the legitimacy of this entire SC and investigation.

This should have been objected to immediately and the SC should have never even been allowed to be appointed.

new topics
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in