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.

 

It is becoming more evident that the Whitaker nomination is purely to stop Mueller

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

You have a habit of trying to characterize those who disagree with you as mentally incompetent. All the while you make post after post filled to the brim with logical fallacies and misrepresented reports.




posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

False.

Your explainations do little to aid you. You cherry picked and turned around to accuse me of...cherry picking...?

If "Simple reading comprehension" is all you got, it's much worse than it appears.

Your rebuttal on the AG is crap because any liberal arts college degree holder...hell any degree holder, would know you build an essay, report, and or thesis, its narrative and flow all follow the same basic mechanics in any and all things.

Example, my qoute was at the conclusion of the article, an "all in all" of what it all means. It's conclusion states, that while the AGa have OPINIONS on the issue, the meat and narrative of said piece, it ultimately concludes there isn't any other reason for the acting AG to recuse or step down.

Even at the expressed consent of the DOJ, smacks these two former AGs down.

Yes, it IS all in the reading. This is why I laugh because I know ya'lls world.

You're so easy to dismantle, you know my initial post was all done while I was sitting on the toilet, massive carolina steamer and....naked. That's how easy it was, while crapping to dismantle a crap thread.

Please try a bit harder next time SG 😌

Edit ONE(1): Actually, I take that back, SG was a powerful leftist who wouldn't have fallen for these amatuer narrative pitfalls and premature conclusions, SG had BITE, something worth of a challenge for us...even if such a thing is rare among leftist in general 😌.
edit on 23-11-2018 by Arnie123 because: Heh



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
these type threads will all the posters attack the op are priceless.



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Must get a bonus when a post quota is hit....


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
these type threads will all the posters attack the op are priceless.

*These types of leftist hit piece threads where all the posters correct the OP are priceless.

There ya go little feller, fixed it for you 🤫



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
these type threads will all the posters attack the op are priceless.


Would you rather we all show up and ignore the glaring logical pitfalls for some semblance of political peace on ATS?
edit on 23 11 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
There is more evidence against HRC/bummer/DNC colluding with the russians (or other foriegn govt) than there is Trump. Link

According to Rep. Peter King, there is obvious evidence of Hillary Clinton having colluded way more than Trump involving Russia. “I’ve been involved with this now for the last 18 months. I have not seen one bit of evidence of any collusion at all between the Trump campaign and Russia,” King stated. “[T]here was more possibility of the Russians being involved in the Hillary Clinton campaign. So many Russians had paid money to Bill Clinton and also the Clinton Foundation, but I wouldn’t be in support of that either. That is not a basis to be investigating [with] a warrant to wiretap in a presidential campaign.”


There is very strong evidence that bummer('s) doj/fbi/cia illegally inserted human assets to gather intelligence on a political opponenet. FBI Admits It Used Multiple Spies To Infiltrate Trump Campaign

There is strong circumstantial evidence that Poppa D was set up or WAS a set up Papadopoulos 'set up by FBI-CIA operative'



The man former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos claimed gave him a mysterious $10,000 cash payment, Israeli citizen George Tawil, was a former intelligence asset for the CIA and FBI, according to documents publicized by WikiLeaks.

The revelation, the Gateway Pundit blog points out, suggest that Papadopoulos – who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in Robert Mueller’s probe – could have been set up by the special counsel in a sting operation.

Already, evidence has surfaced that another incident frequently presented as proof of Trump-Russia collusion – the Trump Tower meeting that included Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer – appears to have been set up by operatives supporting Hillary Clinton’s campaign.


Speaking of the infamous trump tower meeting... Some Strange Coincidences Among Trump Tower Players

While the hearing uncovered zero evidence of collusion with Russia, the attendees’ testimony and Veselnitskaya’s written statement revealed two strange coincidences that, considered in light of other evidence implicating Obama administration officials and career DOJ and FBI employees in spying on the Trump campaign, proved suspcious.


It will be interesting to learn what Joseph Misfud will have to say if he does indeed testify. He's only been missing for what? about a year? oseph Mifsud – The Man Who Deep State Used to Set Up Papadopoulos – Is Missing and PRESUMED DEAD

Although the common story is that Mifsud is a Russian Agent, many ties seem to lead [him] back to UK Intelligence. Julian Assange put out a Twitter thread noting the connection between Mifsud and UK Intelligence.


Now Joseph Misfud is claiming he did nothing wrong and wants to testify, but if he did nothing wrong, why did he disappear for a year? Missing Russiagate Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud ‘wants to testify before the US Senate’

Mifsud disappeared over a year ago after he was identified as the unnamed professor alleged by FBI investigators in court documents unsealed in October 2017 to have told Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.


But is this a LIE?

The information came months before the Democrats were even aware that their computer systems had been hacked.


Let's look: It is a very interesting timeline.....

MARCH 2016: On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server

JUNE 2016: The Trump Tower meeting took place on June 9, 2016 in New York City between three senior members of the 2016 Trump campaign

JUNE/JULY 2016: The 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails stolen by Russian intelligence agency hackers and subsequently published (leaked) by DCLeaks in June and July 2016[1] and by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016

JULY 2016: The murder of Seth Rich occurred on Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[1] Rich died from two shots to the back. The 27-year-old Rich was an employee of the Democratic National Committee



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Jefferton




Reverse TDS are the deranged from being high on Trump people.


So what you're saying is that another BS leftist thread is getting trashed for the BS it is and you think this is some kind of derangement?

Derangement is stating that the Orange Man is destroying the country when we have the best economy in decades thanks to his deregulation policies and trade deals, we have a building peace with old enemies, and rule of law.

Derangement is constantly and consistently repeating old lies for political point scoring that means nothing and leads to nowhere. Which is what this OP is. It's rehashed Russian Collusion bull# that hasn't gone anywhere and won't.

Sounds good, but can you trust your possibly deranged judgement?

It's tricky!



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: BlackJackal


1) Whitaker is a legitimate, eligible person for acting AG ( He is a current DOJ employee and has undergone Senate confirmation in the past to become a US attorney) so all you people making the claim he is not qualified are just factually wrong.

2) if Trump wanted him to stop Mueller , why hasn't he?

3) Even democrats know there will be nothing n the mueller report charging trump with obstruction or collusion, hence, the reason the dems are already saying they want to investigate the mueller investigation.

4) Trump has ZERO "allies" in congress so I don't know who you are referring too here.




1) I suppose your opinion is greater than that of many legal scholars. [1][2][3] Plus, we will find out soon enough if Whitaker can keep this position when the Supreme Court rules on it. [4] Additionally, it isn't just Democrats or Liberals that believe he is prohibited by law to be the Acting Attorney General, many Republicans do as well.[5] But I should take your word for it right?

2) Uh, like I said because he knows if he fired Mueller it would do nothing but cause issues for him and lead to the appointment of another Special Prosecutor. Just like what happened to Nixon.[6]

3) Again, I should take your word on it? Are you basing this accusation on facts or are you just making crap up? If the report has nothing about collusion or obstruction of justice in it, then why did Rudy Guiliana state that some of the questions Mueller gave them would "create more issues for us legally than others,”?[7] Also, why won't Trump answer any questions about obstruction of justice at all?[8]

4) His allies would be members of his own party.


[1] Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional
[2] Whitaker’s Appointment Is Unconstitutional
[3] Hacking the Appointments Clause
[4] Sup reme Court asked to rule on Trump's choice of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general
[5] Republican group runs “protect Mueller” ad on Trump’s favorite show
[6] Saturday Night Massacre
[7] Trump says he’s finished writing answers to questions from special counsel Robert Mueller
[8] Rudy Giuliani Admits Trump Will Stonewall Mueller’s Obstruction Of Justice Questions



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Hope everyone enjoyed their Thanksgiving.

BEST effort yet, from the OP.
The OP's skillful use of leftist news sites was particularly helpful in my overall assessment of this thread's validity and integrity.




posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: BlackJackal

You have a habit of trying to characterize those who disagree with you as mentally incompetent. All the while you make post after post filled to the brim with logical fallacies and misrepresented reports.


If I used logical fallacies it would be more impactful if you pointed them out rather than making a vague statement. Wouldn't you think?



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal




posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: watchitburn
TLDR;

Wah wah wah

Orange man bad

Wah wah wah.


It is easy to tell when Trump supporters know Trump is up to something fishy. When Trump supporters start attacking facts and say things like "Orange Man bad" or "Reeeeeee" or "Garbage" but provide no actual defense.

Do you guys not see how obvious this tactic actually is? You have no real defense so you attempt to discredit the messenger. Sad.


In my America, one is innocent until “proven guilty”. There is no need to “prove” one is innocent of anything. But you knew that...this is just another thread in your never ending quest for self-grandizing star and flags from the far, far left. Aim higher!



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: BlackJackal

False.

Your explainations do little to aid you. You cherry picked and turned around to accuse me of...cherry picking...?

If "Simple reading comprehension" is all you got, it's much worse than it appears.

Your rebuttal on the AG is crap because any liberal arts college degree holder...hell any degree holder, would know you build an essay, report, and or thesis, its narrative and flow all follow the same basic mechanics in any and all things.

Example, my qoute was at the conclusion of the article, an "all in all" of what it all means. It's conclusion states, that while the AGa have OPINIONS on the issue, the meat and narrative of said piece, it ultimately concludes there isn't any other reason for the acting AG to recuse or step down.

Even at the expressed consent of the DOJ, smacks these two former AGs down.

Yes, it IS all in the reading. This is why I laugh because I know ya'lls world.

You're so easy to dismantle, you know my initial post was all done while I was sitting on the toilet, massive carolina steamer and....naked. That's how easy it was, while crapping to dismantle a crap thread.

Please try a bit harder next time SG 😌

Edit ONE(1): Actually, I take that back, SG was a powerful leftist who wouldn't have fallen for these amatuer narrative pitfalls and premature conclusions, SG had BITE, something worth of a challenge for us...even if such a thing is rare among leftist in general 😌.


Gotcha, you can't actually make a coherent argument so you throw together as much crap as you possibly can in an attempt to make yourself feel knowledgeable.

Let's be clear here, I put forth the premise that Trump has had adequate time to come up with a permanent AG. He is even being asked by other Republicans to hurry up and name a replacement and yet he still hasn't done it. Therefore, I gave two conclusions. Either Trump is incompetent and can't come up with a new AG in a year and a half or he actually wants to keep the Acting Attorney General in place for some purpose. It seems pretty obvious what that purpose actually is.

So, instead of going on tirades, maybe you can consider addressing the core subject matter. That is, if you can.



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: BlackJackal

You have a habit of trying to characterize those who disagree with you as mentally incompetent. All the while you make post after post filled to the brim with logical fallacies and misrepresented reports.


Those are big concepts to understand...especially for someone who clearly doesn’t want to understand them (OP).



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: knoxie
these type threads will all the posters attack the op are priceless.


Would you rather we all show up and ignore the glaring logical pitfalls for some semblance of political peace on ATS?


I find it hilarious that you are calling out glaring logical pitfalls without actually pointing any out. That seems like what someone who doesn't have an actual defense would do. Can't defeat the message, attack the messenger.



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: watchitburn
TLDR;

Wah wah wah

Orange man bad

Wah wah wah.


It is easy to tell when Trump supporters know Trump is up to something fishy. When Trump supporters start attacking facts and say things like "Orange Man bad" or "Reeeeeee" or "Garbage" but provide no actual defense.

Do you guys not see how obvious this tactic actually is? You have no real defense so you attempt to discredit the messenger. Sad.


In my America, one is innocent until “proven guilty”. There is no need to “prove” one is innocent of anything. But you knew that...this is just another thread in your never ending quest for self-grandizing star and flags from the far, far left. Aim higher!

Because members on the far far right NEVER do that.

Lol I can think if a good sized list right off the top of my head. But, I don't want to get spanked.



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: BlackJackal

You have a habit of trying to characterize those who disagree with you as mentally incompetent. All the while you make post after post filled to the brim with logical fallacies and misrepresented reports.


Those are big concepts to understand...especially for someone who clearly doesn’t want to understand them (OP).


By all means, since you clearly understand something that stupid ol me is incapable of understanding please explain those concepts to me and where I have used them.



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: BlackJackal

False.

Your explainations do little to aid you. You cherry picked and turned around to accuse me of...cherry picking...?

If "Simple reading comprehension" is all you got, it's much worse than it appears.

Your rebuttal on the AG is crap because any liberal arts college degree holder...hell any degree holder, would know you build an essay, report, and or thesis, its narrative and flow all follow the same basic mechanics in any and all things.

Example, my qoute was at the conclusion of the article, an "all in all" of what it all means. It's conclusion states, that while the AGa have OPINIONS on the issue, the meat and narrative of said piece, it ultimately concludes there isn't any other reason for the acting AG to recuse or step down.

Even at the expressed consent of the DOJ, smacks these two former AGs down.

Yes, it IS all in the reading. This is why I laugh because I know ya'lls world.

You're so easy to dismantle, you know my initial post was all done while I was sitting on the toilet, massive carolina steamer and....naked. That's how easy it was, while crapping to dismantle a crap thread.

Please try a bit harder next time SG 😌

Edit ONE(1): Actually, I take that back, SG was a powerful leftist who wouldn't have fallen for these amatuer narrative pitfalls and premature conclusions, SG had BITE, something worth of a challenge for us...even if such a thing is rare among leftist in general 😌.


Gotcha, you can't actually make a coherent argument so you throw together as much crap as you possibly can in an attempt to make yourself feel knowledgeable.

Let's be clear here, I put forth the premise that Trump has had adequate time to come up with a permanent AG. He is even being asked by other Republicans to hurry up and name a replacement and yet he still hasn't done it. Therefore, I gave two conclusions. Either Trump is incompetent and can't come up with a new AG in a year and a half or he actually wants to keep the Acting Attorney General in place for some purpose. It seems pretty obvious what that purpose actually is.

So, instead of going on tirades, maybe you can consider addressing the core subject matter. That is, if you can.


I would submit the argument that if POTUS were to immediately come out with a replacement AG that the collective scream would be "Collusion that Trump forced AG out to be replaced with (insert name) replacement AG to shut the Mueller investigation down!"

I would conclude, that it would not matter who Trump chose as acting AG or replacement AG, there would still be the same screams heard throughout the land.



posted on Nov, 23 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jusvistn

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: BlackJackal

False.

Your explainations do little to aid you. You cherry picked and turned around to accuse me of...cherry picking...?

If "Simple reading comprehension" is all you got, it's much worse than it appears.

Your rebuttal on the AG is crap because any liberal arts college degree holder...hell any degree holder, would know you build an essay, report, and or thesis, its narrative and flow all follow the same basic mechanics in any and all things.

Example, my qoute was at the conclusion of the article, an "all in all" of what it all means. It's conclusion states, that while the AGa have OPINIONS on the issue, the meat and narrative of said piece, it ultimately concludes there isn't any other reason for the acting AG to recuse or step down.

Even at the expressed consent of the DOJ, smacks these two former AGs down.

Yes, it IS all in the reading. This is why I laugh because I know ya'lls world.

You're so easy to dismantle, you know my initial post was all done while I was sitting on the toilet, massive carolina steamer and....naked. That's how easy it was, while crapping to dismantle a crap thread.

Please try a bit harder next time SG 😌

Edit ONE(1): Actually, I take that back, SG was a powerful leftist who wouldn't have fallen for these amatuer narrative pitfalls and premature conclusions, SG had BITE, something worth of a challenge for us...even if such a thing is rare among leftist in general 😌.


Gotcha, you can't actually make a coherent argument so you throw together as much crap as you possibly can in an attempt to make yourself feel knowledgeable.

Let's be clear here, I put forth the premise that Trump has had adequate time to come up with a permanent AG. He is even being asked by other Republicans to hurry up and name a replacement and yet he still hasn't done it. Therefore, I gave two conclusions. Either Trump is incompetent and can't come up with a new AG in a year and a half or he actually wants to keep the Acting Attorney General in place for some purpose. It seems pretty obvious what that purpose actually is.

So, instead of going on tirades, maybe you can consider addressing the core subject matter. That is, if you can.


I would submit the argument that if POTUS were to immediately come out with a replacement AG that the collective scream would be "Collusion that Trump forced AG out to be replaced with (insert name) replacement AG to shut the Mueller investigation down!"

I would conclude, that it would not matter who Trump chose as acting AG or replacement AG, there would still be the same screams heard throughout the land.


So, in your opinion how long should it take Trump to name a replacement? Especially, taking into consideration that the Republicans are already urging him to hurry up.

I would counter that whoever he picks to be the AG will be heavily scrutinized and for good reason. This new AG will oversee the Mueller probe and needs to be impartial in that matter. The new AG will also need to be questioned to ensure that they won't be under Trump's thumb. Wouldn't you agree that those are practical precautions?




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join