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.

 

Trump-Appointed Judge....Rules ‘Collusion’ Is A Crime

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
Stilla reply to: ErEhWoN still, one is required to prove collusion. However you probably know that



Yes, as they say, the devil is in the details.

We all wait for the determination, no one knows which way the shoe drop.

Exciting, isnt it?




posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




First, the entire decision rests upon the abilities of the Acting Attorney General. This itself negates any claim by other parties about Whitaker's appointment, for his removal now before an Attorney General were appointed would negate the entire decision, which would then mean that Robert Mueller is not an "inferior officer" and is thus subject to both nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate... which never happened. So a removal now, thanks to this decision, would invalidate Mueller's investigation entirely.


Would't the Assistant AG become the acting AG?




Whitaker must have authority to terminate Mueller's investigation at any time, and for any "good reason," and that can include scarcity of DoJ resources. In short, Whitaker has full authority in his position as Acting Attorney General to starve out the Mueller investigation at will.


Why would anyone on either side want this? Wouldn't Trump supporters want the investigation to go on to vindicate their candidate forever? So the Libtards can go Rheeeeeeeee? Ending the investigation prematurely would just leave a stain of doubt forever on Trumps presidency in my opinion.

Would you feel the same if this were President Obama being investigated? Hillary Clinton?




the DoJ policy that a sitting President is not subject to indictment.


DOJ policy is not law. I don't think this has been settled, but I confess I'm not sure.




Someone's been trolled, and trolled hard.

I dont think anyone in the general public has enough information to make any determination. Its all just speculation. Not even sure if this ruling would have ANY impact on the investigation.

Also, kudos for the format and wording of your post!



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: whywhynot

Wait, what?

One investigation in 2 years is considered a witch hunt?

So what would this be considered, an Inquisition?


Yes it’s a witch hunt. Your link investigation is called a sham.



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: whywhynot

Wait, what?

One investigation in 2 years is considered a witch hunt?

So what would this be considered, an Inquisition?


A cover up. An abortion of justice?

So many appropriate descriptions...



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar




Just saying, the idea that we will be seeing trump in an orange jumpsuit is rather slim I think.


I agree 100%. Just thought he would look good on one. Honestly believe a Nixon type force out is most likely...with censure or impeachment below that.

At this level of government, jumpsuits just dont happen.



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




What don’t you get there is no evidence Trump conspired with Russia to create election fraud.


Can you provide a link to the accrued evidence so we can see for ourselves?

The only way you can say there is no evidence, is to have access to the aforementioned evidence, or lack thereof.



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: neutronflux




What don’t you get there is no evidence Trump conspired with Russia to create election fraud.


Can you provide a link to the accrued evidence so we can see for ourselves?

The only way you can say there is no evidence, is to have access to the aforementioned evidence, or lack thereof.


How do you prove or disprove a f’n negative. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are making accusations of Trump conspiring with Russia to commit voting fraud, then it’s up to you to provide the evidence.



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErEhWoN

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Sillyolme

And I sorry you don’t understand it’s not about defending a great person, it’s about defending the lesser corrupt of two bad choices.


So your saying you voted for Hillary?


I voted for the less corrupt, so that rules out Hillary.



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN

A foreign country influencing American voters by posting facts is not a crime...Therefore, not defrauding the US...The judge didn't hit on that one...

An AG has the authority to appoint a Special Prosecutor...We all know that...Where the appointment is illegal is that there was no crime to be prosecuted...And now we know that the FBI and DOJ and DNC fabricated crimes, in secret, to give the SP something to investigate...



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal



So, if Mueller is able to prove a link between those Russians and the Trump campaign....... You know the rest.


IF. IF Mueller can dig up some crazy ass dirt from somewhere then we can crucify Trump.
If... It's there somewhere. Somewhere...

It's so close you can almost smell it...

If...



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Iscool

russian operatives hacked the dnc computers that was a crime.
if the trump administration was involved it in in any way, made any kind of deal with them to benefit from that information...
then that is a crime.
and some of those who made contributions are still trying to repair their credit because the fools put their information on the web.

nixon actively and deliberately undermined the peace negotiations that LBJ was trying to set up. not really sure just what crimes may have been committed there, but it very well could have caused the extension of that war and possibly caused us to lose it!!!

reagan worked behind the scenes to delay the release of the Iranian hostages just so he could be reelected.

weather a crime or not, one has to question the worthiness of politicians who are willing to harm US citizens just so they can have their try at the power!!!



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN

Under which statute specifically? You can't invent crimes out of thin air.

What he means is that "conspiracy" or "conspiracy to defraud" are crimes, that petty people have taken to calling "collusion" because it sounds better in the media.

Regardless, there is no evidence Trump broke any laws. FBI said so themselves, on several occasions actually.

How do all the lefties who bought into this crap hook, line & sinker reconcile the fact that Trump returned the questionaire instead of declining/invoking his 5th amendment rights/invoking Exec privilege and taking it to our SCOTUS/etc?

?



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


russian operatives hacked the dnc computers that was a crime.


There is no evidence that actually happened. The Feds never got to examine the server or any raw data - they only have interpretation of that data from a DNC-paid (ie: conflict of interest) company. Further, the evidence they cite (an IP address) can be easily spoofed and does not tie a specific address to a physical person (IE: intelligence agencies won't use their regular connections to do this crap)

But that is moot considering only DNC-paid private company examined the alleged evidence, which is actually disputed by many veteran intelligence professionals including Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity which wholeheartedly rebukes the false leftist-lead Russia narrative.

We need to see evidence. Hard evidence. The server itself would be a great start.


if the trump administration was involved it in in any way, made any kind of deal with them to benefit from that information...


Not true. Benefiting from the information is not a crime. Knowingly participating in a federal crime and taking some overt step to further that conspiracy is the statutory definition of this offense. Merely benefiting from the crime, or knowing its perpetrators, or even encouraging their actions is not a crime - that is called free speech, free association, etc.


nixon actively and deliberately undermined the peace negotiations that LBJ was trying to set up. not really sure just what crimes may have been committed there, but it very well could have caused the extension of that war and possibly caused us to lose it!!!


We didn't lose that war. It was tree hugging lefties that pushed the President into not using nuclear weapons to defeat the scourge of communism and defend our allies.


weather a crime or not, one has to question the worthiness of politicians who are willing to harm US citizens just so they can have their try at the power!!!


You should start with the corrupt DOJ/FBI/IC insiders (AKA DEEPSTATE) who worked to actively subvert justice, invent a case from nothing and undermine a lawful US President because they're petty individuals who merely disagree with him on policy. Of course that sums up the entire breathlessly hysterical anti-Trump "resistance" (snicker)

We've seen far too much hypocrisy from the left. We need to see a whole hell of a lot from you guys before we could even think about taking what you say at face value. Even your own Obama denied Russia did anything. "And I sat Putin down for a stern talking-to, told him to 'knock it off' and he did it!" "Oh when you're whining about cheating you know you lost" "Spying on Trump through his microwave!"

From the jury instructions @ USCOURTS.gov


In order for you to find (name) guilty of conspiracy to commit an offense(s)
against the United States, you must find that the government proved beyond a
reasonable doubt each of the following four (4) elements:

First: That two or more persons agreed to commit an offense(s) against the
United States, as charged in the indictment. ;

Second: That (name) was a party to or member of that agreement;

Third: That (name) joined the agreement or conspiracy knowing of its
objective(s) to commit an offense(s) against the United States and intending to
join together with at least one other alleged conspirator to achieve (that) (those)
3
objective(s);that is, that (name) and at least one other alleged conspirator
shared a unity of purpose and the intent to achieve a common goal(s) or
objective(s), to commit an offense(s) against the United States; and

Fourth: That at some time during the existence of the agreement or
conspiracy, at least one of its members performed an overt act in order to
further the objectives of the agreement.


www.ca3.uscourts.gov...

So unless you think he sat in some dark room and plotted with Russians to do this, you are way off the mark on criminal liability.

edit on 11/24/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN

The AG (and entire DOJ/FBI) is an extension of the President and serve at the pleasure of the President. They are all appointed by the President, every law enforcement/career position and political position. Some are required to be confirmed by the Senate, but the vast majority aren't Constitutionally recognized positions (ie: Special Agent of the FBI). Actually before a certain time "BOI" agents weren't even permitted to carry firearms. Not to disparage the FBI or their work, the majority are good people. But there is not denying that corrupt elements have taken steps to discredit or otherwise damage Trump

Anyhow you are right that no one knows what they do or don't have, but IMO it is a fair guess to say the initial finding of the FBI is accurate that there is no clear link to Russia or any evidence of a conspiracy to defraud the US or break any other US law

He was legally elected by the EC and he deserves to govern like every other President has: without people inside his own executive branch (ie: discharging their appointed duties under the umbrella of his Constitutional authority) "meddling" in his Presidency/WH/branch.
edit on 11/24/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 06:12 PM
link   
this is just laughable!!
so let's see, a grand jury, who by the way reviewed the evidence, felt that there was enough to prosecute.
So, the company decided they don't want to be prosecuted so they try various ways to get out of it but fail..
the latest one being the claim that well, even if there was collusion, it's not illegal!!!
They are still in the preliminary bickering stage, the evidence hasn't been revealed to any of us...
but, there is no evidence???
this coming from the "lock her up, lock her up, lock her up!!!" crowd after how many investigations of hillary???
or "shut it down, shut it down, shut it down!!!? after how many investigations into planned parenthood?

innocent till proven guilty, comes AFTER investigation and trial if the investigation comes up with enough evidence to warrant a trial. obviously, there is enough evidence that this company colluded with someone in an illegal way for a grand jury to allow prosecution!!! We wont know till there is a trial weather that evidence holds up in a court and they are found guilty...



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




Regardless, there is no evidence Trump broke any laws


There is no evidence of anything, period. The general public is not privy to what the SP has, so all we are doing is speculating here. All of us.
Also, the FBI will lie to get you to trip over your own.....er.....stuff. A tactic as old as the Flintstones.

No one here can say Trump is guilty of anything.
No one here can say Trump is innocent of anything.

Well, and be taken seriously anyway.

Btw, your flag offends me as a veteran and former law enforcement officer. Its a desecration of our flag and a gang symbol.

Cheers mate



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: neutronflux

He paid a foreign agent to create a fake dossier to get a FISA warrant and weaponized the FBI against his political opponents....

oh...wait


For one your argument is a logical fallacy in and of itself. (Whataboutism) Secondly, the payment for the dossier was legal, the only thing illegal was the Clinton campaign labeling the payment as "legal services" which is punishable by fines. [LINK]


Mccabe was connected to the Clintons
Comey was connected to Mccabe
Strzok and Comey were connected to Lynch

They took opposition research, then planted a news story about the research. They then took both of those to the FISA Court pretending it was verified intelligence...

The whole time talking about how they wanted a 'insurance' plan incase Trump won the election

say what you want, those facts are remarkably more credible then the Russia & Trump collusion... which actually come from the above mentioned opposition research and planted story



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN
Oh ffs, do you have e any idea how long you all have been holding g your breath?? Two years nows. Hundreds of I stances of saying exactly the same # too "we will see how this unfolds".

This #ing broken record really is on a permanent loop isn't it?? I guess we are back to scripted theater again. That must mean Idlib is going hot again.




posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry
Oh funny, right After I wrote that, I noticed an alert of chemical weapons deployment by rebels in Aleppo, my my what a coincidence. It's just chlorine though, so its not really all that bad. So far just hospitalized victims, no fatalities. Let's keep talking about the same horse been beaten into seventh afterlife's now. Don't worry, when you lose interest, we will make sure they deploy more chlorine to ignore so we can generate pages of ignorant anger from the next broken record dead horse on its eighth life!!!

Everyone is so willing to enjoy the lie. The same types of folks I have so often sold into more debt. I still have bridges guys 😎, black Friday clearance!
edit on 11-24-2018 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-24-2018 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2018 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN


Would't the Assistant AG become the acting AG?

Not necessarily. The President decides who he wants for Attorney General, with Senate confirmation. My point is that as of right now, Whitaker is Acting Attorney General per an interim appointment. Thus, her statement must be taken in the context of that interim appointment, and that legitimizes Whitaker. The far left has been up in arms over this interim appointment, and the judge has now outflanked their objection.

Of course, when the Senate re-convenes and is able to approve an Attorney General, Whitaker will turn the reigns over to him/her. I don't expect him to continue in the position past the interim assignment.


Why would anyone on either side want this?

I didn't say anyone wanted it... I said the constant cries about Mueller being "untouchable" are hereby rendered false and moot.


Would you feel the same if this were President Obama being investigated? Hillary Clinton?

How do my feelings affect this decision? I posted nothing about feelings; I posted a considered opinion on the wording of the ruling and the linked articles. Feelings have nothing to do with what was in the ruling.


DOJ policy is not law.

Irrelevant. The ruling clearly states that Mueller's investigation must, in order for his appointment to be valid, conform to all DoJ policies and procedures. Whether those policies and procedures are approved by Congress is irrelevant, as long as they do not violate law.


I dont think anyone in the general public has enough information to make any determination. Its all just speculation. Not even sure if this ruling would have ANY impact on the investigation.

It is a Federal court ruling by a Federal judge, and it seems to have more legal basis than most of the recent slew of injunctions against President Trump. It could have invalidated the investigation had the judge found that Mueller is a superior officer subject to Presidential nomination and Senate approval. That's the critical point in it: is Mueller's appointment legal as an inferior officer, or is Mueller a superior officer and thus was appointed illegally?

The judge ruled that he is an inferior officer and the investigation is legal, but she included provisos that require Mueller to be under the direct supervision of a superior officer... in this case Whitaker. For that to be true, according to her decision, Mueller must be required to follow all reasonable demands of his superior, must be able to be relieved of duty by his superior, and must not have the ability to expand or even define his investigation himself. If any of those requirements are shown to be untrue, this decision would be prima fascia evidence that Mueller is not an inferior officer and his appointment was illegal.

I fail to see how that can not have some impact on the investigation.


Also, kudos for the format and wording of your post!

Thank you. I do wish you had studied it more thoroughly, however.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join