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.

 

Mueller withheld Exculpatory Evidence from Court to Exonerate Trump – Mueller LIED to the Court!

page: 4
49
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

mediabiasfactcheck.com...



The Gateway Pundit is an extreme right news and opinion website that is not afraid of conspiracy theories and the occasional publication of falsehoods (see analysis). The website was founded by Jim Hoft in 2004 to “speak the truth” and to “expose the wickedness of the left.”


I would take anything posted on this site with a huge grain of salt.




posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: Rewey
as Mueller claims



originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Rewey


where did Mueller make this claim? You do know that Mueller has not made any public statements about this case dont you?
You know that there have not been any leaks from his team or investigation dont you? And if you know those things then you know that none of this has come from the Mueller investigation.
And its probably all another made up story.


Your reading is up to its usual standard. My “as Mueller claims” line is in reference to Mueller’s assertion that Cohen sent an email and then had to follow up with it two days later. As per Grambler’s earlier post, this is from the documentation lodged by Mueller in support of Cohen’s plea agreement. Let’s check, shall we?



Hmmm… seems to concur that Cohen wrote an email, and followed up with it two days later, exactly as I stated . Let’s check whose signature is on the document, shall we?



Hmmm… that certainly looks like Mueller’s signature to me, especially given that his name and role is typed underneath it. So, YES, Mueller is making that claim.

It seems you’d rather not bother reading the bountiful information spread throughout this thread before throwing out your usual snarky comments. I guess Mueller’s supporting documentation is “another made up story”, is it? How interesting.

And while we're at it - if Cohen is emailing 'asking for assistance', and 'trying to reach a high-level official', and 'hoping someone who speaks English can get back to him', does that sound like a secret back channel of communication between conspirators to you?


Obviously, this post needs to stated again.

Bump.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

Without examining the veracity of the OP claim, withholding exculpatory evidence applies to trials where someone has been charged, not incomplete investigations?

The Special Counsel has not submitted it's evidence and conclusions, let alone charged the President with anything.

This is a very strange OP.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris


In many countries, including the United States, police and prosecutors are required to disclose to the defendant exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant enters a plea (guilty or not guilty).


en.wikipedia.org...

Now this may not pertain to Cohen since his plea agreement is only for lying about dates, even though the lie doesn't make Cohen or Trump any more guilty than they were before.


edit on 4-12-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

If the exculpatory evidence is for Trump and he hasn't been charged with anything then there clearly hasn't been a Brady violation.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Deetermined

If the exculpatory evidence is for Trump and he hasn't been charged with anything then there clearly hasn't been a Brady violation.

The entire investigation is premised on claims of secret collusion between Trump's people and Russia. If Mueller has evidence that these claims are baseless (ie, nobody is acting in a way that is consistent with having secret communication channels) then merely continuing the investigation is a Brady Act violation.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

First off, it's not a Brady Act violation. It's just a Brady violation which references Brady v. Maryland.

The Brady rule is a pretrial discovery rule that requires the prosecution to disclose all possible exculpatory evidence.

Clearly that doesn't apply in the Cohen case because he pled out. Meanwhile Trump hasn't been charged with anything therefore there's been no discovery phase. So it's absolutely impossible for a Brady violation to have occurred. Going further, even if a Brady violation had occurred it wouldn't be Mueller that is in violation of the rule but the prosecution.

This is just another instance of Gateway Pundit publishing an article that has no basis in truth because it appeals to their base.

Now why would Gateway Pundit be so driven to try to trash Mueller's reputation, at the expense of their own, if Mueller has nothing?



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Thank you for the kind response but I do look pretty silly right now.

Yeah, that's not new.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

It's clear from your post that you didn't even read the article to see where the information originated.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Deetermined

If the exculpatory evidence is for Trump and he hasn't been charged with anything then there clearly hasn't been a Brady violation.


If Mueller has evidence that these claims are baseless (ie, nobody is acting in a way that is consistent with having secret communication channels) then merely continuing the investigation is a Brady Act violation.


That is an odd proposition and does not exist in law nor should it given the high number of witnesses that have now admitted lying to the Special Counsel and in public statements. The investigation would have ceased the first time someone lied under oath denying Russian contacts.

This OP is clearly based on a bizarrely false premise.
President Trump has not been charged, nor is there a trial, the Brady Act does not even remotely apply.

The Brady act apply to ongoing investigations.

The Special Counsel has not completed it's investigation nor issued any conclusions.

All of the above seems simple and objective regardless of whatever anyone's opinions are on the investigation or the President's innocence or guilt for a given activity.



edit on 4-12-2018 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Xcalibur254

It's clear from your post that you didn't even read the article to see where the information originated.





If I understand the claim, it is centered on the assumption that if Cohen needed to contact Vladimir Putin's spokeman, Dmitry Peskov, in order to advance the Trump Tower deal

then no other hidden contacts or agreements (back-channel) existed between President Trump or his Campaign and the Russian government.

Is that correct?

Cohen's first contact with Dimitry Peskov's office was in January 2016.
Those conversations continued, including travel arrangements until June 14th 2016.
The Russian GRU campaign hacking the emails began in March 2016 and lasted through June 2014.

Back-channels could have been well established after Cohen's first contact.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

BECAUSE IT'S FAKE! THATS WHY! HAHAHA.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I find it surprising that so many would push for us to go to war with Russia. What would be the benefit? Rather an alliance would make much more sense would it not? They would certainly be a welcomed ally if this trade war with China inevitably escalates to a traditional war more than likely occurring in the China sea. I mean I don't think we should trust them, obviously, but it's benefited us in the distant past and during that time Soviet Union was much worse than the country we are presented with currently. Idk, could someone possibly give an explanation why they feel that an adversarial position with another kinda "democratic" capitalist nation is beneficial to us here in the great US of A?

On the note of the Mueller investigation I would say that if this article holds water that he should absolutely be prosecuted under the same criminal system he supposedly champions. This entire investigation has been nothing less than a circus act from the very beginning and both sides of the political spectrum are fully aware of this, one side just simply is taking advantage of the situation to direct their narrative down the throats of the many gullible brainwashed sheeple that are too far gone to see there own manipulation.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris


Cohen's first contact with Dimitry Peskov's office was in January 2016.


Plans for a Trump Tower in Moscow had been going on since 2013.

All of Cohen's contact with Trump's kids regarding the Moscow Tower project ended in January 2016 as stated by both sides as well as documented email evidence. If Cohen pursued something on his own after that, he was doing it on his own without updating the Trumps.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

The article is very clear. It says Mueller should be prosecuted because he has exculpatory evidence that exonerates Trump that he hasn't presented before the courts.

Considering: A.) It is the job of prosecution to make sure all exculpatory evidence is presented during discovery; and B.) Trump is not currently charged with anything.

How is it a Brady violation if Mueller has exculpatory evidence but hasn't presented it before the court?

As I said before, it's absolutely amazing how many people now care about the Brady rule when Gateway Pundit isn't even applying it correctly. Where were all of you when assistany US attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff withheld 70 pieces of exculpatory evidence in the Trump administration's attempt to send 200+ US citizens for 70+ years for protesting?

Oh that's right! Most of you said those people deserved to rot in jail.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Extorris


Cohen's first contact with Dimitry Peskov's office was in January 2016.


All of Cohen's contact with Trump's kids regarding the Moscow Tower project ended in January 2016 as stated by both sides as well as documented email evidence. If Cohen pursued something on his own after that, he was doing it on his own without updating the Trumps.


I do not see that anywhere in the Plea Agreement. I see the opposite.
Trump is individual 1.
Cohen discussed with individual 1 travel plans to further the deal.
Those travel plans came after January.
He also updated trump's family members.

Excerpt here and full information at link:


cdn.cnn.com...



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: HonorablyTainted
I find it surprising that so many would push for us to go to war with Russia. What would be the benefit?


Not sure if you are posting on the right topic?
Did posters here advocate for war with Russia?

Or is it your view that any peaceful resolution involves sacrificing US sovereignty in free elections and allowing foreign interference and cyber-crimes?




On the note of the Mueller investigation I would say that if this article holds water


It doesn't. Gateway Pundit is not credible.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

Cohen may have updated the Trump family on the Moscow project three times, but they were all before or up to January 2016. That's when documented evidence shows that communications with the Trump family on the project ended.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Since people seem to be having a hard time with the Brady rule let me lay out it in other terms.

Let's say that police are investigating an individual for murder. During that investigation they come across another murder perpetrated by another individual.

Would it make sense for the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence on the first suspect during the second suspect's trial?

The correct answer is no. That evidence has no bearing on the case at hand so why should the prosecution be expected to disclose it during discovery?



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Extorris

That's when documented evidence shows that communications with the Trump family on the project ended.


Could you please provide a link to that documented evidence showing communications ended?




top topics



 
49
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join