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.

 

NO COLLUSION - Special Counsel Mueller has submitted report to AG Barr...it's over folks

page: 51
112
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

Gee and here I thought that the reason you have an investigation was to determine what the evidence was. My bad I guess.
But let's see what might have given them cause to investigate.
How many around trump lied about meetings withrussians?
How many times did the story about the trump tower change?
At least a few that had flocked into trumps orbit were known to have been working on the behalf of Russia or other counties in the past and were known by the intelligence groups
Russia was reaching out to members of his team
Trump Jr appears to have been willing to accept their help
His kids has bragged in the past about how much money was flowing in from russia
A bank that was linked to laundering Russian money was more than willing to loan him a huge amount when no American bank would. Even when he refused to pay them on previous loans and threaten to sue them
I could go on But won't. And I'll admit that there probably was some stuff coming out that turned out not to be true. But there was enough to justify investigating it.
An oh I am gonna bring up one more concerning manifort. In the court papers somewhere it state's that he lied about meeting some Russian and handing them polling data. This might have been from one of the instances where his defense didn't correctly redact something. But I kind of are there posibilities here.
There was one claim that the govt made but then corrected. Maybe it was this.
He lied by telling a story
Or he lied when he denied the story.
And I do see any of them as being possible. But the last one I mentioned. Sorry but that would have fallen into the colluding. At least in My book it would.




posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: toolgal462

Gee and here I thought that the reason you have an investigation was to determine what the evidence was. My bad I guess.
But let's see what might have given them cause to investigate.
How many around trump lied about meetings withrussians?
How many times did the story about the trump tower change?
At least a few that had flocked into trumps orbit were known to have been working on the behalf of Russia or other counties in the past and were known by the intelligence groups
Russia was reaching out to members of his team
Trump Jr appears to have been willing to accept their help
His kids has bragged in the past about how much money was flowing in from russia
A bank that was linked to laundering Russian money was more than willing to loan him a huge amount when no American bank would. Even when he refused to pay them on previous loans and threaten to sue them
I could go on But won't. And I'll admit that there probably was some stuff coming out that turned out not to be true. But there was enough to justify investigating it.
An oh I am gonna bring up one more concerning manifort. In the court papers somewhere it state's that he lied about meeting some Russian and handing them polling data. This might have been from one of the instances where his defense didn't correctly redact something. But I kind of are there posibilities here.
There was one claim that the govt made but then corrected. Maybe it was this.
He lied by telling a story
Or he lied when he denied the story.
And I do see any of them as being possible. But the last one I mentioned. Sorry but that would have fallen into the colluding. At least in My book it would.



In order for the DOJ to investigate someone, the first thing they need to have is 'evidence of a crime'. So, it's clear you don't understand the concept.

There needs to be compelling evidence of a crime BEFORE an investigation. If you don't see how scary it is to open an investigation first, and then to look for the evidence of a crime I don't know what else I can say.

The meeting with the Russian lawyer at Trump tower was NOT a crime.

Consider this. The DOJ opens a criminal investigation up on you....Do you think they would find a crime? And do you think it would be okay for them to just investigate you because you know they have to investigate to find the evidence? Right?

Is that the kind of country you really want to live in? Where you can investigate first, in order to find evidence of a crime?



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

FAIL!!!!

LOL! A wise individual recognizes their loss and failures and moves on.... what does that say about the person who doubles down and attempts to rationalize their failure while standing pat?



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think many people cannot understand how the system is supposed to work.

There is supposed to be evidence of a crime FIRST, then an investigation.

It's 1984 otherwise.



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: toolgal462

Gee and here I thought that the reason you have an investigation was to determine what the evidence was. My bad I guess.
But let's see what might have given them cause to investigate.
How many around trump lied about meetings withrussians?
How many times did the story about the trump tower change?
At least a few that had flocked into trumps orbit were known to have been working on the behalf of Russia or other counties in the past and were known by the intelligence groups
Russia was reaching out to members of his team

Trump Jr appears to have been willing to accept their help
His kids has bragged in the past about how much money was flowing in from russia
A bank that was linked to laundering Russian money was more than willing to loan him a huge amount when no American bank would. Even when he refused to pay them on previous loans and threaten to sue them



I could go on But won't. And I'll admit that there probably was some stuff coming out that turned out not to be true. But there was enough to justify investigating it.
An oh I am gonna bring up one more concerning manifort. In the court papers somewhere it state's that he lied about meeting some Russian and handing them polling data. This might have been from one of the instances where his defense didn't correctly redact something. But I kind of are there posibilities here.
There was one claim that the govt made but then corrected. Maybe it was this.
He lied by telling a story
Or he lied when he denied the story.
And I do see any of them as being possible. But the last one I mentioned. Sorry but that would have fallen into the colluding. At least in My book it would.


Wow, just....wow. I have no words.

If you think that the point of an investigation being opened is to find evidence of a crime, then I pity your life. That is so wrong on so many levels....again, no words can justify my disbelief that in the 21st Century someone can actually think this way.

Back in the 16th Century, all over New England they thought that way too. Accuse someone, then investigate looking for evidence of a crime. It was called a witch trial. It required no hard evidence to investigate someone, none. How did that turn out? Is it viewed by history as a glorious era in justice?

No, it is regarded as the most despicable method of applying any sort of justice that it requires one to prove their innocence, after an accusation of guilt. That is 180 degrees opposite of how our justice system, 500 years later, is supposed to espouse.




edit on 3/26/2019 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Right now I see a lot of chicken counting when the shells on the eggs are still intact.


Confucius say:

"when ordering an omelet, always ask if the eggs are all from the same hen" 😎



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

The hacking of the dnc was a crime. Obtaining assistance from a foreign govt to win an election is a crime. Especially if one is hoping that assistance will include info illegally obtained by hacking a computer!



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Yesterday Sarah Sanders said treason is punishable by death.

Today Kellyanne Conway "hinted" how ironic it would be if the collusion was shown to be by Democrats.

Think people think 😎



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: toolgal462

The hacking of the dnc was a crime. Obtaining assistance from a foreign govt to win an election is a crime. Especially if one is hoping that assistance will include info illegally obtained by hacking a computer!


The Barr Letter was referring to John Podesta not the DNC server.

The FBI never got psychical "possession" of the DNC systems 😎



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: toolgal462

The hacking of the dnc was a crime. Obtaining assistance from a foreign govt to win an election is a crime. Especially if one is hoping that assistance will include info illegally obtained by hacking a computer!


And where is or was the evidence that Trump or anyone on his campaign staff did those things?
Remember, the evidence is supposed to come BEFORE the investigation.

And in this case it didn't. Yet STILL there is no evidence of the crimes you mention.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? This is frightening. And I KNOW so many in our country don't get it either.



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Yesterday Sarah Sanders said treason is punishable by death.

Today Kellyanne Conway "hinted" how ironic it would be if the collusion was shown to be by Democrats.

Think people think 😎



At this point, I could support a Night of the Long Knives and Reichstag fire directed specifically against those who spread the false narratives that lead us to this point. Just do both at the base of the Tree of Liberty to ensure it is well fertilized in the process...



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Trump didn't call it a "witch hunt" for no reason!



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

The president hints this afternoon that Obama himself is a traitor.

mobile.twitter.com...



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: toolgal462

The president hints this afternoon that Obama himself is a traitor.

mobile.twitter.com...


I'm thinking things are now going to get interesting...And I can't wait.



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So. The server was never hack? And no evidence was found that it was Russia that did the hacking? Then maybe neither of us should be putting any stock into anything within the Mueller report because there is court papers filed that goes into detail on that one. Maybe we are just misunderstanding each other here. I am saying that there was enough circumstantial evidence to justify investigating it. Now of you all want to continue down this happy road. Well you need to have a talk with a few innocent people who have had their door busted down and their home ransacked, furniture shredded based on the word of one person that there was drugs.



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The FBI never took possession of the DNC server systems.

What do you learn from that boondoggle? 😎




posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

That the rich and powerful get to keep their crap while my son is still waiting years later for the stolen computer that had been held as evidence for years to be returned to him??



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Link

I cannot wait till there is no one to protect these guys anymore.



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

www.npr.org...

www.sfgate.com...

yes, because having just these media outlets available would be so much better!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Then he should be charged and prosecuted. In America we investigate crimes, not people in the hopes of finding a crime.


What is the point of investigation if we already know a crime has been committed and who the guilty party is?

The rule is 'innocent until proven guilty', and that determination of guilt happens in a court of law, and well after the investigation.

An investigation does not equal guilt, just like an allegation does not equal guilt.


The point of investigation is to make a provable court case.

You investigate the crime. That is not what happened here. Here they found dog crap on the sidewalk, then attributed to Trump, even though he had never been in that part of town.


The number of convicted felons he brought with him says otherwise.

... and he had allegations directly against him that needed to be resolved.


Good God man!

If we took that attitude NO ONE would EVER qualify. My how do you get this far up there?


Well, where do we draw the line. Do we excuse someone of crimes just because they have a rank or status of some sort?

Or do we apply the law equally for all people?

That is not saying that Trump is guilty of crimes. He may be innocent beyond reproach. But we could never know without some sort of investigation into those who hold power.

Investigation to establish an absence of criminality should be mandatory for those who could potentially bankrupt a country, be corrupt and self acquisitive, or start a war.


Good question on equally applying the law because Hilldog got several Comey, DOJ "passes on her charges". With special exceptions never before recorded happening just for her and her minions.


Possibly.

But can you trust the source of those allegations more than you trust the courts?


What courts?


The Clinton servers & FBI investigation were turned over to the US Department of Justice, which is distinct from the Judicial arm of the US Government, and is classified under the Executive Branch.

However, the DOJ runs the Federal Courts and normal procedure is to make determinations based upon court rulings. There is no legal precedent for someone in either the Judicial Branch or DOJ to simply declare that someone is guilty and convict on that basis. Such decisions are made in a court of law, pursuant to strict guidelines.

Similarly, the group 'Judicial Watch' pursued prosecution of Clinton quite heavily through the courts.

As support of my assertion, please consider this headline: Shutdown slows court-ordered inquiry into Clinton email setup - Politico




top topics



 
112
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join