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: 53
112
<< 50  51  52    54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Star singer Cher has some wisdom to "share" ..............😆😆


Her Tweeting Wisdom

Cher

Verified account

@cher

Robert Mueller Is 🇺🇸Hero.
I🙏🏻HE RESIGNS IN PROTEST, BECAUSE OF WAY trump’s Holding On 2 His Report,By His Grotesque Teeth‼️trumps,An Odious,Loathsome,Disgusting Repulsive Excuse 4 a Man.He’s a CHEAP CON MAN,WHO’S IN♥️WITH A N.KOREAN DICTATOR🙄,&💋💋💋THE ASSES OF 3 MORE

1:05 AM - 29 Mar 2019




posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Correction, they weren't prosecuting Trump for anything. The decision was not to prosecute, which is the result of Mueller's 18 month long investigation... not to mention the year-long FBI operation (Crossfire Hurricane) , 2 Congressional investigations and thousands of Internet pundits

This was an investigation - which yielded no chargeable offenses (ie: not guilty of any crime) - and in any case the "collusion" BS was pushed by *your side* 24/7. We continually told you it was not any sort of "collusion" (but it was "conspiracy") and regardless zero evidence supporting that belief has been found.

In fact, not a single American was charged with any sort of "collusion" or conspiracy. By nature, there is no obstruction either sense a degree of guilty intent is generally required to establish obstruction especially when those actions constitution lawful Constitutional exercises of authority

Face it, your narrative is blown. Dance around it all you want



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: chr0naut

When did they prosecute Trump? You seem to have many of these legal words mixed up


Umm, precisely.

No one was prosecuting Trump and yet he was tweeting back "NO COLLUSION", as if that even existed as a federal crime.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Even though AG Barr says the full Mueller report will be made available to all parties..including the public, ON or BEFORE April 15th, that is unacceptable to Jerrold "azzhole" Nadler. He still wants it on his desk...unredacted, by April 2nd, or else!


Nadler is Nuts: www.pbs.org...



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: chr0naut

When did they prosecute Trump? You seem to have many of these legal words mixed up


Umm, precisely.

No one was prosecuting Trump and yet he was tweeting back "NO COLLUSION", as if that even existed as a federal crime.


Precisely my arse! You said the man wasn't "being prosecuted for jay walking" and you confused the word "prosecuted" with "investigated".

And the entire Democrat party platform was that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and don't try and deny it now that you look foolish.

You can admit you were "played" for a fool and you will get respect for that. Or continue to double down on stupid if you want. The choice is yours.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: chr0naut

Correction, they weren't prosecuting Trump for anything. The decision was not to prosecute, which is the result of Mueller's 18 month long investigation... not to mention the year-long FBI operation (Crossfire Hurricane) , 2 Congressional investigations and thousands of Internet pundits

This was an investigation - which yielded no chargeable offenses (ie: not guilty of any crime) - and in any case the "collusion" BS was pushed by *your side* 24/7. We continually told you it was not any sort of "collusion" (but it was "conspiracy") and regardless zero evidence supporting that belief has been found.

In fact, not a single American was charged with any sort of "collusion" or conspiracy. By nature, there is no obstruction either sense a degree of guilty intent is generally required to establish obstruction especially when those actions constitution lawful Constitutional exercises of authority

Face it, your narrative is blown. Dance around it all you want


My side?

I'm not pro Democrat, pro Republican or anything that an American citizen is likely to be.

Nor am I particularly right or left wing. I'm fairly centrist.

I am merely commenting, as someone from outside of the US political system.

You guys, left and right, are going all "reeeeeee" over a crime that doesn't exist.


edit on 29/3/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

In any case, given the dozens of Dems working on the Special Council's investigation... if Barr's summary wasn't factual (ie: Mueller's conclusions) Mueller or any single member of his team would be screaming to high heaven. At a bare minimum, there would have been leaks to the media/congress

We've had none of that. If you were truly non-partisan, you would accept the results of the Special Council's investigation along with the results of numerous other investigations that have all concluded Trump nor any American broke any US law during the 2016 election

Good God.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Laura Jarrett (daughter of Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett) is a "journalist" at CNN. She's the perfect example of the low talent this terrorist organization hires:

"William Barr is a Trump stooge. He will take out of the Mueller report anything that is unfavorable to his boss!"

She's too stupid to remember what Barr said 3 hours ago... That he, Rod Rosenstein, and Bob Mueller, are working together to make the 400 page Mueller report ready for release ASAP.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

You've got that right. #1 Trump Hater / #1 Mueller Prosecutor ANDREW WEISSMANN would be the first to run to CNN and say, "Barr is lying! Just wait until you see the full report!!"



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: chr0naut

When did they prosecute Trump? You seem to have many of these legal words mixed up


Umm, precisely.

No one was prosecuting Trump and yet he was tweeting back "NO COLLUSION", as if that even existed as a federal crime.


Precisely my arse! You said the man wasn't "being prosecuted for jay walking" and you confused the word "prosecuted" with "investigated".

And the entire Democrat party platform was that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and don't try and deny it now that you look foolish.

You can admit you were "played" for a fool and you will get respect for that. Or continue to double down on stupid if you want. The choice is yours.


No confusion.

That is the way 'negatives' work in language. It means exactly what it says and does not imply, even in the slightest, that he was instead being investigated for the same charge.

If you want, Trump wasn't being investigated for jay walking, just as he wasn't being investigated for collusion. That is because collusion is not a crime and so, if he were found to have colluded, there could be no prosecution because you can't prosecute a crime that doesn't exist.

I believe that the first mention of "collusion" was Trump's at two separate rallies in 2016 where he accused accused Cruz and Kasich of 'collusion', anyway, which makes it his narrative, as he is the one who proposed it. There were also his now famous "NO COLLUSION" tweets from December 2018.

What I am trying to say is that no-one was either investigating or prosecuting Trump for collusion with anyone because it isn't a federal crime. It is, a totally trumped-up charge.




posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller didn't find any evidence Trump or any American had committed a crime in relation to the 2016 election and the Russians. Further, the decision not to prosecute was *not* based on issues of the DOJ's stance the sitting POTUS can't be indicted

Any more theories we can help debunk?

Edit... I agree, "collusion" is not a crime but conspiracy is. No evidence was found of any sort of crime, otherwise the decision not to prosecute *would* have been based on the DOJ policy which states a sitting POTUS can't be indicted. But it explicitly was not a factor in the decision not to prosecute.

What the left is doing is not healthy - for themselves or this nation. They have already divided it to a breaking point with their BS partisan witch hunt investigation of a non-existent crime. They continue to divide it by pushing this discredited, debunked narrative full of leftist talking points but light on evidence. All fluff no meat
edit on 3/29/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: chr0naut

In any case, given the dozens of Dems working on the Special Council's investigation... if Barr's summary wasn't factual (ie: Mueller's conclusions) Mueller or any single member of his team would be screaming to high heaven. At a bare minimum, there would have been leaks to the media/congress

We've had none of that. If you were truly non-partisan, you would accept the results of the Special Council's investigation along with the results of numerous other investigations that have all concluded Trump nor any American broke any US law during the 2016 election

Good God.


I will accept Mueller's findings, when I know what they are.

However, I can be fairly sure they will not address any sort of 'collusion' because that is the wrong word to use, in a legal sense - It isn't a federal crime.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

No doubt about it


Even if he couldn't get his hand on the report, Weisman or one of his ilk would have been under Schiff's desk faster than you can say the word "collusion" as breathlessly as possible



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Obviously it is not the right word to use. Never stopped thousands of Dems and a handful of RINOs from doing it breathlessly over the last 2 years. We've tried to correct them 100,000 times that it is "conspiracy" not any sort of non-existent crime "collusion"

The word "collusion" was in Barr's summary merely to refute the mass media invented narrative of "collusion with Russia" - it seems the average person doesn't understand what a conspiracy is.

I apologize to some degree to you because it is obvious what you are saying is essentially what I am saying

The difference is you don't trust Barr's summary, is that about the gist of it? We do agree "collusion" is actually either "conspiracy" or "conspiracy to defraud the United States"?
edit on 3/29/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: chr0naut

Obviously it is not the right word to use. Never stopped thousands of Dems and a handful of RINOs from doing it breathlessly over the last 2 years. We've tried to correct them 100,000 times that it is "conspiracy" not any sort of non-existent crime "collusion"

The word "collusion" was in Barr's summary merely to refute the mass media invented narrative of "collusion with Russia" - it seems the average person doesn't understand what a conspiracy is.

I apologize to some degree to you because it is obvious what you are saying is essentially what I am saying

The difference is you don't trust Barr's summary, is that about the gist of it? We do agree "collusion" is actually either "conspiracy" or "conspiracy to defraud the United States"?


While I do think it likely that the Trump campaign tried to gain advantage over the Hillary campaign and individuals may have tended towards the dark side, I don't think that the intention was ever to be traitorous to the US - it was just playing hard ball for big stakes.

I also would think that Trump would have distanced himself from any of this, even if he had known it was going on, at an early stage. He is smart enough to have seen he would need to maintain reasonable deniability (if he had known about it).

That being said, the Mueller investigations were warranted in that they caught some bad guys and may have even broken even fiscally (we'll only know when final budgets are submitted and if they are made public).

Were they a witch hunt? I've got no way of knowing. It seems to me that Mueller stuck to his brief but that the press went crazy with hyperbole. Most of the big US news agencies, to me, an outsider, carry a tiny snippet of actual news and then spend weeks discussing and speculating. Not exactly fake news but it leads that way.

Anyway, Trump brought the troops back, when Obama didn't. That's one thing I applaud.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

The (mockingbird) media does not like to use the word, "conspiracy," because of the many years of negative connotation they've been developing behind it so that they can use the term, "conspiracy theorist," in a derogatory manner. If they gave legitimacy to the notion of, "conspiracy," they'd lose one of the largest weapons in their arsenal when discussing people who don't buy into their proffered narrative.

Regardless, out of all of the indictments to come out of the Mueller probe, they're either simple process crimes, or against people who won't ever set foot in the country, nor are we likely to try and force any sort of extradition of them.

Two years and millions of dollars flushed like so much toilet paper.

Oh, but Trump's opponents just know there has to be something somewhere they can use as a millstone around president Trump's neck so they can toss him into the deeps once and for all.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Meanwhile in actual news:

LAWSUIT SEEKS DOCUMENTS POTENTIALLY SHOWING FBI IGNORED INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IG EVIDENCE THAT CHINESE HACKED CLINTON’S SERVER

I followed the links in the article too and found them not only interesting but making a damn good case. There's more on this than I realized. Hillary got us Shanghied, DiFi the Chinese spy employer provided cover too.

The IG tried to get the truth out. Check out the links in the above article on his experience in this aspect.

And news flash y'all: Russia is no existential threat to us by themselves. China on the other hand is and they're getting cocky--and smart--about it.

Please all you RUSSIA!! folk, educate yourself on the China threat. It's real. And maybe you'll also come to realize that finding and working together in some common interest areas with Russia could be useful. Globalist Deep State hates that crap. They love 'em some China though. Just ask the CFR.
edit on 29-3-2019 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I respect that. Now help get the word out about China. It's crazy how it's been ignored. And I'm not even talking about whether my linked article proves true or not as I know you aware.

That chip business by itself most likely got them everything pretty much.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Democrats are now calling AG Barr a Russian Agent 😆




posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

People need to take a step back and say why are all these celebrities so eager to bring Trump down, they stand to lose half their fan base, anyone would think it's because the big orange man is gonna tell the public their horrible little secrets.
Hollyweird is a secret society in itself, and the things they are guilty of would see the public bring back medieval punishment.



new topics

top topics



 
112
<< 50  51  52    54  55 >>

log in

join