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.

 

The Mueller Report Reviewed by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal
This is a very quick video. However, it does a good job overviewing the findings of the Mueller Report. Not the lies that Bill Barr spread. Not Bill Barr's interpretation of the law. The actual report itself.

Link

You have to ask yourself, are you an American or are you Trump's dog?


When you can’t explain it yourself, look for someone who tells you what you want to hear and get in line behind them. Pure confirmation bias. You’ve found your alpha. What does that make you?


Have you read the report or have you just listened to the news? You see I have read the report, three times so far. I provide the video because for some reason unless it comes from Fox News people on the right wing have this odd habit of screaming "Fake News" at the top of their lungs while sticking their heads in the dirt.

If you have read the report this should be super simple to answer. Who was the first member of the Trump campaign to learn that Russia had Clinton's emails and wanted to give them to the campaign?


Then you know the conclusion of the investigation.


So you accuse me of not understanding the report when you yourself haven't read it? I will give you one more chance to think for yourself. What do you think the conclusion of the Mueller report was?

Does he give the actual conclusion or does he just regurgitate what the right-wing media is purporting to be the truth?

I'm pulling for you.


We’ve read the same report. We both know the conclusion. And we both know you guys have been peddling conspiracy theory for years.


Twice I have asked you questions. Twice you have failed to answer. You will receive no further responses from me until you can prove your knowledge on this subject instead of attempting to appear aloof and educated.

You think you are intelligent but in fact, all you have is what you have heard on Hannity or Rush. I gave you the opportunity to prove you weren't just a fraud, but you failed, twice.




posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal


Also, Mueller made it clear that if he could have exonerated Trump on obstruction he would have done that. But guess what? He didn't.


So what? It's never a prosecutor's or investigator's job to exonerate people. That's not how the legal system works.

If after two years you don't have a preponderance of evidence ( "more likely than not") that a crime occurred, you cannot indict anyone. The OLC argument doesn't enter it. "I'm not confident he's innocent" is not a legal threshold in the United States.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal
This is a very quick video. However, it does a good job overviewing the findings of the Mueller Report. Not the lies that Bill Barr spread. Not Bill Barr's interpretation of the law. The actual report itself.

Link

You have to ask yourself, are you an American or are you Trump's dog?


When you can’t explain it yourself, look for someone who tells you what you want to hear and get in line behind them. Pure confirmation bias. You’ve found your alpha. What does that make you?


Have you read the report or have you just listened to the news? You see I have read the report, three times so far. I provide the video because for some reason unless it comes from Fox News people on the right wing have this odd habit of screaming "Fake News" at the top of their lungs while sticking their heads in the dirt.

If you have read the report this should be super simple to answer. Who was the first member of the Trump campaign to learn that Russia had Clinton's emails and wanted to give them to the campaign?


Then you know the conclusion of the investigation.


So you accuse me of not understanding the report when you yourself haven't read it? I will give you one more chance to think for yourself. What do you think the conclusion of the Mueller report was?

Does he give the actual conclusion or does he just regurgitate what the right-wing media is purporting to be the truth?

I'm pulling for you.


We’ve read the same report. We both know the conclusion. And we both know you guys have been peddling conspiracy theory for years.


Twice I have asked you questions. Twice you have failed to answer. You will receive no further responses from me until you can prove your knowledge on this subject instead of attempting to appear aloof and educated.

You think you are intelligent but in fact, all you have is what you have heard on Hannity or Rush. I gave you the opportunity to prove you weren't just a fraud, but you failed, twice.


I know you cannot name one sustained charge regarding the conspiracy theories you’ve been peddling for years. It was all lies, fake, phoney, snake oil. You bought it, it resulted in the biggest failed investigation in modern history, now you’re trying to get other to take it off your hands. You’re on your own, truther.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Hillary needs to get a lawyer, and Barack Obama needs to get a lawyer, and a new pillow.




posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: BlackJackal




 This report lays out a case against Trump that has ample evidence to bring a case against him for obstruction of justice. However, since he is the president the DOJ has a policy which prevents the DOJ from indicting him. 


It doesn't say that. Nowhere does it say, "we conclude the President clearly committed a crime, but we are unable to indict because of the OLC's policy on presidential indictments"

In fact it goes as far to say, "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".


You're being led by the nose. The same people publicly screaming for impeachment are now having private meanings trying to reign in the public impeachment talk. At the same time they get in front of cameras telling you he's clearly guilty and the report "really" says so, they are not following up on impeachment. That make any sense to you? If after two years of "Mueller is closing in. Putin puppet!" the report says, "we cannot conclude the President committed a crime", and they are still telling you what to believe. And aren't actually moving to impeach.

Trump's superpower really is making people stupid.


Hmmm. Apparently, your reading comprehension skills are a little rusty. You accused me of saying the following:


It doesn't say that. Nowhere does it say, "we conclude the President clearly committed a crime, but we are unable to indict because of the OLC's policy on presidential indictments"


When in actuality I didn't say that, I said:


This report lays out a case against Trump that has ample evidence to bring a case against him for obstruction of justice. However, since he is the president the DOJ has a policy which prevents the DOJ from indicting him. 


I did not say Mueller said he was guilty. I said Mueller laid out a case of obstruction of justice with enough evidence to bring a case against Trump that prosecutors from both sides of the aisle agree is enough to bring to trial.[1] Members of the Mueller team have stated anonymously that the reason they didn't bring charges was due to the DOJ policy and the fact that Barr would probably block it.

The Democrats don't have a damn back bone. They are afraid that if they bring impeachment articles, what happened to the Republicans in the 90's will happen to them. So instead of doing their constitutional duty and impeaching a president who is accused of the same crime Clinton was in the 90's (obstruction) they are shirking their duty. If everything was the same and the only difference was a Democratic president with a Republican house, you can bet your ass impeachment would already be started.

While I don't agree with Republicans on much of their policies, I do respect their willingness to take risks and to stand up for what they believe.

[1] Did Trump Obstruct Justice? Mueller Didn’t Say, but Left a Trail to the Answer



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal
This is a very quick video. However, it does a good job overviewing the findings of the Mueller Report. Not the lies that Bill Barr spread. Not Bill Barr's interpretation of the law. The actual report itself.

Link

You have to ask yourself, are you an American or are you Trump's dog?


When you can’t explain it yourself, look for someone who tells you what you want to hear and get in line behind them. Pure confirmation bias. You’ve found your alpha. What does that make you?


Have you read the report or have you just listened to the news? You see I have read the report, three times so far. I provide the video because for some reason unless it comes from Fox News people on the right wing have this odd habit of screaming "Fake News" at the top of their lungs while sticking their heads in the dirt.

If you have read the report this should be super simple to answer. Who was the first member of the Trump campaign to learn that Russia had Clinton's emails and wanted to give them to the campaign?


Then you know the conclusion of the investigation.


So you accuse me of not understanding the report when you yourself haven't read it? I will give you one more chance to think for yourself. What do you think the conclusion of the Mueller report was?

Does he give the actual conclusion or does he just regurgitate what the right-wing media is purporting to be the truth?

I'm pulling for you.


We’ve read the same report. We both know the conclusion. And we both know you guys have been peddling conspiracy theory for years.


Twice I have asked you questions. Twice you have failed to answer. You will receive no further responses from me until you can prove your knowledge on this subject instead of attempting to appear aloof and educated.

You think you are intelligent but in fact, all you have is what you have heard on Hannity or Rush. I gave you the opportunity to prove you weren't just a fraud, but you failed, twice.


I know you cannot name one sustained charge regarding the conspiracy theories you’ve been peddling for years. It was all lies, fake, phoney, snake oil. You bought it, it resulted in the biggest failed investigation in modern history, now you’re trying to get other to take it off your hands. You’re on your own, truther.


Awwww are you sad? Did I make your feelings hurt?

The only things I have posted on this board were well-sourced stories. Since you have accused me of peddling conspiracy theories, why don't you post one of my conspiracy theories? Since you are accusing me of posting conspiracy theories surely you can at least link one.

Right? Or are you just posting # because you don't have anything else to say?



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: BlackJackal


Also, Mueller made it clear that if he could have exonerated Trump on obstruction he would have done that. But guess what? He didn't.


So what? It's never a prosecutor's or investigator's job to exonerate people. That's not how the legal system works.

If after two years you don't have a preponderance of evidence ( "more likely than not") that a crime occurred, you cannot indict anyone. The OLC argument doesn't enter it. "I'm not confident he's innocent" is not a legal threshold in the United States.


For the third time, this is not a "normal" legal case. There is very little in common between a special counsel investigation and a "normal" legal case. Surely you know that? Right?

What I am saying is that Mueller supplied more than enough evidence to bring Trump to trial, aka impeachment.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

So now that we busted the "Mueller outlined a crime "- narrative by actually reading the report itself (which you uncomprehendingly quoted yourself), you're back to showing me a reporter who wants to tell me what the fact they could "not conclude the President committed a crime" really means...

I'm going to go with the Mueller team's plain English assessment if it's all the same to you.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: BlackJackal


Also, Mueller made it clear that if he could have exonerated Trump on obstruction he would have done that. But guess what? He didn't.


So what? It's never a prosecutor's or investigator's job to exonerate people. That's not how the legal system works.

If after two years you don't have a preponderance of evidence ( "more likely than not") that a crime occurred, you cannot indict anyone. The OLC argument doesn't enter it. "I'm not confident he's innocent" is not a legal threshold in the United States.

What I am saying is that Mueller supplied more than enough evidence to bring Trump to trial, aka impeachment.


As long as Republicans don't see it that way, all impeachment discussions are a waste of time. Not gonna happen.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

It's exactly the same as a "normal" legal case. It simply removes prosecutorial decision-making from the administration. That's the purpose of a special counsel.
The special counsel doesn't have a lower evidentiary bar to clear than "preponderance of evidence". We don't initiate legal satisfaction based on "suspicion." Mueller has what is termed in law "reasonable suspicion ". It means nothing if that is all you have after two years of investigation by a team of investigators and prosecutors.


You're not held in jail until you can prove your innocence in this country or until prosecutors are confident you are innocent. The only thing that matters is the evidentiary thresholds.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: BlackJackal

So now that we busted the "Mueller outlined a crime "- narrative by actually reading the report itself (which you uncomprehendingly quoted yourself), you're back to showing me a reporter who wants to tell me what the fact they could "not conclude the President committed a crime" really means...

I'm going to go with the Mueller team's plain English assessment if it's all the same to you.


You busted the "Mueller outlined a crime"? You did? Wow... Good for you. Here's a gold star. You should be proud of yourself.

Especially considering I never once said those words. I was quite clear, Mueller outlined the evidence for 11 counts of obstruction of justice against Trump. Lawyers from both sides of the aisle agree that the evidence is more than enough to bring charges. Since Mueller cannot indict a sitting president, the only people who can 'indict' him is Congress through impeachment. This is what I said. But since you can't argue with that you choose to create a strawman and claim victory when you defeat an argument you created yourself.

I swear you trumpers have lost all capacity to think for yourself. About once a week there is a thread about Hillary's emails and you all work yourselves into a lather thinking about taking her down. Her emails, Benghazi, etc those things were investigated multiple times and multiple times nothing was found. However, you stay at it.

Now, the Mueller report outlines literal reams of evidence pointing toward 11 counts of obstruction and what do you do? You stick your head up your ass and try to act like it doesn't exist. Why? Because Barr told you there was no obstruction? Because Trump told you there was no obstruction (like he said there would be a middle-class tax break)?

No, you are blinded by your inability to admit you are fallible. You can't possibly be wrong. There is no way you choose to double, triple and quadruple down on this guy and be wrong. But, you are. Mark my words. If you live long enough, one day you will look back at your blind loyalty to Trump and realize he didn't deserve it. You will realize that you were being lied to and you let it happen because it felt comfortable. It was what you were used to, you didn't want to change.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: BlackJackal

It's exactly the same as a "normal" legal case. It simply removes prosecutorial decision-making from the administration. That's the purpose of a special counsel.
The special counsel doesn't have a lower evidentiary bar to clear than "preponderance of evidence". We don't initiate legal satisfaction based on "suspicion." Mueller has what is termed in law "reasonable suspicion ". It means nothing if that is all you have after two years of investigation by a team of investigators and prosecutors.


You're not held in jail until you can prove your innocence in this country or until prosecutors are confident you are innocent. The only thing that matters is the evidentiary thresholds.


You are obviously not a lawyer, if you were you wouldn't say something stupid like this. If this is a "normal" case why does the DOJ not allow any prosecutor to indict the suspect?

If you want to continue having a conversation, quit talking out of your ass. Is it really worth that much to you to 'win' an internet argument that you have to make # up? That's pretty sad.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
Her emails, Benghazi, etc those things were investigated multiple times and multiple times nothing was found.

Absolutely false. They found a crime was committed but since she didn't "intend" to commit the crime they didn't bring charges, even though intent has nothing to do with compromising national security.


No, you are blinded by your inability to admit you are fallible. You can't possibly be wrong. There is no way you choose to double, triple and quadruple down on this guy and be wrong. But, you are. Mark my words. If you live long enough, one day you will look back at your blind loyalty to Trump and realize he didn't deserve it. You will realize that you were being lied to and you let it happen because it felt comfortable. It was what you were used to, you didn't want to change.


Do you not see the irony of that statement, considering everything Trump has been going through for the last 2 years? You feel you can't possibly be wrong because Orange man bad. You, and every other American, has been lied to by the MSM and some are letting it happen because it feels comfortable.

I'll post it again since you seem to have missed it. Wiki

The impeached official remains in office until a trial is held. That trial, and their removal from office if convicted, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.

edit on 4/25/19 by thov420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   
He has evidence that is ambiguous because it also has alternative, legal and innocent, explanations. He even takes the time to list some of them.

It is not true that he has no evidence. But he does not have a preponderance of evidence of a crime which is why he literally says "we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. These evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment... Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

So he has some ambiguous evidence and he's not convinced Trump is innocent. Again, so what?

"Not convinced you are innocent" and "have some evidence" is not a recognized legal threshold. And it never will be.

Does that mean Trump is innocent? No. Can a reasonable person still suspect he committed a crime? Yep Does that make the WH take of "total exoneration" true? Nope. Does that meet the standard of "preponderance of evidence" for indictment? Not even close.

And that is still the legal standard for indictment in this country, whether it is congressional impeachment or John Q Public being indicted. He does not say, we have a preponderance of evidence of a crime, but cannot indict. He says they do not "conclude the President committed a crime".
edit on 25-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: BlackJackal

It's exactly the same as a "normal" legal case. It simply removes prosecutorial decision-making from the administration. That's the purpose of a special counsel.
The special counsel doesn't have a lower evidentiary bar to clear than "preponderance of evidence". We don't initiate legal satisfaction based on "suspicion." Mueller has what is termed in law "reasonable suspicion ". It means nothing if that is all you have after two years of investigation by a team of investigators and prosecutors.


You're not held in jail until you can prove your innocence in this country or until prosecutors are confident you are innocent. The only thing that matters is the evidentiary thresholds.


You are obviously not a lawyer, if you were you wouldn't say something stupid like this. If this is a "normal" case why does the DOJ not allow any prosecutor to indict the suspect?


The special counsel did indict people...

In the case of the President, Mueller could have concluded a crime was committed, but did not. That is actually the reason for a special counsel. To take the decision-making power away from the DOJ. Barr has to inform Congress of the SC's conclusions. If Barr disagreed he would have to inform Congress of Mueller's conclusion and his dissent. That's the law regarding Special Counsels. You're free to read it...

Instead he chose not to conclude a crime was committed because of "difficulties" raised by the ambiguous evidence.

If you don't see the difference, I'm sorry.
edit on 25-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

The impeachable evidence must meet certain criteria for Congress to take up this most serious of hearings.

Pelosi says they don't have enough evidence.

However, Trump is trying to help Nancy get onboard with impeachment proceedings, by refusing to honor any subpoena requests from Nadler and Cummings.

The President and most savvy Republicans would LOVE for Democrats to use the next 18 months attempting to impeach one of America's most accomplished Presidents.


edit on 4/25/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Technically, they can vote to impeach at anytime for seemingly any reason unless the Supreme Court finally involves itself in what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. That would be a pointless and transparent abuse of power, so I don't think it's going to happen. That's why they are walking back all the impeachment talk. They know Mueller would be called in the Senate and someone will ask him: "did your investigation conclude a crime was committed?" And Mueller will answer " no", and the gig would be up. The entire game hss been smear by innuendo.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Nadler said he wants Mueller to testify not later than May 23rd.
www.politico.com...

Barr testifies next Wednesday (10am EDT) before the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Lindsey Graham.
thehill.com...
edit on 4/25/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 02:07 AM
link   
L


O


L



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

This bloke Muller, would he by any chance be the son of Hindrick Muller the main man in the Gestpo by any chance? Was he a paperclip child.

Gumshoe News

You will need to go the page a bit to see the photo.
edit on 25-4-2019 by Azureblue because: (no reason given)


edit on 25-4-2019 by Azureblue because: added detail

edit on 25-4-2019 by Azureblue because: added detail

edit on 25-4-2019 by Azureblue because: added detail



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join