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 contradicts self in smearing Trump publicly

page: 4
60
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: AboveBoard

Please

All of the Russian interference was under Obama. He told his team to stand down in dealing with it

Then his intel community took dirt from kremlin agents that was a lie and used it to spy on people connected to trumps campaign

But you keep that dream alive that trump or his team illegally conspired with Russians if it helps you feel better


His campaign manager via Gates sent polling data to Russians. But you’re right. Nothing to see here.

Bloomberg- polling data

As to it happening during Obama’s term, okay, we were just learning about it then. The intelligence was just becoming clear right before the election. Obama didn’t benefit from Russian interference in any way. McConnel suppressed it. Obama could have been more forceful in telling the people about it, but McConnel would have pretended it was all lies.

Did Trump obstruct Justice? If he wasn’t the President, then he’d already be indicted. According the report, anyway.




No, he wouldn't be indicted....

Lol

As far as it was no big deal it started under Obama as you claim....

Lol

Obama said " I told Russia to knock it off"...

Lol

Yall thought that was good enough back then and said that it would be foolish to question the results of an election....


Lol

3 years later......
You people are something......


Lol




posted on May, 1 2019 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

You believe Trump

Lol



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

So far all the evidence points in his favor.

If this were otherwise we'd know.



posted on May, 1 2019 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: AboveBoard

No, the reason we can't discuss things anymore is because the left is incapable of rational argument and admitting when they're wrong. Like your post I'm responding to. Rather than rebutting the actual information presented, you respond with the equivalent of nuh-uh.

Where am I wrong? If you look through my post history you'll find MANY line by line or concept by concept rebuttals of similar lists posted by the left. So don't try to tell me it's too much. I find the time and put in the effort, you can do the same.


It’s very soothing to think that isn’t it?

It’s “the left” you say...

In my world, it’s generally “the right” that is doubling down and won’t admit to being wrong.

And no, you don’t get to tell me what to do or chastise me for not wanting to go through, pint by point, how wrong the “Trump and his Campaign and Administration are innocent, and so are his companies” thought structure of the right.

I would be far more open to discussing things if we had the same facts and could agree that they were facts. We don’t, so it’s pointless to engage further. We’ve moved far beyond having differing opinions regarding a set of facts, to not having the same “facts” to begin with. We are stuck calling each other’s “facts” as being disinformation. Obviously I’m adding myself to that equation.


So here we are.

I don’t want to waste anyone’s time here anymore, nor my own.

Peace. I hope that somehow bridges of reality can be built. It may happen someday but it’s not time yet. This is the part of the story where, in the earlier version, Nixon’s faithful supporters did not believe he’d done anything wrong. Trump has Fox State TV and the media has been effectively neutralized by rhetoric so Trump May yet keep the wool pulled over his supporters eyes longer than Nixon managed.

Bottom line? I pray that our country and our Constitution survives the Trump presidency. I pray we get to a point where facts are generally the same for everyone, and the media is held to the highest standards of truth-telling. Wouldn’t that be great?






posted on May, 1 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: AboveBoard

So far all the evidence points in his favor.

If this were otherwise we'd know.


Ah. But would you?

I’m not so sure. I think you would be told a narrative that says he’s innocent of everything and it was all a hoax and a partisan attack. Would I be right in that assessment?

That’s not really what the Mueller report says. And no, I don’t trust Barr further than I can throw him.

Anyway...






posted on May, 1 2019 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

Bottom line? I pray that our country and our Constitution survives the Trump presidency. I pray we get to a point where facts are generally the same for everyone, and the media is held to the highest standards of truth-telling. Wouldn’t that be great?



Be glad Hillary didn't get elected President.

By now, the Constitution would be pitted and pocked and the Cabinet would be a Brownshirt subclave.

The proof is in all the now known facts about the zer0Bama Adminiztrazion and how it operated 😎





posted on May, 1 2019 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

That polling data was in the public domain when he shared it ..



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Annnd another example of alternative facts/reality as per usual. Radical Right chants of “Obama and Clinton are evil and the cause of all bad stuff” are like a nice comfy security blanket to hide behind - the blanket is also BS, the wool over the eyes.

To be clear, Trump is very bad, but so are most of the GOP in office. They are complicit with Trump’s corruption. There are also issues with some Democrats - but they are demonized beyond recognition by the right. And yes, I’m well aware that you see the opposite. That’s just the kind of fun house mirror our world has become.

If Obama behaved like Trump, he would already have been impeached by the Right. Lindsey Graham would be screaming about “the dignity of the office.” And if Obama we’re acting like Trump, he would be right to scream and I would be horrified at the dawning fascist nightmare our country and world were slipping into. But it’s not Obama. It’s Trump. And you’ve been effectively brain washed into thinking he’s the hero.

The reek of self-dealing corruption will take decades to scrub out of our White House and Institutions.

So whatever that is you’re smoking there, you might want to ease up on it — it’s messing with your head...



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: samuelsson
a reply to: AboveBoard

That polling data was in the public domain when he shared it ..


Only some of the data was public domain. The rest was not.



According to the Times, some—but not all—of the data was already in the public domain. The rest came from the campaign’s own polling operation.


Why he shared it:

Link



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: AboveBoard

So far all the evidence points in his favor.

If this were otherwise we'd know.


Ah. But would you?

I’m not so sure. I think you would be told a narrative that says he’s innocent of everything and it was all a hoax and a partisan attack. Would I be right in that assessment?

That’s not really what the Mueller report says. And no, I don’t trust Barr further than I can throw him.

Anyway...





Do you trust mueller? He investigated for two years and didn't see enough eveidnce to charge one single person with illegally conspiring with Russia.

So please, show us your evidence, from the Mueller report or elsewhere, that Trump or people connected to him illegaly conspired with Russians.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

If Trump behave like Obama, he would be paying for opp research that were lies and using it to spy on all of his democrat opponents. He would have his irs be auditing liberal groups. He would have used executive privilege to stop investigators from seeing materials from people on his team.

He would have wiretapped and spied on journalists that were critical of him and their family.

Now what has trump done again to warrant impeachment?

Made angry tweets about the fact that his team was spied on by the Obama admin?

You are right that we are seeing two different worlds. The difference is I can back up my claims with facts.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
And if she did what Trump has done, I would call her a criminal with no hesitation.

Ok, so... what, exactly, has Trump done that you would say is criminal?

The report was crystal clear there was no 'collusion' with Russia, so you can't mean that...



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Quite the contrary, Mueller has been utterly professional and objective during and after his investigation of possible Russian collusion which led to findings not originally seen and repeated attempts by Donald Trump to stop the investigation. That Mueller did not outright call for an indictment of Trump proves this. Period. Here's my prediction: Donald J Trump will be indicted on a number of charges from multiple jurisdictions when he steps down from the presidency. Why? Because he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and that's the way the cookie crumbles.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: AboveBoard

If Trump behave like Obama, he would be paying for opp research that were lies and using it to spy on all of his democrat opponents. He would have his irs be auditing liberal groups. He would have used executive privilege to stop investigators from seeing materials from people on his team.

He would have wiretapped and spied on journalists that were critical of him and their family.

Now what has trump done again to warrant impeachment?

Made angry tweets about the fact that his team was spied on by the Obama admin?

You are right that we are seeing two different worlds. The difference is I can back up my claims with facts.


To be clear, you are claiming Obama did all of those things you listed, correct? If so, these claims are misleading at best and perhaps not as fact-based as you believe/want them to be. Three examples:

1. “Opposition Research” claim: you are referring to the Steele Dossier? Who pains for the Oppo on Trump initially? Conservatives. Clinton’s campaign took it up after that with the same research company who engaged a respected former MI-6 Russia expert to investigate. Steele’s investigation found something big - big enough to contact American IC and hope that his raw intelligence could be further investigated. Obama did not pay for this, so I’m not sure why you are specifying him in your example.


Who paid for it? During the Republican primaries, a research firm called Fusion GPS was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The Free Beacon — which was funded by a major donor supporting Mr. Trump’s rival for the party’s nomination, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida — told Fusion GPS to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.

After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates — including possible connections with Russia.

It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information. In October, Mr. Trump said in a Twitter post that his party was outraged at Mrs. Clinton’s involvement.
Link - The Steele Dossier and what we know about it

The discrediting of the Steele Dossier is based on Trump and the conservative media screaming “witch hunt!” and saying that because it started out being paid for by Clinton’s campaign that means it is all lies. That is the main argument against it.

Here is a good article on what has and has not yet been corroborated in the Steele Dossier: Link - Business Insider - Steele Dossier, Jan 2019


2. “IRS targeting conservative groups” claim: This is a zombie non-scandal but okay. I know it certainly was used to generate conservative outrage through the conservative media machine. (Yes, this happens on “the other side” too - outrage is an effective political tool and makes for high numbers of article clicks.)


What is new now?

The original claim was that the filters that the IRS's tax-exempt organizations unit had used were biased against right-wing groups. Now, it turns out that even that was not true. In addition to keywords like "tea party," the unit was also looking for words like "occupy," "progressive," and "green energy." Actually, that information is not new. We have known for years that the IRS was using both left- and right-oriented search terms, but this report provides exhaustive documentation of that fact.

As tax professor Philip Hackney points out, the non-scandal was always a two-part story: (1) the IRS targeted right-wing groups for extra scrutiny, and (2) the Obama Administration had ordered them to do so. We never had any proof that the second part was true.

Indeed, as I argued all along, it would amount to political malpractice for the Obama people to engage in that kind of dirty trick, because it was so pointless. "We're going to win by having the IRS slow down tax-exempt status applications from tiny local Tea Party groups, none of which have enough money to tax in the first place."

Link - Newsweek

Link - IRS Crossed Party Lines with targeted groups

So while it’s true that the IRS targeted groups with political sounding names, they were not only conservative but also liberal groups, and while it is fully acknowledged the IRS managed the process poorly (for which the director was fired - by Obama) it is not in any way connected to Obama in terms of this idea that he “ordered” it done.

There is no evidence to support the accusation that he asked the IRS to target these groups. Even in the lawsuits that showed the IRS messed up, they were never aimed at Obama himself.


3. “Executive privilege to stop documents” claim: I’m going to guess that this is regarding Eric Holder and “Fast & Furious.” Yes. He did exert Executive Privlege in this matter.


Barack Obama deployed his executive privilege power for the first time since taking office in a showdown with a Republican-led congressional committee investigating a botched arms smuggling operation...

George Bush's administration used executive privilege half-a-dozen times, including to protect then vice-president Dick Cheney and senior adviser Karl Rove, and was heavily criticised by the Democrats for doing so. Democrats accused the Bush administration of abusing the executive privilege power.


Why did the Obama Administration claim Executive privilege?


The Obama administration view is that it has already released to the House committee all the documents directly related to Fast and Furious and that the subpoena is a fishing expedition, applying not to the operation but the response of Holder and other officials to it.

Holder met Issa on Tuesday and offered to hand over the requested documents in return for an assurance that this would end the dispute. Issa rejected the offer, prompting Holder to accuse Issa of political gamesmanship.

Elijah Cummings, the most senior Democrat on the committee, accused his Republican colleagues on Wednesday of not wanting a solution, saying the justice department had already provided thousands of documents.


This was an episode that highlighted mismanagement in the ATF, who lost track of over 1000 guns. A border agent, Brian Terry, was killed in an incident where two of those lost weapons were found.

Fast & Furious became a political oversight football. Link. Here’s how it ended: Link - DoJ clears Holder



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 09:18 AM
link   
In the above post I did what I’ve been asked to do.

Now will I be right that it makes no difference? That my facts are considered fiction by those who do not agree with them??

Here goes nothing.



ETA: I didn’t do the whole wiretapping claim not because I couldn’t - I just ran out of room.
edit on 2-5-2019 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Yup all the evidence vetted and published by the government since the Hillary and Obama scandals started in 2015 is trash 😆



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

1. Wrong. The republicans were not paying fusion gps when steele was brought on. The steele dossier was discredited by Mueller, who could not verify any of the serious crimes alleged in it after two years.

the FBI under Obama also did not verify it when the used it to spy on people connected to trump. There are currently investigations into this by the IG.

If trump used rnc paid oppo research that was unverified to have his intel community sy on the dems, you would be screaming impeachment. I know this because you are screaming impeachment now with far less done by trump.

2.IRS targeted conservative groups far more.

they even had to pay out a settlement because of it. www.washingtontimes.com...

Again, you forgive this, but demand trump be impeached for... what was it again?

3. So you are ok with Obama withholding documents with executive privilege, but think Trump not using it and releasing almost the entirety of the Mueller report is corrupt?



Look, its obvious that you are biased beyond belief.

Are you telling me that if tomorrow Trumps rnc pays for a document sourced by a foreign spy and Chinese agents that's says his Biden likes to be peed on by Chinese hookers and his teams were Chinese agents, doesn't verify any of that info and uses it to wiretap people connected to bide, while telling international allies that biden may be compromised, and Trumps agencies leak all of that info to the pres, you would say that's perfectly legitmate?

Of course not.

you cant even say why trump should be impeached now. You just through out buzz words like fascist.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
In the above post I did what I’ve been asked to do.

Now will I be right that it makes no difference? That my facts are considered fiction by those who do not agree with them??

Here goes nothing.



ETA: I didn’t do the whole wiretapping claim not because I couldn’t - I just ran out of room.


You didn't do what you think you did. You made excuses for corruption under Obama.

Oh and its not that you ran out of room that you didn't respond to Obama wiretapping jpurnalists, its that you will also make excuses why that was ok, just like the rest.
edit on 2-5-2019 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard
Um...No.

The media is owned by those that peddled the Russian collusion hoax/attempted coup.

If there was something there the media wouldn't have to bend over backwards to smear the president. They would just have to reveal the truth.



posted on May, 2 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
In the above post I did what I’ve been asked to do.

Now will I be right that it makes no difference? That my facts are considered fiction by those who do not agree with them??

Here goes nothing.



ETA: I didn’t do the whole wiretapping claim not because I couldn’t - I just ran out of room.


You didn't do what you think you did. You made excuses for corruption under Obama.

Oh and its not that you ran out of room that you didn't respond to Obama wiretapping jpurnalists, its that you will also make excuses why that was ok, just like the rest.



And this is why I can’t discuss anything here anymore.

Thank you all for doing exactly as I predicted. You haven’t addressed my facts, you just negated them in your mind and moved on.

So thanks. I will also move on.

Have a nice time.




top topics



 
60
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join