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.

 

AG Barr is a big fat liar

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: chr0naut

Bob mueller did not reach a conclusion on the Obstruction charge. He left that conclusion up to the DOJ/AG to conclude. So no Barr did not lie. He confirmed that he did not know what Mueller concluded and that is an accurate fact.

It says it in the report. Mueller did not make nor offer a conclusion. Mueller's letter after the release of the 4 page letter still did not state any conclusion by Mueller either.

Edit add: the only conclusion that Mueller made was regarding the criminal act in Volume 1. No one knows what BoB Mueller thinks regarding the obstruction volume 2 issue. That is why it is crazy to ask anyone but Mueller himself.


Bob Mueller did not find Trump guilty of conspiracy or of obstruction.

He noted 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

He also had a section that said that the report did not exonerate Trump of any of the alleged infractions. Specifically. That means he did not have enough evidence, or intention, to prosecute.

Mueller also wrote the letter to Barr about the way Barr was representing the report to the media. In the letter, Mueller was clear about his, and his team's conclusions and was clear that he was dissatisfied with Barr's conclusions.

So Barr knew.
edit on 3/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The only thing Mueller was charged with investigating was Russian collusion. What you're after is verging into the territory of guilty until proven innocent.

As far as we know you didn't canoodle a poodle either, but until we investigate and it is proven to our satisfaction, I suppose now that we must all suppose you did. That is the tack you are taking.

Therefore, chr0naut is a poodle diddler. Is that really the world you want to live in? This the reason we live in innocent until proven guilty, and that does not mean you get to run around calling people guilty because you want them to be and investigate them until you find crimes, either.
edit on 3-5-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes, 10 instances, all of which could also be attributed to other factors just as easily as obstruction, so none of them were sufficient by themselves or enough collectively to charge obstruction on and make a case. Had there been one smoking gun incident, they would likely have been wonderful supporting evidence though.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




Therefore, chr0naut is a poodle diddler. Is that really the world you want to live in?

lol
that is funny stuff!



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

He basically just admitted the Democrat playbook. No one is ever determined to be innocent, only not guilty. So since Trump will never be proven innocent, they can simply keep attacking him despite the evidence not supporting their claim.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

That's a lie, Mueller never "wrote the letter to Barr about the way Barr was representing the report to the media. In the letter, Mueller was clear about his, and his team's conclusions and was clear that he was dissatisfied with Barr's conclusions."

I already asked you to show where in the letter it references that, you can't. Keep lying.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Everyone loved Barr under G.W.Bush, but under Trump he's suddenly the evil truant the left must get rid of because, they didn't like what he said?

www.theadvocate.com...

This is just more political sparring for points.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Nor did 'they' canoodle a poodle (as far as anyone knows). And there's the rub, because there is insufficient evidence to indict does not mean they did not commit a criminal act.

Incorrect
Barr with Rosensteins input and muellers report made the determination there was not enough evidence for the DOJ to recommend charges.
With respect to this episode, legally, that is all that matters.




and those under investigation aren't actually 'not guilty' until so proclaimed by the judiciary.

wrong again
In our country we are innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.
We do not have to prove innocence, that is assumed.

sorry you do not understand our legal system
this is part of the reason why the doj does not normally release investigative material on investigation that do not result in charges
we do not re litigate the outcome because we do not agree with such



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

The only thing Mueller was charged with investigating was Russian collusion. What you're after is verging into the territory of guilty until proven innocent.


Collusion isn't a Federal crime. That was never Mueller's brief.

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is not an absolute declaration of innocence. The only way to prove someone guilty is to investigate, which implies the possibility that they are guilty, just as there is a possibility that they are innocent.


As far as we know you didn't canoodle a poodle either, but until we investigate and it is proven to our satisfaction, I suppose now that we must all suppose you did. That is the tack you are taking.

Therefore, chr0naut is a poodle diddler. Is that really the world you want to live in? This the reason we live in guilty until proven innocent, and that does not mean you get to run around calling people guilty because you want them to be and investigate them until you find crimes, either.


I'm fairly sue that canoodling and diddling are different things.

But I'm worse than that, I actually eat cows, sheep and chickens, keeping them for the purposes of consumption.




posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes, 10 instances, all of which could also be attributed to other factors just as easily as obstruction, so none of them were sufficient by themselves or enough collectively to charge obstruction on and make a case. Had there been one smoking gun incident, they would likely have been wonderful supporting evidence though.


Mueller said that there was no intention to indict a sitting President.

I think that he may have been hoping that Barr would take up the gauntlet.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is not an absolute declaration of innocence.

I am dying to see the source of american jurisprudence that this gem came from?
You will provide such?



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ketsuko

He basically just admitted the Democrat playbook. No one is ever determined to be innocent, only not guilty. So since Trump will never be proven innocent, they can simply keep attacking him despite the evidence not supporting their claim.


It is entirely possible for Trump to be declared not guilty, but first he'd have to be charged.

edit on 3/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

However, you don't investigate until you have reason to believe a crime may have been committed. Supposedly, the Steele Dossier was that reason to believe there were crimes. The investigation was conducted. No crimes were found in relation to it on the part of Trump and his campaign under the auspices of the special counsel. The only crimes found were procedural crimes that had nothing to do with the campaign, and those have been dealt with. That's how the people you named ended up in trouble.

The ongoing hullaballoo is merely continuing because you and the others like you in positions of power desperately want for there to have been crimes, so much so that you all believe the crimes *must* be there, so you investigate endlessly. You are in the territory of guilty until you can prove innocence, but since you're all convinces there is guilt, it won't ever happen.

It's sad really.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

What does that have to do with my statement he can never be declared innocent, and Democrats like you are using that to say he's not proven innocent and keep attacking him for things he is not guilty of?

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is not an absolute declaration of innocence.

edit on 3-5-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut




Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is not an absolute declaration of innocence.

I am dying to see the source of american jurisprudence that this gem came from?
You will provide such?


The presumption of innocence is a legal right in a criminal trial.

No criminal trial, no presumption of innocence.

How do you think the Police work if everyone is presumed innocent?

Here's some stuff for you:

- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.".

- The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

- In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

- In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789, which has force as constitutional law, begins: "Any man being presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty ...". The Code of Criminal Procedure states in its preliminary article that "any person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent for as long as their guilt has not been established"[14] and the jurors' oath repeats this assertion (article 304). However, there exists a popular misconception that under French law, the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

- In Italy, the second paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution states: "A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed."

- The Constitution of Russia, in article 49, states that "Everyone charged with a crime shall be considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid sentence of a court of law". It also states that "The defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence" and "Any reasonable doubt shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant".

- Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes. See also In re Winship.

- In New Zealand, the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 provides inter alia at section 25 (c) "Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights: (c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law"



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Is that where you are today? Splitting the finest of hairs to try to not lose just 1 argument?



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

However, you don't investigate until you have reason to believe a crime may have been committed. Supposedly, the Steele Dossier was that reason to believe there were crimes. The investigation was conducted. No crimes were found in relation to it on the part of Trump and his campaign under the auspices of the special counsel. The only crimes found were procedural crimes that had nothing to do with the campaign, and those have been dealt with. That's how the people you named ended up in trouble.

The ongoing hullaballoo is merely continuing because you and the others like you in positions of power desperately want for there to have been crimes, so much so that you all believe the crimes *must* be there, so you investigate endlessly. You are in the territory of guilty until you can prove innocence, but since you're all convinces there is guilt, it won't ever happen.

It's sad really.


The Office of the Directorate of Intelligence, The Department of Homeland Security, the confessions of imprisoned spies, online boasts and allegations of Russians involved in Facebook fake news items, financial records, drunken self-incriminating boasts by many of the people under investigation, news reports, anti-Russian details in Wikileaks...

There were lots of reasons to investigate, well before the Steele dossier came along.

Did you think that a single, mostly unverified, document was the entire basis for appointing a Special Counsel and getting FISA Court search warrants? Ridiculous.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

What does that have to do with my statement he can never be declared innocent, and Democrats like you are using that to say he's not proven innocent and keep attacking him for things he is not guilty of?

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is not an absolute declaration of innocence.



I'm not a Democrat.

I'm not even an American.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: chr0naut

Is that where you are today? Splitting the finest of hairs to try to not lose just 1 argument?


The US Constitution does not explicitly state anything about presumption of innocence.

I find that a bit shocking.

But my eyesight is no longer good enough for me to split hairs.


edit on 3/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




The presumption of innocence is a legal right in a criminal trial.

perhaps in other foreign lands but not here bub
funny that you choose to site irrelevant foreign laws as if they have any meaning here in the good ole usa
the presumption of innocence is in the 5th 6th and 14 amendments as you sited

it is why our cops have to have probable cause prior to an arrest
no probable cause then the presumption of innocence rules the day

sorry you dont get this concept




top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join