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.

 

Huge Conflict of Interests for the Congressman Jerry Nadler !!!

page: 4
57
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2019 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: chr0naut




Perhaps Trump and co should 'man up'?


Why? They would just try to impeach him for not being gender neutral.

The funny part, at least to me, about my statement is that it describes the Democrat mindset perfectly at this point.


That isn't an impeachable offense. But it is a funny comeback! Star for that one.



Neither is Collusion, but that didn't stop them.


Trump was the one who introduced the term (or perhaps it was his pet AG?). Then the Faux news took it and ran. Mueller has tried to explain that it was never a charge, but the idiocracy cannot conceive that. Definitely the sycophants parrot their crush.



Never a charge?

Then why do the investigation?

And I hate to point this out to you, but Collusion was the bread & butter for MSNBC, CNN, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, and some very big newspaper companies over the past two years, but your all like, "Faux news is to blame!". Yeah, ok.

Now it's Obstruction because Mueller worded his report in such an intentional way all because he failed his witch queen.


There was no investigation into collusion. It simply isn't a Federal offense and so you couldn't expect a Federal law officer to investigate it.

The investigation was "TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS", as was clearly laid out in the letter of brief which appointed Mueller as Special Counsel (sorry it is in uppercase but I pasted it directly from the appointment letter).


If Mueller didn't investigate the Steele Dossier, he overlooked a HUGE collusion story! It's being learned that RUSSIANS helped compose this document of lies and false accusations.



No such Federal offense as collusion. Huge collusion story = a big nothingburger legally, vaporous drivel.

edit on 7/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 7 2019 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

Then Barr said that he did not know what Mueller's conclusions where, under oath and before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The fact that Barr said he didn't know what Mueller's conclusions were, when he had been repeatedly told, is inconsistent testimony.


Desperate Housewives




I'll take your Desperate housewives irrelevance and raise you with, "Bawndo has electrolytes! It's what plants crave".


edit on 7/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut


Trump was the one who introduced the term (or perhaps it was his pet AG?). Then the Faux news took it and ran


So then you are retracting this easily disproven lie you invented and posted?


No, Trump first made mention of the word in 2014 in reference to another unrelated court case.

Trump used the word again in a tweet on May 18, 2017, the day after Mueller is appointed Special Counsel.

About this time Deputy AG Rosenstien, who appointed Mueller as SC, purportedly used the word collusion in a news interview but I haven't been able to identify when, or if, it was said.

After then, it seemed everyone was talking about collusion in the press.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Ahahahaha
Aaaaahahahahahaha

2014?
Really?
Before he ever decided to run for potus?
Ahahahahaha

Site this mysterious russian election collusion court case from 2014.
That or you are a simple liar



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: XCrycek




Is this like when you ask for something in the Q thread and they tell you to read through tens of thousands of pages of horsecrap


Yes, I want you to Google. You seem to think you have a point, but haven't backed it up. So prove to us those are legitimate lawsuits against Trump because to anyone not in your echo chamber can see the bias here. Plus, I don't participate in Q threads, which you would know if you read them. So why would anyone take your word on another topic you seem to have not read. If you did you wouldn't be asking what the lawsuits were about.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: chr0naut

How was that proof of inconsistent testimony? He wasn't even there.

If you have to blame someone for this, blame Holder he set the precedent.

You post Nadler as proof while the OP is actually saying he has a big conflict of interest. That is odd.


Nah they only wanted to talk to Barr for the lulz of it.

Mueller sent Barr an unredacted copy of his report, with conclusions. When Barr summarized what he said Mueller's conclusions were, Mueller sent him a letter disagreeing with the portrayal of those conclusions. There was also a phone call between Mueller and Barr where Mueller complained about Barr's summary.

Then Barr said that he did not know what Mueller's conclusions where, under oath and before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The fact that Barr said he didn't know what Mueller's conclusions were, when he had been repeatedly told, is inconsistent testimony.


I guess we will see where this goes.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: xuenchen

These people have no integrity.
They have no respect for the law.

You could bribe him for sandwichs tho I hear.


People who have no respect for the law over anger of losing are 99.9% of the time communists

We can do other statistics for Muslims at a later time but they’re equally pathetic



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

Ahahahaha
Aaaaahahahahahaha

2014?
Really?
Before he ever decided to run for potus?
Ahahahahaha

Site this mysterious russian election collusion court case from 2014.
That or you are a simple liar


Yes, believe it or not, Trump existed before he was president and his comment was not about "Russian collusion" but was in regard to an allegation of someone else conspiring in a business related court case.

As I said, it was an unrelated case and there Trump used the word collusion instead of the correct term; conspiracy.

edit on 7/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



The FBI



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut



The FBI


Well, that was informative. Not.

I counter with:
Dum, dum, dum!



edit on 7/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You are so full of crap your member photo is turning brown.
Even when proven wrong you wont retract your made up phony statement.
As there is no truth or integrity in you, my discussion is at an end.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Nadler has been a Trump hater since long before Trump was even President. 
Only because trump got the better of him.
And will again.

edit on 7/5/2019 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

You are so full of crap your member photo is turning brown.
Even when proven wrong you wont retract your made up phony statement.
As there is no truth or integrity in you, my discussion is at an end.


My user avatar is clearly a line drawing.

Do you require spectacles?



Who proved me wrong (was it the voices in your head)? Please provide a definitive supportive link, and if you can't, wouldn't that make you the liar?


edit on 8/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: xuenchen

Nadler has been a Trump hater since long before Trump was even President. 
Only because trump got the better of him.
And will again.


This is the House Judicial Committee's new hotline phone number: ..

😎😆😎🚬



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Jerry Nadler's new re-education program ............




posted on May, 8 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Who proved me wrong (was it the voices in your head)? Please provide a definitive supportive link, and if you can't, wouldn't that make you the liar?

I did and provided a link of such
it is in this thread after you made the ridiculous invented statement
thehill.com...


A Democratic group has filed a complaint with the FBI alleging that Donald Trump's campaign and his ally Roger Stone have been colluding with the Russian government to hack American computers and manipulate the U.S. election.

oct of 16
DNC talking point you lied about
your statement(made up lie)


Trump was the one who introduced the term (or perhaps it was his pet AG?).

did trump have a "pet AG" in this bs court case you have also made up?



you should lie about things not so easily proven



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Mueller sent Barr an unredacted copy of his report,

You could say it that way, sure.

Or, you could say that Mueller delivered the final report (not a copy) to his boss, the Attorney General, but having failed in his duty to reach declination/prosecution conclusions for all aspects of the investigation and instead punted the question of Obstruction to the AG for his final disposition, as required by law.


When Barr summarized what he said Mueller's conclusions were,

You could say it that way, sure.

Or, you could say that, in spite of the fact that Barr was under no legal obligation to release one single word of the report to anyone (except maybe the President), including Congress, he delivered a 4 page letter simply stating Muellers conclusions. He also included his declination conclusion, reached in collaberation with the Assistant AG, RR, with respect to possible Obstruction of Justice, without consideration of the policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.


Mueller sent him a letter disagreeing with the portrayal of those conclusions.

Yes, he did. So what? He couldn't come to a conclusion, so he deferred to his Boss. When he didn't like the fact that Barr didn't just submit his 'Executive summaries, but instead, released his own 4 page letter restating Mueller's conclusions, he sent a letter whining like the bitch that he is.


There was also a phone call between Mueller and Barr where Mueller complained about Barr's summary.

Correct again. As soon as Barr received Muellers complaint, he called Mueller and asked him if he thought Barrs letter was inaccurate in any way, and Mueller said no, he was mostly concerned that Barr had decided not to release Muellers own Executive Summaries, and that in his opinion this was causing some confusion in the press. it wasn't, but it wasn't making Mueller look good, hence he was whining.


Then Barr said that he did not know what Mueller's conclusions where, under oath and before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mueller concluded there was no Collusion, so you must be talking about Obstruction.

Mueller failed in his duty to come to a declination/prosecution conclusion with regard to Obstruction, leaving that to his Boss, the AG.


The fact that Barr said he didn't know what Mueller's conclusions

He did, directly from the report. He concluded no collusion, and declined to come to a conclusion on obstruction.


were, when he had been repeatedly told, is inconsistent testimony.

You are confused. He was told that there were some concerns... but he only knew about Muellers concerns from the letter. In his testimony, he was responding to a vague question about 'others on Muellers team', and since he didn't know who on Mueller sTeams had other concerns or what those concerns were, that is what he said in response.

You're just apparently pissed that he didn't fall into the perjury trap, so you try to make it sound like he did even though he avoided it perfectly.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
Mueller sent Barr an unredacted copy of his report,

You could say it that way, sure.

Or, you could say that Mueller delivered the final report (not a copy) to his boss, the Attorney General, but having failed in his duty to reach declination/prosecution conclusions for all aspects of the investigation and instead punted the question of Obstruction to the AG for his final disposition, as required by law.


When Barr summarized what he said Mueller's conclusions were,

You could say it that way, sure.

Or, you could say that, in spite of the fact that Barr was under no legal obligation to release one single word of the report to anyone (except maybe the President), including Congress, he delivered a 4 page letter simply stating Muellers conclusions. He also included his declination conclusion, reached in collaberation with the Assistant AG, RR, with respect to possible Obstruction of Justice, without consideration of the policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.


Mueller sent him a letter disagreeing with the portrayal of those conclusions.

Yes, he did. So what? He couldn't come to a conclusion, so he deferred to his Boss. When he didn't like the fact that Barr didn't just submit his 'Executive summaries, but instead, released his own 4 page letter restating Mueller's conclusions, he sent a letter whining like the bitch that he is.


There was also a phone call between Mueller and Barr where Mueller complained about Barr's summary.

Correct again. As soon as Barr received Muellers complaint, he called Mueller and asked him if he thought Barrs letter was inaccurate in any way, and Mueller said no, he was mostly concerned that Barr had decided not to release Muellers own Executive Summaries, and that in his opinion this was causing some confusion in the press. it wasn't, but it wasn't making Mueller look good, hence he was whining.


Then Barr said that he did not know what Mueller's conclusions where, under oath and before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mueller concluded there was no Collusion, so you must be talking about Obstruction.

Mueller failed in his duty to come to a declination/prosecution conclusion with regard to Obstruction, leaving that to his Boss, the AG.


The fact that Barr said he didn't know what Mueller's conclusions

He did, directly from the report. He concluded no collusion, and declined to come to a conclusion on obstruction.


were, when he had been repeatedly told, is inconsistent testimony.

You are confused. He was told that there were some concerns... but he only knew about Muellers concerns from the letter. In his testimony, he was responding to a vague question about 'others on Muellers team', and since he didn't know who on Mueller sTeams had other concerns or what those concerns were, that is what he said in response.

You're just apparently pissed that he didn't fall into the perjury trap, so you try to make it sound like he did even though he avoided it perfectly.


Mueller never said that there was no collusion. Collusion isn't a Federal crime you cannot either legally charge or clear someone of a crime that doesn't exist.

Nor does Mueller clear anyone of anything. Clearing someone is pronouncing someone not guilty - that is clearing someone. Leaving things unresolved is not a pronouncement of 'not guilty'.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

They knew wayyyyy bakkkkk in 1969.....
(from 1969!)



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Mueller never said that there was no collusion.

He said there was no evidence to support prosecution - the same thing, in legalese.


Collusion isn't a Federal crime you cannot either legally charge or clear someone of a crime that doesn't exist.

So, what does that say about the Dems and the MSM, seeing as all they could talk about for 2+ years was 'Collusion'?


Nor does Mueller clear anyone of anything. Clearing someone is pronouncing someone not guilty - that is clearing someone.

Correct. His job was to come to a decision of either prosecution or declination.


Leaving things unresolved is not a pronouncement of 'not guilty'.

It was his job to come to a conclusion. He did so with respect to 'Collusion/Conspiracy', but abdicated his responsibility with regard to Obstruction, thus automatically deferring the decision to his boss, the AG, who quickly and rightly - and without regard to the unwritten policy of not prosecuting a sitting President - decided there was no Obstruction.

Case Closed.




top topics



 
57
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join