Two stunning revelations on Russia hoax investigation

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

All Trump did was "say" Mueller shouldn't testify. 😆

There's no "official" orders. 🈸

You know that?

Consider that your boss tells the press "He isn't going to do (whatever)".

Do you think that isn't a directive?

Any "official" directive by the President is legally in writing and made Public (except for specifically classified material).

Any hidden "unofficial"/"coerced" directive would be obstruction of justice.

... ah! a negative reality inversion! Gets 'em every time.

If Bueller has been "directed" to not testify, surely he himself or an attorney on his behalf would obviously make a public announcement.

Trump making a simple opinionated statement is not a legal directive. In fact Trump has every right to voice an opinion per the First Amendment.

😎

Of course, Mueller would definitely testify that he'd been instructed not to testify.

a reply to: chr0naut

Page 16.

"Source #1" is Christopher Steele 😎

Page 23 alludes to the Dossier as "results of his research" 😎

a reply to: chr0naut

The FISA warrants were, seemingly, gotten under fraudulent means. They are not legal, by any stretch of the imagination.

Any information gathered with them would, by my understanding, be tossed out of any court--save perhaps the court of public opinion.

a reply to: xuenchen

In other words... Democrats are eating “Fruit of the poisonous tree”. And that's why they have bitter bellies?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DBCowboy
That is interesting.
I heard that the Trump administration, who have executive control over the DOJ and its officers, has directed that Mueller does not testify. Trump: 'Mueller should not testify'
I have also heard that Mueller has said he intends to leave the DOJ, which makes him a private citizen and no longer bound by DOJ directives. Robert Mueller will be leaving the Department of Justice in “coming days”
I would infer that Mueller seems to want to testify.

You heard many things but you didn't hear the false evidence. I don't believe you.

a reply to: chr0naut

all the hopeful wishes in the world won't change the facts. They remain and are, eternal.
Keep the hope alive. You and your butties will need all you can get.

a reply to: network dude

You'd think with all the bottomless proofs available to the internet, the AG would capitalize. I guess they don't have the ats Twitter feed.

a reply to: chr0naut
You’re not supposed to be able to lie to a judge to get a warrant. Especially when the guy you’re wiretapping is your opponent in a presidential race. I figured you’d of known that.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

When Mueller officially leaves the DOJ, he would only be subject to criminal interrogations 😎✍

He has been requested to testify before a House Select committee. There's no implication there that Mueller is the one that has transgressed the law.

I didn't say he was did I 🉐

I placed a suggestion into public view 😮

a reply to: chr0naut

You are so far behind that you think you are in the lead.
The fisa warrant in question was denied twice before the dossier and circular reporting were added and ONLY then was it approved.
This entire process has ben documented here at ats.

It is all over.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

The Steele "Dossier" has never been vetted and proven true, therefor under U.S. law, it can't be used as evidence or probable cause (legally considered hearsay aka BS).😎

Had it been proven true, Bueller would have cited it and used it, but he didn't.

Exactly.

It wasn't applicable as evidence in a FISA court.

Therefore the whole premise that the FISA court warrants were illegal, based upon the unverifiable/dubious nature of claims in the Steele report, that actually wasn't referenced in the FISA cases, is tenuous, isn't it?

But you can easily check it out by reading the application for at least one of the warrants.

a reply to: chr0naut

And this means ????

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Page 16.

"Source #1" is Christopher Steele 😎

Page 23 alludes to the Dossier as "results of his research" 😎

Perhaps his name is in one of the redacted sections?

a reply to: chr0naut

Nadler has showed no hesitation to subpoena people to testify. All of a sudden he gets cold feet with Mueller. There's a reason for that. Maybe several.

The Inspector General (Michael Horowitz) is nearing the end of his FISA Abuse investigation.

Thus far, he's concluded that the 3 FISA Extensions were Illegally Obtained.

He's now investigating the legality/origin of the original Carter Page Spy Warrant.

Source: pjmedia.com...

Also revealed today...There will be criminal referrals attached to the Inspector General's FISA Abuse / Media Leak report, due to be published in June.

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: chr0naut
You’re not supposed to be able to lie to a judge to get a warrant. Especially when the guy you’re wiretapping is your opponent in a presidential race. I figured you’d of known that.

No FISA search warrants were served on Donald Trump (to my knowledge). You are mixing up the people involved. Obama, and several Presidents before him, re-authorized the NSA data collection (which, by the way, Trump has done nothing to stop), not Hillary.

The FISA search warrant against Cohen resulted in a conviction. So, it clearly wasn't groundless.

The FISA warrants against Mannafort resulted in a conviction. So, they clearly weren't groundless.

The FISA warrant against Gates (If there was such a warrant. He could have been charged due to the information gained from the FISA raid on Mannafort) resulted in a conviction. So, it clearly wasn't groundless.

originally posted by: carewemust
The Inspector General (Michael Horowitz) is nearing the end of his FISA Abuse investigation.

Thus far, he's concluded that the 3 FISA Extensions were Illegally Obtained.

He's now investigating the legality/origin of the original Carter Page Spy Warrant.

Source: pjmedia.com...

Also revealed today...There will be criminal referrals attached to the Inspector General's FISA Abuse / Media Leak report, due to be published in June.

That would be a lot shorter than the time-frame that Barr suggested. I'll wait for it before leaping to conclusions about what it may contain.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Mueller himself is trying to avoid this, I heard that he is not testifying now.

An Intelligence Committee Congressman said on FoxNews that Nadler learned what all Mueller knew, and cancelled the testimony.

Also Devin Nunes said he'd like to question Mueller, but Adam Schiff (chairman) doesn't want to.

Democrats are stone cold crazy. They subpoena everyone, except the man who has the answers.

That has been the case from the beginning as they chased Russian whatever everywhere in all directions except the one direction where the collusion actually happened.. Let us start with the paid fees to the Clintons, both direct and indirect, and Uranium deal with the Russians.. I just hope for once HRC was right when she said something to the effect of " We will all hang if Trump wins" !

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

Please explain how the outcome of a court case is illegal in some way?

I mean, the FISA court is literally a legal process.

Ah, liberal logic. If you lie through your teeth to the court and get them to rule in your favour for a warrant, all is ok - because the court said you were good to go. Your liberal mindset has corrupted your brain and probably everything else about you.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

Please explain how the outcome of a court case is illegal in some way?

I mean, the FISA court is literally a legal process.

Ah, liberal logic. If you lie through your teeth to the court and get them to rule in your favour for a warrant, all is ok - because the court said you were good to go. Your liberal mindset has corrupted your brain and probably everything else about you.

We might find out ChrO is actually a Conservative Libertarian like myself and others here and is just helping us get our facts straight like we do when we challenge shills and their BS. I have fun with the Astronomy guy on ATS and catching him shilling for lies in Climate. In that case I know way more about the subject just by not parroting the lies, but that doesn't bother silly people at all.