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.
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. đ
There's no "official" orders. đ¸
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.
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.
đ
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 âcoming daysâ
I would infer that Mueller seems to want to testify.
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 đâ
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.
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).đ
Had it been proven true, Bueller would have cited it and used it, but he didn't.
originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: chr0naut
Youâre not supposed to be able to lie to a judge to get a warrant. Especially when the guy youâre wiretapping is your opponent in a presidential race. I figured youâd of known that.
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.
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.
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.
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.