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.

 

William Barr appoints U.S. attorney to investigate Russia probe origins

page: 10
64
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: chr0naut
'collusion' is a deflection used by Trump from the consideration of far more serious crimes, which were the ones actually being investigated.


Funny, I could have sworn every democratic affiliated media organisation said collusion about 1200 times per day.
So did Nadler, Pelosi, Schiff, Hillary, Comey, Brennan..

and yet, its just a made up word Trump used to deflect from his real crimes... which were in fact not found in the special counsel.

sense = 0


No, collusion is a real term and a business misdemeanour, but not in Federal law.

Although I can't be sure, I believe that Trump used it first in regard to Mueller's investigation, then the AG echoed it in an impromptu stairway interview and then the next thing everyone was talking about 'collusion'.

Still isn't actually a Federal crime, no matter how many echo it.

I mean, should we eat feces just 'cause billions of flies do?




sly!

it all feels very much like moving goalposts..

there's still 0 evidence of anything nefarious occurring from the Trump campaign during the election.
the Clinton Campaign, DOJ, FBI, CIA and Obama administration though....


Hush money paid to prostitutes. denials of business meetings, taxation fraud, banking fraud and campaign fraud, lying to Congress, hacking attempts and Facebork campaigns yet 0 evidence of anything nefarious? Really?


Fabricated by democrats. And no one cares about what hookers say. Hacking attempts are prosecutable as well as all forms of fraud, so there should be some criminal charges from state prosecutors where the crimes occurred. No charges? Okay.



There were charges.

There were 34 individuals indicted as a direct result of the Mueller investigation. The Mueller report had no 'extra' charges beyond those, when the investigation concluded (except for the 10 listed potential attempts at obstruction of justice by Trump, which were not prosecuted because you can't indict a sitting President).




posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The conclusion was that Trump would not have been charged regardless of whether he was President. What 34 Americans were charged with conspiracy in connection with Russia to interfere in elections?



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: chr0naut

So you mean you have been commenting on all of these threads about the mueller report, and you are unaware that in the us legal system there is a presumption of innocence?

That is unfortunate


Cite the statute, then.

You seriously think there is no presumption of innocence? Wow.

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.

www.law.cornell.edu...
COFFIN et al. v. UNITED STATES


No, I don't seriously think there is no presumption of innocence. There is a legal precedent case, as you noted.

I asked for a statute and there isn't one. Nor is there anything in your Constitution. It egregious to me that US law is essentially based upon an undocumented assumption.

Instead of making excuses, perhaps you could lobby to get Congress to add a clear, definite and incontestable statute?




posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not an assumption. It's a founding idea. It is well documented.

Why would I waste time for something stupid? You kept saying it, so you clearly thought the presumption did not exist, and you simply refuse to admit your mistake and move on. Seems like a trend.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   
There is a major difference is that this investigation is not looking for a crime. It is working to provide the proof to convict and those who thought Trump was toast are all very worried right now.

Spying on a campaign. It happened. There are those who did this on the orders of others but in the end it all goes to the top.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Yes, text messages and emails prove that both Obama and Lynch knew the spying was occurring. Now we're going to learn if it was legal or illegal spying.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



Was that ever an allegation?


LOL yes. Sadly. I'm pretty sure you've furthered that lie more than once. But just a week ago hillary did.



Paul Mannafort, the Trump Campaign Manager, was convicted of 8 counts of financial crimes.


From long before his time with the trump campaign and not with any business involving trump or the campaign.



Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer during the Campaign, has been convicted of tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress. In total, 8 counts.


Cohen plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit (campaign finance) to avoid going to trial for a crime he may have committed (a crime that had zero to do with trump or the campaign).



Konstantin Kilimnik, an employee of Mannafort (Trump's campaign manager) was charged, by Mueller, with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice for witness tampering during the Manafort investigation


Charged? Or convicted? But again, here we are back at manafort who was charged/convicted of crimes he committed long before his time with trump.



There was a total of 34 people indicted as a direct result of the Mueller investigation.


A meaningless stat that cannot overcome these conclusions from the mueller report:



...the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

And judging by the convening of the grand jury, it wasn't the former.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: chr0naut

And yet a $30mil investigation didn't seem to turn up any issues. In fact, now that the investigation is over, it turns out that the people who tried to frame him will likely see some justice.


"tried to frame him". Very telling.

34 individuals were indicted as a direct result of the Mueller investigation, yet you also said that it didn't turn up any issues.

Get real.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Who was indicted on conspiracy charges relating to Russia?



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
There is a major difference is that this investigation is not looking for a crime. It is working to provide the proof to convict and those who thought Trump was toast are all very worried right now.

Spying on a campaign. It happened. There are those who did this on the orders of others but in the end it all goes to the top.

Yes it did.
Too bad they were really arrogant and left a trail.
She wasn't supposed to lose.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

The conclusion was that Trump would not have been charged regardless of whether he was President. What 34 Americans were charged with conspiracy in connection with Russia to interfere in elections?


That was not the conclusion at all.

The wording Mueller used was that it "did not exonerate" anyone of the alleged charges.

To exonerate someone, means you are declaring them innocent of the alleged charges.

Therefore, to 'not exonerate' someone, you are declaring them 'not innocent' of the charges.

Semantics, I know, but there it is. I'm pretty sure Mueller knew exactly what the words meant.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Of all the stupid things that have been said, this is the pinnacle.




I asked for a statute and there isn't one. Nor is there anything in your Constitution. It egregious to me that US law is essentially based upon an undocumented assumption. 

Instead of making excuses, perhaps you could lobby to get Congress to add a clear, definite and incontestable statute? 


Well, that AND the talk about the People's Republic of Turtles judicial system...


Q: Can the government detain me and prevent me from going about my way without my consent?
A: Yes, IF they meet the evidentiary threshold of "reasonable suspicion" they may temporarily detain you for a short time while they investigate. You do not have to exonerate yourself or provide them with any information beyond identifying yourself. You maintain a presumption of innocence.

Q: Can the government search my person or property without my consent? Can the government arrest me and hold me in a jail for a trial?
A: Yes, IF they meet the evidentiary burden of "probable cause" (it is more likely than not you committed a specific crime based on evidence). You do not have to exonerate or speak to them in anyway beyond identifying yourself. You still maintain a presumption of innocence.

Q: Can the government convict me of and punish me for a crime?
A: Yes, IF they can show with evidence that the only reasonable conclusion is that you committed a specific crime after considering the evidence. You do not need to testify or exonerate yourself. You maintain a presumption of innocence. If any reasonable doubt exists, the government has failed meet its evidentiary burden. You do not need to prove it is more likely than not that you are innocent. In fact the presumption is so strong that the government is required to provide you, the defendant, with any exculpatory evidence (evidence which might eventend to indicate you are not in fact guilty) they may uncover in the course of their investigation.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not an assumption. It's a founding idea. It is well documented.

Why would I waste time for something stupid? You kept saying it, so you clearly thought the presumption did not exist, and you simply refuse to admit your mistake and move on. Seems like a trend.


It is an assumption.

Let me demonstrate: if there is a statute of law on the books, then there are also proscribed penalties for transgression of that law.

What are the penalties for transgressing the unwritten 'law' of presumption of innocence?

You see that if the statute doesn't exist, you cannot reasonably ever charge someone who has transgressed.

So, as a general slogan or sound byte, it seems nice, but as an enforceable foundational principle - not so much.

Not only that, but the way legal precedent works, case law can erode into interpretations over time - a 'legal creep' that dis-empowers the laws. Having a statute on the books resists this.

Already, just in this topic thread, we have had multiple interpretations (not just from me) about what is 'presumption of innocence' and where it applies.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut



Was that ever an allegation?


LOL yes. Sadly. I'm pretty sure you've furthered that lie more than once. But just a week ago hillary did.


I never did that.

... and perhaps Hillary was joking, too (stupid excuses can work both ways)?





Paul Mannafort, the Trump Campaign Manager, was convicted of 8 counts of financial crimes.

From long before his time with the trump campaign and not with any business involving trump or the campaign.


No, some of it occurred during Trump's campaign up to, and after, Trump was inaugurated.

Mannafort Statment of Offense



Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer during the Campaign, has been convicted of tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress. In total, 8 counts.


Cohen plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit (campaign finance) to avoid going to trial for a crime he may have committed (a crime that had zero to do with trump or the campaign).


He used campaign funding to hide his fraud. There was an audit trail and fairly massive amount of other evidence, not just his confession.



, an employee of Mannafort (Trump's campaign manager) was charged, by Mueller, with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice for witness tampering during the Manafort investigation

Charged? Or convicted? But again, here we are back at manafort who was charged/convicted of crimes he committed long before his time with trump.


Kilimnik was indicted but still at large. He also was mentioned in the Mueller report as actively communicating with Mannafort throughout the campaign (he was a lobbyist later revealed as a Russian agent, as is documented in the Mueller report).

Kilimnik was the one who prompted Mannafort to encourage Trump to take the position he did on the Ukraine-Russia issue, after Trump was inaugurated.




There was a total of 34 people indicted as a direct result of the Mueller investigation.


A meaningless stat that cannot overcome these conclusions from the mueller report:



...the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.



So, does that mean that they got away with it?



edit on 15/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Neither, as Mueller did not find that to be the case.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not an assumption. It's a founding idea. It is well documented.

Why would I waste time for something stupid? You kept saying it, so you clearly thought the presumption did not exist, and you simply refuse to admit your mistake and move on. Seems like a trend.


It is an assumption.

Let me demonstrate: if there is a statute of law on the books, then there are also proscribed penalties for transgression of that law.

What are the penalties for transgressing the unwritten 'law' of presumption of innocence?

You see that if the statute doesn't exist, you cannot reasonably ever charge someone who has transgressed.

So, as a general slogan or sound byte, it seems nice, but as an enforceable foundational principle - not so much.

Not only that, but the way legal precedent works, case law can erode into interpretations over time - a 'legal creep' that dis-empowers the laws. Having a statute on the books resists this.

Already, just in this topic thread, we have had multiple interpretations (not just from me) about what is 'presumption of innocence' and where it applies.

I gave you settled case law by the Supreme Court. You're done. It's pathetic you can't just admit you are wrong.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 06:02 PM
link   
www.aclu.org...

www.npr.org...


Forrest Gump had a quote that fit here.


3.4 mil is a lot of cheddar cheese


Presumed innocent
Probable Cause

Game
Set
Match



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Who was indicted on conspiracy charges relating to Russia?


Konstantin Kiliminik.

It's in the Mueller report.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not an assumption. It's a founding idea. It is well documented.

Why would I waste time for something stupid? You kept saying it, so you clearly thought the presumption did not exist, and you simply refuse to admit your mistake and move on. Seems like a trend.


You are assuming it is a founding idea.

As a founding idea, why isn't it in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or even in State or Federal statutes?

Can't you see the dangers of not having such an important right clearly codified?

The solution to the issue isn't to lampoon me.

The solution is to ensure that it gets codified with great clarity and specificity.

Call me a dammed old fool all you want and you'll still be governed by an assumption that can be misunderstood, misapplied and just simply ignored because there is no penalty upon its transgression.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join