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: 12
64
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2019 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

LMAO

There is so much "wrong" in this.

Would you really willingly live in a place where you could be randomly apprehended by police for things like drug tests? Imagine how insane that would be!

You really should stop.




posted on May, 18 2019 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut

Lol, he was an employee of manafort's. He was charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice in the manafort case. The manafort case was about being an unregistered lobbyist, bank fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering. ALL from long before his time with trump. Yes he met with kiliminik during the campaign (he was employed with manafort) but nothing in the charges has anything to do with russia. His FARA violation wasn't even for russia, so you're full of #.


So, literally, Trump's campaign manager was talking with a known Russian spy, during the campaign. The link is direct. That was exactly what the Special Counsel was was appointed to investigate: 'Russian interference in the 2016 elections, as it related to the Trump campaign'.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: chr0naut

LMAO

There is so much "wrong" in this.

Would you really willingly live in a place where you could be randomly apprehended by police for things like drug tests? Imagine how insane that would be!

You really should stop.


Maybe you could be born there by accident and either not know that there are better places to move to, or not have the means to escape.

I mean you can't choose where you are born, right? Or perhaps some greedy idiot builds a barrier to crush your hopes of finding a better life?

Do you imagine the this is a world that simply allows people to move around freely?

edit on 18/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

LOL your direct link is laughable. First, it's just innuendo in a report, nothing mueller would ever need to prove. Second, mueller never even reached out to talk to kilimnik. Weird to charge someone with a crime that requires corrupt intent but never talk to them, don't you think? Finally, even with your "direct link" you can't overcome the conclusion: No collusion.


So, pray tell, if there was no collusion, why are you trying to make it out like this was?



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut

LOL your direct link is laughable. First, it's just innuendo in a report, nothing mueller would ever need to prove. Second, mueller never even reached out to talk to kilimnik. Weird to charge someone with a crime that requires corrupt intent but never talk to them, don't you think? Finally, even with your "direct link" you can't overcome the conclusion: No collusion.

So, pray tell, if there was no collusion, why are you trying to make it out like this was?


Kilimnik is a fugitive from the law whose current whereabouts are unknown. He has "flown the coop". He wasn't available for interview with Mueller and is still at large.

The report isn't innuendo, it is the result of a top level US DOJ investigation.

There is no such Federal crime as collusion, so a charge of such is off the table. I'm not trying to make out there was collusion because that would be the height of stupidity and futility.

However, there was also no 'not guilty' verdict in the Mueller report. It doesn't clear Trump at all of any crime, not of the hush money payments, not of conspiracy with the taxation fraud, not of conspiracy with the banking fraud, not of conspiracy with the campaign financial fraud, not of utilizing the compromised data or assisting the hacking of the opposition, not of conspiracy with the Russians.

There are, in fact additional accusations of attempted obstruction of justice in the report.

There was a direct link between Russian government agents and Trump campaign staff. It is quite fully notated in the Mueller report.

edit on 19/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



Kilimnik is a fugitive from the law whose current whereabouts are unknown. He has "flown the coop". He wasn't available for interview with Mueller and is still at large.


He was available before he was charged. You know, when you're still building your case to make charges. It's a PR stunt by mueller. Just like the russian troll farm.



However, there was also no 'not guilty' verdict in the Mueller report.


Yeah, there was. When they said they weren't bringing or recommending any charges, that was the not guilty verdict. But you're illustrating exactly why the report should have never been released. Exactly why the regulations say it doesn't need to be released. Morons will speculate and 2nd guess everything the investigator did. Unfortunately barr was in a no win situation. Either he doesn't release the report and the media keeps lying about it and his summary of its findings ad-infinitum, or he releases it and they (and their brainwashed subjects) latch on to every bit of innuendo in the report.



There is no such Federal crime as collusion


There is, but it's not applicable to this situation. It's a business term.



There are, in fact additional accusations of attempted obstruction of justice in the report.


No, there are zero accusations. Trump does not stand accused. There are situations they examined for obstruction. Mueller said he couldn't determine if it was or wasn't. Barr and rosenstein looked at it and said, it wasn't. Game over.



There was a direct link between Russian government agents and Trump campaign staff.


Kilimnick denies that he has any involvement with the russian government. So while there may innuendo that he is, we will never know as he hasn't appeared and defended himself.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut



Kilimnik is a fugitive from the law whose current whereabouts are unknown. He has "flown the coop". He wasn't available for interview with Mueller and is still at large.
He was available before he was charged. You know, when you're still building your case to make charges. It's a PR stunt by mueller. Just like the russian troll farm.


No, Kilimnik disappeared before he was charged. At the time the Special Counsel was appointed, he was believed to be in Malta but the trail has now gone cold.




However, there was also no 'not guilty' verdict in the Mueller report.


Yeah, there was. When they said they weren't bringing or recommending any charges, that was the not guilty verdict.


Have you seen one of those TV shows where the bad guy is guilty as sin, but they don't have enough to charge him, and so he goes free, saying that "See, I was innocent" to the cameras on the court house steps?

No charge does not mean 'not guilty'. Re-read the report in that light (if you have actually read it). It's tone is not all 'rainbows and unicorns' for Trump.


But you're illustrating exactly why the report should have never been released. Exactly why the regulations say it doesn't need to be released. Morons will speculate and 2nd guess everything the investigator did. Unfortunately barr was in a no win situation. Either he doesn't release the report and the media keeps lying about it and his summary of its findings ad-infinitum, or he releases it and they (and their brainwashed subjects) latch on to every bit of innuendo in the report.



There is no such Federal crime as collusion


There is, but it's not applicable to this situation. It's a business term.


It isn't a Federal crime. It's a misdemeanor under state and local courts. The DOJ is a Federal department.



There are, in fact additional accusations of attempted obstruction of justice in the report.
No, there are zero accusations. Trump does not stand accused. There are situations they examined for obstruction. Mueller said he couldn't determine if it was or wasn't. Barr and rosenstein looked at it and said, it wasn't. Game over.


Mueller brought the accusations in his report. He couldn't accuse, prosecute and adjudicate the same case. The law doesn't allow that. It is clear from the report, that Mueller wanted Barr to choose independent judges to try Trump on those charges, according to established legal procedure.

Please read the Mueller report. On page 182 which is in regard to prosecution of the President for Obstruction of Justice, it states:

"IV. CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."


The highlighted sections clearly are saying that Mueller believes that the President attempted to obstruct.


Kilimnick denies that he has any involvement with the russian government. So while there may innuendo that he is, we will never know as he hasn't appeared and defended himself.



When did he deny that?

How are we to know that it was really him?

The facts are that he was a soldier in the Russian army at the Military University of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, which trained interpreters for the Soviet Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU). He served in the Soviet Army as a translator and worked closely with the Soviet Army's GRU. He took Russian citizenship after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He worked in Sweden as an interpreter for a Russian arms dealer. In Moscow, Kilmnik then worked for the International Republican Institute (IRI) from 1995 to early 2005.

So, a soldier, who went to spy school, was fluent in several languages, became a Russian citizen as an adult and who worked all over the world, from country to country, then becomes the confidant of someone close to a candidate US President, Isn't a little bit suspicious?

edit on 19/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   
No one cares if a prosecutor cannot or will not exonerate you. He doesn't have to. You don't have to exonerate yourself. That's not how it works. When he says, "this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, ..." that's all we need to know.
Does that mean Trump is innocent? Not really, no. It does mean they do not have jack in actionable evidence. They cannot meet their threshold of evidence (more likely than not/preponderance of evidence for an indictment, beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction) despite hundreds of interviews and subpoenas, and thousands of manhours investigating.
So when Mueller lays out in the report acts that may constitute obstruction in his opinion, he also simultaneously lays out exculpatory evidence which could point to non-corrupt intent. The existence of those non-corrupt possible motives makes this non-prosecutorial because this crime requires corrupt intent.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
No one cares if a prosecutor cannot or will not exonerate you. He doesn't have to. You don't have to exonerate yourself. That's not how it works. When he says, "this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, ..." that's all we need to know.
Does that mean Trump is innocent? Not really, no. It does mean they do not have jack in actionable evidence. They cannot meet their threshold of evidence (more likely than not/preponderance of evidence for an indictment, beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction) despite hundreds of interviews and subpoenas, and thousands of manhours investigating.
So when Mueller lays out in the report acts that may constitute obstruction in his opinion, he also simultaneously lays out exculpatory evidence which could point to non-corrupt intent. The existence of those non-corrupt possible motives makes this non-prosecutorial because this crime requires corrupt intent.


The majority of deliberations in regard to obstruction were actually about if Mueller had the legal authority to indict or not. Firstly he lists the legal reasons why not (starting on page 150) and then he lists the legal reasons he should. His final conclusion is that the DOJ did have authority to charge a sitting President.

Of course, as the one raising the allegations, it must fall to another to prosecute.

The report had little that could stand as excuse for Trump in the 10 instances of possible obstruction cited. That sort of thing would be up to the prosecuting investigator to determine if there was a case.

edit on 20/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Hahaha. No, actually, he held prosecutorial powers. That's the entire point of a Special Counsel. That's the raison d'etre of the Mueller appointment. To remove the investigative and prosecutorial powers from the chain of command at the DOJ.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: chr0naut

Hahaha. No, actually, he held prosecutorial powers. That's the entire point of a Special Counsel. That's the raison d'etre of the Mueller appointment. To remove the investigative and prosecutorial powers from the chain of command at the DOJ.


Why do judges recuse themselves?

And, although he can raise indictments, he didn't actually try any of the cases. They were farmed out to judges.

He also can't prosecute a sitting President. He was making an argument that regular judges should have the power to try the case. It was also beyond the terms of reference of his appointment as special counsel since it was not directly related to his appointment brief and would probably need to be prosecuted at the behest of Congress.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: chr0naut

Hahaha. No, actually, he held prosecutorial powers. That's the entire point of a Special Counsel. That's the raison d'etre of the Mueller appointment. To remove the investigative and prosecutorial powers from the chain of command at the DOJ.


Why do judges recuse themselves?

And, although he can raise indictments, he didn't actually try any of the cases. They were farmed out to judges.

He also can't prosecute a sitting President. He was making an argument that regular judges should have the power to try the case. It was also beyond the terms of reference of his appointment as special counsel since it was not directly related to his appointment brief and would probably need to be prosecuted at the behest of Congress.


You are changing reality to suit a failed argument. The SC actually did bring indictments - and on charges far removed from the original brief. So, I guess you have a point, if you ignore what has actually transpired in the real world.

By the way, no charge does mean innocent. Innocent until proven guilty. Change that at your peril.

edit on 20/5/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

The low IQ idiots know that Flynn has already been indicted and plead guilty.
And is now awaiting sentencing.
.
.
.
Moving on...
Of course he is not going to be charged with conspiracy against the US... he cooperated with the investigation and gave them a lot of valuable information.
Despite that the judge still accused him of virtually selling out the country so there goes his application for saint-hood.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

More like what they told him was hey remember how fond the president is of you and how stupid it would be for you to cross him.... not in so many words.
And the judge wants the recording of those said conversations along with the transcripts and the recording and transcripts of his calls to Sergei Kislyac.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

They will never read the report as long as they can hold on to Barrs summary.
And that fact that Barr's summary has been disputed by the author of the report, that will never be acknowledged.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

So then what was the conclusive statement from the team all about...
the one that said

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President ' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: chr0naut

They will never read the report as long as they can hold on to Barrs summary.
And that fact that Barr's summary has been disputed by the author of the report, that will never be acknowledged.


I have not seen where Mueller has stated that? Where did he say this to any journalist, congress person, committee, or anyone for that matter? I truly have not seen Nor heard an actual quote from Mueller saying this. If you can provide me the source, it would be most appreciative.

All I have seen is folks holding onto a misinterpretation of a letter to Barr. I have been busier with spring planting so am guessing I may have missed Mueller actually being interviewed and asked what he meant.
edit on 5 20 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

See?

And yet.... you do know that it was stated in a letter so thats a start.

Mueller has not spoken to anyone and you know that
edit on 5202019 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Dfairlite

So then what was the conclusive statement from the team all about...
the one that said

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President ' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.


Actually, that is a perfect example of an inconclusive statement.
Just a FYI to assist in future better comprehension.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

It is not inconclusive at all as it clearly states what the facts are.
They cannot indict a sitting president but If he could charge him and bring him to trial he would.
A jury would determine his guilt or innocence. It never was Muellers job to do that.

Just an FYI as to current comprehension...





edit on 5202019 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
64
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join