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: 14
64
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Sooooooo backwards.




posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Those indictments which were brought were not against a sitting President and were related to discovery from the investigation.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




And in the end... New York is waiting on him.

For what?
Do you think cohen was not part of the mueller investigation?
Who does sdny work for?
Spoiler alert: BARR

but hey with got over you need a fantasy story and what you post about trump unsourced is pretty fantasitical



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




Mueller has not spoken to anyone and you know that

Then perhaps you should not put words in his mouth?



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts

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.


If we have misinterpreted Mueller's letter to Barr, then please explain in clear terms exactly what Mueller was intending to sat to Barr that was different from our interpretation. Break it down, sentence by sentence, perhaps. Or just concentrate on that third paragraph.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   
HAHAHAHA
"Muellers" letter
If one understands the process one would understand that mueller does not get to determine what is released; the AG does that.
The spin ended when sessions left and barr was confirmed by the senate.
Barr as the AG determined what was released per the procedure.
Perhaps some should read up on that.
Funny how the results of the investigation are not an issue only the spin.

NO collusion
NO obstruction
TRUMP WON



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Sillyolme



And in the end... New York is waiting on him.


In the end, the statute of limitations will all be up by the time he leaves office. LOL


The statute for major fraud crimes against the US government (including conspiracy) is 7 years and the Attorney General can also extend the statute time period if so requested.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CynConcepts

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.


If we have misinterpreted Mueller's letter to Barr, then please explain in clear terms exactly what Mueller was intending to sat to Barr that was different from our interpretation. Break it down, sentence by sentence, perhaps. Or just concentrate on that third paragraph.


All I can go on at this point is Barr's testimony before the Senate regarding his follow up with Mueller via phone. Until Mueller speaks for himself those are the only facts provided.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut




When did he deny that? How are we to know that it was really him?


WaPo claims to have talked to Kilimnick



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?


Maybe if he wasn't an employee of manaforts dating back long before his foray into the trump campaign. But the case being that he was an employee long before manafort was hired by trump and that trump had no contact with kilimnick and that manaforts dealings with kilimnick were pretty lame and tame as it pertains to the election. No it's not suspicious at all.

Obstruction:
Now I will point you towards a different sentence in your quoted paragraph:



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.


Translation: we are unable to determine corrupt intent and therefore unable to charge.

Barr and rosenstein cleared this up for us. We don't have to make assumptions and guesses. Having been found to NOT have colluded


Where was anyone found to have not colluded with Russia. As I keep repeating, it isn't a Federal crime so of course no-one is going to be charged with collusion in Federal court.

The crime is conspiracy and Kilimnik was charged with conspiracy and obstruction. Barr's summary was untrue, at least on those grounds.


with russia, trumps intent could not have been corrupt. Rather, it was understandable frustration with being falsely accused thta led trump to talk about things that mueller thought were obstruction.

If you don't believe barr and rosenstein, Dr. Dershowitz has another take on it. Even if his intent was corrupt, no action he took was illegal and therefore it cannot have been obstruction. You cannot obstruct justice by doing lawful activities (IE fire comey, talk about firing mueller, etc).

You're buying innuendo. You're disregarding presumption of innocence. You're disregarding the legal opinion of the actual prosecutor. You're disregarding the legal opinion of probably the premier legal scholar of our age. All so you can read a statement of inconclusiveness into a statement of guilt.

Quit with the mental gymnastics. Life makes much more sense when you do.


It's in Mueller's report. Which differs from Barr's summary such that Barr is being held in contempt of Congress about his misrepresentation of the facts, even when the evidence was before him and the Congressional committee.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
This is not the Mudpit.



Stop acting, and posting, like it is.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The democrat-controlled house holding barr in contempt is a good thing. It shows that he is on the right track.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

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.


No, he got a memo from Rod allowing him to pursue crimes arising from his investigation. Don't you remember arguing that gave Mueller a carte blanche against Manafort and co? Long term memory loss?

Judicial recusal has nothing to do with this? Are you just throwing in big words now? If you punch a cop, he's going to arrest you for assault and fill out a report. He doesn't watch you walk away because he recused himself. That's not how this works.


But judges and special prosecutors and attorney generals must recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest in a case. Trump tried to fire Mueller. Mueller is victim, accuser, prosecutor with authority to raise indictments in the case of Trump trying to obstruct the course of justice by firing him. Clear conflict of interest.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CynConcepts

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.


If we have misinterpreted Mueller's letter to Barr, then please explain in clear terms exactly what Mueller was intending to sat to Barr that was different from our interpretation. Break it down, sentence by sentence, perhaps. Or just concentrate on that third paragraph.


All I can go on at this point is Barr's testimony before the Senate regarding his follow up with Mueller via phone. Until Mueller speaks for himself those are the only facts provided.


Or you could compare Mueller's report and Barr's summary for yourself.

Was no-one charged with conspiracy? Was no one charged with obstruction? What about Kilimnik, he was charged with both and recorded as being an agent of Russian intelligence, in the Mueller report.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CynConcepts

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.


If we have misinterpreted Mueller's letter to Barr, then please explain in clear terms exactly what Mueller was intending to sat to Barr that was different from our interpretation. Break it down, sentence by sentence, perhaps. Or just concentrate on that third paragraph.


All I can go on at this point is Barr's testimony before the Senate regarding his follow up with Mueller via phone. Until Mueller speaks for himself those are the only facts provided.


Or you could compare Mueller's report and Barr's summary for yourself.

Was no-one charged with conspiracy? Was no one charged with obstruction? What about Kilimnik, he was charged with both and recorded as being an agent of Russian intelligence, in the Mueller report.


Don't be Silly! You obvious lack reading skills since I have shared how I have actually read all of that and reread and compared summaries, thus why I have formed my current opinion that Barr's summary conclusion was correct.

What I am trying to stay open minded on is whether Mueller disagreed with Barr's conclusions or not. As Mueller has not come out and resolved this himself...I am left with leaning towards Brr's senate hearing statement as to being most accurate. Otherwise, why no word from Mueller?

Edit add: no one is denying a russian conspiracy was afoot. The report showed that no American citizen knowingly nor intentionally was enabling it. Both sides of this should be celebrating that!
edit on 5 20 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: chr0naut

The democrat-controlled house holding barr in contempt is a good thing. It shows that he is on the right track.


What it boils down to is this: essentially the Democrats and the controlled
leftist media have decided it is time to bare the teeth and reveal the game
that was going on for decades.

The media is controlled by the Democrats, who were steering the country
down Communist lane, and along came Trump.

At first they thought their insurance policy would work, but making
a federal case out of literally nothing is quite the feat. They failed....
and now have decided that they will snarl and growl and bite, accuse
and ruin more lives as many as they can to control the narrative.

They are leading the future generations into the hate fueled frenzy
that will in 10 years fully reject the concept of free market capitalism
and they will beg for socialism because they are fully brainwashed.

Like a hungry pack of wolves, the left has decided it is time for the kill.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: RadioRobert

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.


No, he got a memo from Rod allowing him to pursue crimes arising from his investigation. Don't you remember arguing that gave Mueller a carte blanche against Manafort and co? Long term memory loss?

Judicial recusal has nothing to do with this? Are you just throwing in big words now? If you punch a cop, he's going to arrest you for assault and fill out a report. He doesn't watch you walk away because he recused himself. That's not how this works.


But judges and special prosecutors and attorney generals must recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest in a case. Trump tried to fire Mueller. Mueller is victim, accuser, prosecutor with authority to raise indictments in the case of Trump trying to obstruct the course of justice by firing him. Clear conflict of interest.


And yet this nonsense argument didn't stop Mueller from prosecuting any other obstruction crimes related to his investigation. I guess Flynn 's surefire defense should have been hiring you to convince the judge Mueller had a conflict of interest because his investigation was the one he was accused of "obstructing" . Think of the money he could have saved.
But he didn't. Because his lawyers weren't as clever as you... Or because it is a complete fantasy created to explain away the fact Mueller did not find enough to indict or conclude a crime was committed(regardless of the OLC policy).

The only thing you've repeatedly shown is that you have no idea how the law works outside of China.
edit on 20-5-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 04:03 PM
link   

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!


All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

WHERE?



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

no it won't.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Fortunately one does not get punished based on "public consciousness".

No but they do get elected or not based on it.
The point is that innocent until proven guilty doesnt come into play and peoples opinions will prevail.
And that even if someone is acquitted they can still be deemed guilty by the public at large. Just ask Casey Anthony.



Authoritarians on the left... good one...



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join