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: 9
64
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2019 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: chr0naut

Investigations are supposed to conclude whether there is a crime, or whether there isn't.

Fixed it for ya.



No. Investigations only aim to determine if there is enough evidence to satisfy the burdens placed on the government by the Constitution.

That's it. For a prosecutorial decision, they have enough evidence to reasonably conclude something took place. Or not.

One person says his neighbor hit him. The neighbor says he didn't. If there is not a preponderance of evidence suggesting the neighbor hit him, the report is closed unfounded or unsubstantiated. It doesn't mean the neighbor is innocent or a crime did not occur. That's not the purpose of the investigation.
The investigation determines whether or not the state has sufficient evidence that an individual committed a crime so it can act non-consenually against a citizen.
The citizen has no burden. If the police knock on his door, he is free to tell them to # off. Unless they have met their threshold of evidence, the police/government is powerless to interfere with the rights of the citizen. The citizen never has to provide evidence to the state to exonerate himself.

They only need a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) to seek an indictment. The threshold is even lower to detain you temporarily (reasonable suspicion).

The Mueller report cannot conclude a crime occurred after two years of subpeonas, warrants, and interviews. That they also don't clear him of wrong-doing or may still have suspicions is meaningless if they cannot meet their thresholds of evidence. Ask O.J.


Actually, I agree and thanks for the work of explaining it so clearly.

I was just trying to give a pithy reply to another poster but it wasn't entirely exact.

I am duly chastened.





posted on May, 15 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   

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?




posted on May, 15 2019 @ 12:46 AM
link   

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....



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:51 AM
link   

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?

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



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Anyone who thinks trump making a joke at a campaign rally for Russia to get hillarys emails - is a hacking/treason attempt is an idiot.

Paying hookers isnt a crime

Denials of business meetings? Tax fraud? Campaign fraud? Care to provide evidence or is that just msm speak
edit on 15/5/19 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 05:00 AM
link   

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.

edit on 15-5-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 05:09 AM
link   

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



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: chr0naut

So what are you saying exactly..

There wasn't enough evidence of collusion, but he's guilty because the evidence wasn't found?
or
He's guilty until its proven he's innocent?

as a fellow kiwi I thought we were a little more logical than this, I'm struggling with your position here..


I would bet a days salary that Chr0 is from China. He speaks like a full blown Chicom.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable Cause mate
That means presumed innocent
Sorry your tiny island doesnt have that.


Time for someone to eat Chr0 pie in China or Kiwi land. Chr0 has been exposed as a shill who doesn't read the information while continuing the planks of the Manefesto!
edit on 15-5-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

Nice
Just straight up lies.
Sorta like the trump 2014 court case...right?

Nothing further needed from you.

I think ATS need to ban Chr0 since he never admits he was wrong and keeps on with lies like collusion and Presumption of innocence in Western law since the Magna Carta was signed. He even lies about understanding what has been explained many times to him. If not banned then as a Proven liar, he should at least have an asterisk with a note they are proven wrong 99% of the time or whatever the stat really is (99.9%).
/s

Nah I can copy and paste that to my friends Facebook and get a good laugh.




posted on May, 15 2019 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

So you imply presumption of innocence doesn't apply in the US,.

Then I prove you wrong and you say you were just joking.

Then I say you weren't joking and now you are back to implying presumption of innocence isn't in US law.

Good work!



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It's worth noting that a fair trial cannot happen without the presumption of innocence. As such, the sixth amendment would be the codifying of the presumption of innocence, when it says you have the right to a fair and public trial.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Grambler

It's worth noting that a fair trial cannot happen without the presumption of innocence. As such, the sixth amendment would be the codifying of the presumption of innocence, when it says you have the right to a fair and public trial.


Agreed.

In addition the criminal standard of beyon a reasonable doubt implies the presumption of innocence.

But we see the trump resisatnce is trying to change this, in the Kavanaugh situation, and now with trump.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Oh, that will change... the second anyone from the DNC is indicted, all we will hear about is that they are presumed innocent.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes, it is implied. I provided a Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court explicitly stated it.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You mean the difference we saw with Brett and Creepy Joe?



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That'a as good an example as any.


TheRedneck



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   
So..this happened today...with witnesses.. AG No Holds Barred!


Nicholas Fandos @npfandos · 17m

Today at a law enforcement ceremony at Capitol: AG Barr approached Pelosi, shook her hand: "Madam Speaker, did you bring your handcuffs?" Pelosi smiled and, per a bystander, told Barr the House Sergeant at Arms was there should an arrest be needed. Barr laughed; walked away


twitter.com...



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: chr0naut

Anyone who thinks trump making a joke at a campaign rally for Russia to get hillarys emails - is a hacking/treason attempt is an idiot.


Was that ever an allegation?


Paying hookers isnt a crime


Prostitution is only legal in Nevada. Someone paying for prostitution would be charged with "solicitation for prostitution", which is illegal in most states.


Denials of business meetings?


Yeah, I know, why not just say "I was looking to build a Trump tower in Moscow, nothing came of it", instead Trump kept strenuously denying it.


Tax fraud? Campaign fraud? Care to provide evidence or is that just msm speak


Under the Mueller investigation;
- Paul Mannafort, the Trump Campaign Manager, was convicted of 8 counts of financial crimes.
- 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.
- 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 (and Trump repeatedly said there was no obstruction of justice).

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



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join