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.

 

GOP Rep. Amash becomes first Republican to call for Trump's impeachment

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


Very alarming.

Servant of the people, or of the Peoples Liberation Army? Course I'm being silly, but still, not a good look.

Tariffs impacted his revenue stream.

This actually really brings to mind just what else scurries about and gets illuminated in these cases. When the cash tap, so to speak, gets cut, I wonder who starts to scream the loudest?
Some interesting names I've never heard of have popped up like this tool.
edit on 19-5-2019 by Arnie123 because: Yeah, something weird going on...




posted on May, 19 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: thov420

Odd thing, isn't it? This whole needing evidence thing...how odd.

I mean, it should have worked against Kavanaugh...but, somehow, it didn't. WTF? Oh, well...it'll work this time!!!



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: thov420

Odd thing, isn't it? This whole needing evidence thing...how odd.

I mean, it should have worked against Kavanaugh...but, somehow, it didn't. WTF? Oh, well...it'll work this time!!!


Yes, that does seem odd...though Amash was the only rep with a (R) behind his name who voted against Kavanaugh too...so I am guessing he has no clue that opinions are NOT evidence.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull
I made a whole thread about the fact that we need evidence to prove someone guilty in this country. Didn't get a lot of responses, but some think people need to be exonerated to not be guilty of a crime. Not quite sure how that actually works, but that seems to be the state of affairs nowadays.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

What does ..

1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.

Have to do with you can't charge a President? Nothing.


There is a legal report which contains 10 evidenced allegations of attempted obstruction of justice by Trump but mentions that it is hamstrung by not being able to indict a sitting President.

Barr misrepresented to the public and to a Congressional committee, the nature of the content of the report. Suggesting that the report cleared Trump (i.e: gave a 'not guilty' verdict) when it does no such thing. That much is evidenced and a matter of record - the Congressional committee has held Barr with contempt of Congress over it.

This, then leaves the question of motives;

Trump is Barr's boss and could make the rest of Barr's life hell, rapidly stripping him of all position, honor and ongoing income or pension from his role. The impeachment process for the President would take time and may not be successful. So Trump has plenty of time to destroy Barr. Trump has sacked and thrown other close allies 'under the bus' numerous times before, to save himself. It isn't like Barr could get out of this in one piece.

That is also Trump's motivation for his attempts to obstruct the course of justice. He obviously fears exposure for some crime that is bad enough to attempt, frequently, to obstruct justice. That crime may not even be related to the criteria of the Mueller investigation but Trump obviously feared and still fears what the investigation may reveal.

My guess is that Trump will also attempt to stop the investigations into the origins of the Mueller investigation because they will be re-examining the evidence so he isn't 'safe' by any means. Of course that is just my speculation.

The issues do closely interrelate.
edit on 19/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: NthOther
For what?

1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.- Amash

When did Mueller say that? Oh, he didn't.


Did. He had a whole section on why he couldn't indict a sitting President and another on not being exonerated.

There was no pronouncement of not guilty. That is what clearing Trump would actually be like, if it had happened.

As it is, it is unresolved and there are 10 instances that Mueller suggests are possible obstruction of justice. Mueller is the one raising the allegations of obstruction of justice against Trump, in his report.

I think that because Mueller has raised the allegations, he cannot try Trump, it would have to go to an impartial third party judge for prosecution. Mueller is a stickler for following the letter of the law procedurally. Barr less so.



There was no pronouncement of, "not guilty". Correct. Because that isn't was prosecutors do. They also don't exonerate the party they are going after. The closest a prosecutor gets to either of the aforementioned is to decide not to charge the accused. That is exactly what happened here. This was not because,"Mueller has raised the allegations", but rather the "allegations" where raised by whoever promulgated the Special Counsel, not by Mueller.

Mueller pointed to several instances that he claims were possible instances of obstruction. He goes into great lengths in doing so. Yet, nothing comes from it. The reason is possibly that, although he didn't have the evidence to successfully charge Trump, he could at least cause harm by way of casting doubt and giving political rivals some bones to chew on. This way, it wouldn't seem like a total loss. Make no mistake: Mueller's job to go after Trump in any way he could. The entire investigation, the appointment of the Special Counsel, is predicated on false statements. The FBI stated that there was likely no collusion with Russia, and still the Special Counsel was established by those who would later be fired for bias.
edit on 19-5-2019 by timequake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

Barr misrepresented to the public and to a Congressional committee, the nature of the content of the report.

Oh, my mistake, all I want is you to show me Mueller saying "Barr misrepresented the content of the report". Source Mueller saying that, specifically.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusion,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

From same article


When William Barr was appointed attorney general, his critics warned that Barr would do everything he could to either interfere with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s work or suppress his report. In his confirmation hearings, Barr pledged to release as much of the report as he could under the law.

He followed through: There have been no indications of interference, and he released the 448-page report in April with relatively light redactions. But Barr was more clever. While still making the report public, Barr managed to mislead the public and Congress, spinning Mueller’s findings in a way that hobbled their impact and protected the president



“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mueller wrote in his 448-page report, which laid out evidence gathered about potential acts of obstruction by Trump.


The summary said that Mueller found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and that the special counsel stopped short of exonerating U.S. President Donald Trump of obstruction of justice...In his March 27 letter, Mueller said that Barr’s four-page memo didn’t “fully capture the context, nature and substance” of the special counsel’s investigation, the Post reported. “This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”


(post by G0DK1LL3R removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on May, 19 2019 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LDragonFire
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.-Amash


I also suspect that few ATS'ers have read the report.

They barely read the headlines and only if they agree with their ideology.




Much like your fellow Aussies eh?

Scott Morrison couldn't win!

And you believed it lol.


Did I?

The voices in your head must be so loud.




posted on May, 19 2019 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Justin Amash's father is Palestinian, mother Syrian. He owns a CHINESE tool Co, wants Trump impeached. Go figure. HONK!



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: NthOther
For what?

1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.- Amash


Mueller does not have a problem with barr's interpretation, he has a problem with the msm's misrepresentation. What impeachable conduct by trump? Be specific. This should be good lol.

Cheers - Dave


Mueller does have a problem with Barr's interpretation and posted a copy of the letter publicly as well as sending it to Barr.

Mueller is also quitting the DOJ, probably because once he is not employed by Barr, he will not be constrained from speaking his mind. Or perhaps he just wants to retire.

Needless to say, he isn't a happy chapie about Barr's interpretation.


I read the letter, the problem appears to be that Mueller is bitching that Barr did not try to spread additional lies according to the BS Mueller report innuendo. It has to be innuendo because Sideshow Bob couldn't prove a damn thing, $35 million and 2 years wasted. The msm then made an interpretation that Sideshow Bob didn't like. Better call him/her a waahmbulance.

Cheers - Dave


I know, Trump right?

2 years, no wall, no Mexico paying for it, trade war with China, longest government shutdown in history, 'lil Kim still rattling sabres at the US & Japan, no repeal of health legislation.

Billions of dollars and nothing to show for it.

Making America what again (MAWA)?




posted on May, 19 2019 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: SickSalvation84
Justin Amash's father is Palestinian, mother Syrian. He owns a CHINESE tool Co, wants Trump impeached. Go figure. HONK!


So, the fact that you are a racist is some sort of rebuttal?

I don't follow your reasoning.




posted on May, 19 2019 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: timequake

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: NthOther
For what?

1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.- Amash

When did Mueller say that? Oh, he didn't.


Did. He had a whole section on why he couldn't indict a sitting President and another on not being exonerated.

There was no pronouncement of not guilty. That is what clearing Trump would actually be like, if it had happened.

As it is, it is unresolved and there are 10 instances that Mueller suggests are possible obstruction of justice. Mueller is the one raising the allegations of obstruction of justice against Trump, in his report.

I think that because Mueller has raised the allegations, he cannot try Trump, it would have to go to an impartial third party judge for prosecution. Mueller is a stickler for following the letter of the law procedurally. Barr less so.



There was no pronouncement of, "not guilty". Correct. Because that isn't was prosecutors do. They also don't exonerate the party they are going after. The closest a prosecutor gets to either of the aforementioned is to decide not to charge the accused. That is exactly what happened here. This was not because,"Mueller has raised the allegations", but rather the "allegations" where raised by whoever promulgated the Special Counsel, not by Mueller.

Mueller pointed to several instances that he claims were possible instances of obstruction. He goes into great lengths in doing so. Yet, nothing comes from it. The reason is possibly that, although he didn't have the evidence to successfully charge Trump, he could at least cause harm by way of casting doubt and giving political rivals some bones to chew on. This way, it wouldn't seem like a total loss. Make no mistake: Mueller's job to go after Trump in any way he could. The entire investigation, the appointment of the Special Counsel, is predicated on false statements. The FBI stated that there was likely no collusion with Russia, and still the Special Counsel was established by those who would later be fired for bias.


I almost gave you a passing grade but when you ended it with "collusion", I had to give an 'F' and give you detention.

You must write out, "Collusion is not a Federal crime." 100 times, after class, until it 'sinks in'.



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



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: NthOther
For what?

1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.- Amash


The guy is a hack and always has been, he always just wants to be in the limelight and has been known to say and do outlandish things to do so.

It wouldnt surprise me if this idiot was doing this to set up his own announcement to run for president against Trump, in fact, i would be willing to bet my next check on it.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

Barr misrepresented to the public and to a Congressional committee, the nature of the content of the report.

Oh, my mistake, all I want is you to show me Mueller saying "Barr misrepresented the content of the report". Source Mueller saying that, specifically.


Mueller's letter to Barr dated March 27, 2019

That - specifically.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

Barr misrepresented to the public and to a Congressional committee, the nature of the content of the report.

Oh, my mistake, all I want is you to show me Mueller saying "Barr misrepresented the content of the report". Source Mueller saying that, specifically.


Mueller's letter to Barr dated March 27, 2019

That - specifically.


And no where in that letter does it state that, I often wonder if some of you just make up stuff as you go along or if the entrenchment is so deep, that you literally read whats not there.

And if im not mistaken Meuller contacted Barr after his little testimony, telling him indeed he was satisfied with his presentation of the information.
edit on 19-5-2019 by SailorJerry because: (no reason given)



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

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SickSalvation84
Justin Amash's father is Palestinian, mother Syrian. He owns a CHINESE tool Co, wants Trump impeached. Go figure. HONK!


So, the fact that you are a racist is some sort of rebuttal?

I don't follow your reasoning.


You must have missed the part where he said he owned a Chinese tool co.

Also that he was the only R that voted against kavanaugh due to blind hatred of orange man.

Silly of you to accuse everyone around you of being racist and nazis.....

Lol

It's like you are assuming their heritage



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You posted nothing specific. Try again.

"Barr misrepresented the content of the report". Source Mueller saying that, specifically.

I want to see it.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: G0DK1LL3R

Yes, that letter makes it clear the media was reporting falsehoods confusing the public. Nowhere does it say Barr's summary had falsehoods. Try again.




top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join