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.

 

Robert Mueller's first statement about Russia probe

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   


Here is Mueller's first statement about the Russia probe

Watch it and decide for yourselves.




posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Did he charge anyone already not charged?



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: LDragonFire

Did he charge anyone already not charged?


He made it clear he could not charge the president based on DOJ policy.
edit on 29-5-2019 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   
BUT BUT Schiff and Nadler have evidence !!!!!!!!!

🤣🤣


+4 more 
posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: LDragonFire

Did he charge anyone already not charged?


He made it clear he could not charge the president based on DOJ policy.


So he found evidence of Russian collusion but couldn't charge him based on DOJ policy?

LMAO.

Or are you saying that Trump obstructed an investigation into a crime that didn't happen?

Y'all need to make up your minds.




posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   
If Trump "Obstructed", why didn't Bueller charge the conspirators and cohorts ?

Schiff and Nadler would know right? 🤣🤣

🤣🤣



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: LDragonFire

Did he charge anyone already not charged?


He made it clear he could not charge the president based on DOJ policy.

oh so then the "investigation" was all bs?



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Mueller: If we had confidence Trump didn't commit a crime, we would have said so



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: LDragonFire

Did he charge anyone already not charged?


He made it clear he could not charge the president based on DOJ policy.


You guys talk in circles.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: LDragonFire

Did he charge anyone already not charged?


He made it clear he could not charge the president based on DOJ policy.


Like you have to have evidence of a crime.....



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Sorry. Read out of context.
edit on 29-5-2019 by neutronflux because: Read out of context



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:19 AM
link   
You don't have to formally charge someone with an indictment to conclude a crime was committed. Look at the Starr report in contrast.



"1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. 

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. 

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him. 

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case. 

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys. 

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. 

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case. 

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case. 

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition. 

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury. 



No indictment, but clearly concluded crimes were committed.

Mueller says:


Accordingly, while this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.




It's apples and oranges.



Part of me hopes they impeach. He's almost through his term and his agenda handicapped by inertia anyway. It would never pass the Senate, and there is no downside for him in light of those facts. It's only upside politically.


Sort of like California deciding to give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. There's no chance of those CA votes going red in the foreseeable future -- except that it is now possible if a Republican wins the national pop. vote. There is only downside politically for the people pushing so hard for this.

I really question how bright some of these people are.
edit on 29-5-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I provided the video of his statement. You have the same evidence I have.

Watch the video make your own judgment, why ask me questions when you have the same information I have?


+7 more 
posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
I provided the video of his statement. You have the same evidence I have.

Watch the video make your own judgment, why ask me questions when you have the same information I have?


Because when you post a thread, there is a note that you have to click on that points out that simply posting a video with a "you decide" one liner isn't worthy of a thread. Folks want to know your thoughts on it. That is the requirement for a new thread.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Oh my. He doesn't sound like DeNiro at all.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Then trash the thread.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: LDragonFire

Did he charge anyone already not charged?


He made it clear he could not charge the president based on DOJ policy.

so no new charges then?

and again why investigate if he could not charge?
it wasn't purely political or anything then right?



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Mueller: If we had confidence Trump didn't commit a crime, we would have said so


SoOo...

They think he committed a crime but could not find any evidence that he did.

Let's get real.

This entire investigation was for two things and two things only.

1. It was a 2 1/2 year taxpayer-funded opposition research project for 2020.

2. It was an excellent way to cast a cloud over Trump's first two years on office and a good way to keep his approval numbers down.

But now it is over and the real fun is going to begin.


edit on 29-5-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

I think I can sum it up.

Any lawyer/prosecutor knows it's easier to prove a politician guilty of a crime rather than saying they are innocent of all crimes.

He didn't find enough evidence of a crime to indict Trump... That's about as good of an answer as you can have these days.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

It is not the criminal justice system's job to charge a sitting President.
Constitution Article 1: Oh yeah, Impeachment by House of Representatives.

It isn't up to AG or anyone else in the Executive Branch.
Read the 448 page Report.

Congress do your job!!!

Russian interference is not a hoax!!!
edit on 29-5-2019 by pthena because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join