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: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Obstruction.....
Why does it sound like you are being purposely obtuse?

Are you claiming you cant obstruct an investigation even if the investigation doesn't deliver? Because you can obstruct an investigation no matter what the investigation is about or its outcome.
The obstruction of any investigation is not contingent on the outcome of said investigation.




posted on May, 29 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Because he was told he wasn't allowed to. Or he would have....
What were you watching the Disney version of his statement or something?
🎶 When you wish upon a star...



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

So does the DOJ. oh well guess we cant count on them so we will have to count on congress.

hahahahaha
you are reduced to counting on fat jerry
lolololol
you could bribe him with a sandwich you know........right up your alley



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




Because he was told he wasn't allowed to. Or he would have....

neither of which is true
NOTHING stopped him from recommending charges
he could recommended what ever he liked
he in no way indicated he wished to recommend charges

he did say he appreciated what barr did and in no way disagreed with what barr did

lol
nice try



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

which he laid out quite clearly... Eleven counts of obstruction.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep




Quote me saying that this is my reason for believing that russia interfered? As for what my reasons are, you read the report so you already know my reasons. You've already made up your mind. Like I said we have a different opinion about what it says.


"It was an investigation into russian meddling. Which the report proved did happen.

Trump was just a part of that."



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Because he was told he wasn't allowed to. Or he would have....
What were you watching the Disney version of his statement or something?
🎶 When you wish upon a star...


co-conspirators don't have "immunity" like a President does, so your knee-hits-jaw reaction and rebuttal is tangential at best 😆

One indictment would have added credibility to an Impeachment 😆

Fail 😆



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

bs



"We concluded that we would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president."


you are making crap up



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: neutronflux

which he laid out quite clearly... Eleven counts of obstruction.


Post those !!!

Betcha can't 😆



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: neutronflux

which he laid out quite clearly... Eleven counts of obstruction.
We're talking about recommendations, not what you delusional perspective sees.

Where did Mueller identify and recommend charges for the DOJ and OLC to determine?
edit on 29-5-2019 by Arnie123 because: Hm



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

One was a report... the other was actual legal proceedings under oath.
Its apples and oranges all right.

An impeachment hearing should one begin would allow for a freer flow of the information from the DOJ and the White House.
The ignoring of subpoenas will not be supported by the supreme court and congress will get what ever they want.
I think they're are lining up to start hearings at the very least. And hearings can take a long long time.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Is that me saying something about indictments?

Looks like I didn't give my reasons. I just stated my belief.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I wasn't able to watch the video until lunch break and was just going off of articles.

But if you go back to OP and press play on the video and fast forward to around 5:00 (pointed out by Grimpachi), Mueller does say the scope of the investigation was always without consideration of indicting a sitting president.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   
No they aren't.

Enough BS investigations have already taken place.

It's over.

Check Mate.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Big day for you huh?



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Is that me saying something about indictments?

Looks like I didn't give my reasons. I just stated my belief.


I said Mueller cites his own indictments, none of which have been proven in court. You said the Mueller report, which you claimed to have read, proves Russian meddling.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

aside from the president no one was indicted from mueller
other crimes were found along the way, none from what he was tasked with doing

so if they started with we cant indict trump and no one else got indicted what was it all for, other than to smear trump?
or to lay a perjury trap?

seriously
it seems to me the special council from the doj was entirely the wrong venue for what they wanted

especially when rr signed off on what barr decided



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: neutronflux

which he laid out quite clearly... Eleven counts of obstruction.


Post those !!!

Betcha can't 😆


From the only paper worth reading,
www.theguardian.com...



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RadioRobert

One was a report... the other was actual legal proceedings under oath..


No. You're lying. Again. It is the language of the Special Prosecutor's report. The impeachment proceedings are held by Congress, not the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

link


You'll want to read the portion under the "Grounds" where Starr lays out crimes and says "There is Substantial and Credible Information that President Clinton Committed Acts that May Constitute Grounds for an Impeachment"... "President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case", "President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury", "the President obstructed justice", etc, etc


As opposed to, I don't know, say something like "I'm not convinced President Clinton is innocent"...



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.



The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

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



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join