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: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

If trump had any ideas of clearing up his intent in his actions he could have sat down to an interview so they could gage his intent. He avoided any chance of being questioned on his responses. We can only guess his intent.
Since he didn't answer the questions in a setting that would have made it clear.




posted on May, 29 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

of all the people to complain about politicians and intent.......
wow
just wow



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Mueller addressed this too.
He said that although they couldn not indict a sitting president it had already been established that they could investigate a president. In order to preserve evidence and testimony while memories were still fresh.
Now you make of that what you will.
Preserve evidence and testimony while memories were still fresh.... like evidence that will stand the test of time or be available within another venue.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yes, but he clearly said if there was evidence of a crime it would have been stated as such in the report. So the report would have said we believe the evidence says crime x happened. They would not have charged him though. Charging him has nothing to do with whether the report states a crime happened.


He said if they found evidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not however make a determination whether the president did commit a crime.

Through the context of not being able to charge him-6:15

"It would be unfair to potentially accuse someone of a crime if there can be no court resolution of the actual charge".

"We would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime".
edit on 29-5-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



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

Correct.
What ultimately forced Nixons hand was the outright threat of impeachment.



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

And they didn't need to.



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



if they found evidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.


oops


Now you make of that what you will.


I make of it that Mueller had an opportunity to disagree with barrs decision and did not; instead he appreciated what barr has done and thinks barr has acted in good faith.

good luck impeaching with good faith and open ended statements



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CriticalStinker




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.


But that is not what he says. He says he was prohibited from indicting. He did not say they didn't have evidence.
As a matter of fact he said that if he could say that trump did not commit a crime he would say so and he can't say so.
If nothing else this is an open ended statement.


Mueller's job was to investigate a supposed crime. If evidence is found that a crime was committed he would have said so in his report. The DOJ will then send the report to congress with the recommendation for impeachment.

A president can be impeached if a special counsel reports that they found evidence of a crime.

Mueller did not state this conclusion. He did not state he recommended impeachment.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I think you know where this is going.
The dirty laundry comes out if they just have a hearing about impeachment.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Hopefully so. LIke Comeys statement about Clinton was remembered when Americans went to the polls.

But in all honesty I do not know how a campaign goes about while you are being impeached.

I would expect a resignation before he has to get up under oath.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

I think you know where this is going.
The dirty laundry comes out if they just have a hearing about impeachment.

yeah i know where it is going
trump getting re elected in 2020 because the dems are to petty to admit hillary lost

the only dirty laundry upcoming is exposure of the illegal spying used by barak against his political rivals



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

You did not ask me so pardon. LOL...

I think there will be a hearing. I think the hearing will be damaging enough to result in his resignation. Like Nixon.

The state of New York is waiting for him in the end.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




I would expect a resignation before he has to get up under oath.

how exactly will you expect him to be under oath?
please tell the entire class if you would

also this will be nice to have in a couple of months
like no path to 270 or bobby 2 sticks will get jr

any more quotables for today?



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

And Nancy wants hearings Long drawn out damaging hearings. And the endless flow of information into the congress that trump will no long be able to obstruct. Not that the courts are siding with him anyway.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




So why would Mueller not say if there were crimes they are confident they could prove?

Because if he made a statement like that.. if he accused trump of crimes in a public venue, trump has nowhere to go to defend himself. There can be no court case to hear both sides. It would be Muellers statement with no cross examination by the defense.
And Twitter is not a good platform for questioning witnesses.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou




Literally everyone with two brain cells: If Trump had committed a crime, he would've been charged.


Almost....
If trump could be charged we would have.
The only recourse you have is within the constitution and the halls of congress.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

What are you talking about?!?

Muller has had 2 press releases now to clear up the inaccuracies that Barr portrayed..



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Did Bob Mueller mention how President Obama tried to stop Russian intervention into our elections, by telling them to "cut it out!"?



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RadioRobert

If trump had any ideas of clearing up his intent in his actions he could have sat down to an interview so they could gage his intent. He avoided any chance of being questioned on his responses. We can only guess his intent.
Since he didn't answer the questions in a setting that would have made it clear.


Fortunately, we don't allow the government to "guess" people's intent or actions. The government must instead demonstrate intent or action with evidence...

Trump is under no compulsion to discuss either his intents or actions with anyone. You can address that at the ballot box, not by removing a duly elected President for intent or actions you "guess" at.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I just heard that private citizen Mueller can ignore a congressional subpoena. Is that true?




top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join