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: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2019 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Lumenari

Yes...

It is DOJ policy that any president must be impeached before being charged..

All Muller could do to Trump was Exonerate him, or say “here is the evidence. It is up to you congress to take action “..


He did the second one..

.

~sigh~

Mueller's job was to see if there was enough evidence to convict.

If a conviction was possible then it's impeachment time.

It is not a prosecutor's job to "exonerate" anyone.

He did not find enough evidence to recommend impeachment.

So what will the left impeach Trump for?

Any grounds besides "we don't like it that we lost an election"?

I really hope they start the impeachment process.

All that's going to do is ensure further Democratic losses.

So please PLEASE impeach!!!



Yes! Starred.

I can't believe what I thought were intelligent (most here) adults are arguing about whether someone has been proven innocent of a crime.

Shake your heads, your eyes are stuck.

If someone is "Presumed Innocent", and hasn't been "Found Guilty", what is there to "Exonerate" that person from?

Wow.

Not to mention, I've never heard of a Prosecutor (or Special Council) "exonerating" anyone.

edit on 5/29/2019 by MykeNukem because: sp.




posted on May, 29 2019 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts




Mueller listed in his summary what allegations they had investigated, not evidence of wrong doing.


"Wrong doings" are Mueller's own words to describe Trump's conduct. When he asked Don McGahn to have Mueller fired, and then get back to him when it's done, then told McGahn to say that never happened, and ordered him to change written records of it happening and to lie under oath, saying that it didn't happen, that was evidence of "wrong doing" that could be seen as a "high crime" by Congress.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: Auth3nt1k




Mueller could only report the facts and clear someone of guilt.


Seriously? That is backwards! What country do you actually live in?

Here in America, investigators seek out to find if there is any actual evidence of guilt. You are innocent until proven guilty! Those are the facts.


don't perpetuate the con.....you know a sitting President cannot be charged with a Federal crime.
Another thing, there may well be steps this time to impeach Trump, for the politicians to try and quietly put it away won't rowork, people want more honesty from politicians now...not populism.
Try another forum for your deceptive slant.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

"Wrong doings" are Mueller's own words to describe Trump's conduct. When he asked Don McGahn to have Mueller fired, and then get back to him when it's done, then told McGahn to say that never happened, and ordered him to change written records of it happening and to lie under oath, saying that it didn't happen, that was evidence of "wrong doing" that could be seen as a "high crime" by Congress.



So here we go down the path that the report says nothing to support impeachment so the only course is "wrong doings" by the President towards the investigation?



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

laugh clown laugh



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

As Mueller said, the thing that prevented him from saying that trump committed a crime was trumps inability to defend such a statement made by Mueller because this would never see the inside of a court of law.

The constitution is clear on how we proceed when the president commits a crime.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Mueller did not address co conspriators. His range was rather slim in this.
Did the president obstruct justice.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Thats Barrs interpretation. If you listen to the two men side by side you will hear that they are at odds with what the report revealed.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So you dont have to read the report? Ha!
Down load it and read the thing.
I dare you.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: RadioRobert

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.



Unless they impeach then he has no option to declare executive privilege. Oh and you seem to be confusing Starr-working for the office of independent counsel(not a part of the justice department) and Mueller working for the DOJ. Mueller could only report the facts and clear someone of guilt. IF the doj could press charges it would have to be Barr...but he penned an opinion piece saying the president can not commit obstruction so....he ain't gonna do that.


You should read the law.



§600.6   Powers and authority.

Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.


Bill Barr was not in the driver's seat until Mueller suddenly decided he would not fulfill his function to make a decision on criminality. If Mueller was given jurisdiction over obstruction or collusion, he gains legal authority to not only investigate but to make prosecutorial decisions. Not Barr or the OLC. That's why Special Counsels are appointed. To create independent decision-making. To separate the investigative and prosecutorial functions from the Executive in instances where an appearance of conflict of interest may exist.



§600.1   Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

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



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Looks like Mueller threw a bone to Dems.

Or is Mueller contradicting his report now.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:45 PM
link   
You should read the law.



§600.6   Powers and authority.

Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.


Bill Barr was not in the driver's seat until Mueller suddenly decided he would not fulfill his function to make a decision on criminality. If Mueller was given jurisdiction over obstruction or collusion, he gains legal authority to not only investigate but to make prosecutorial decisions. Not Barr or the OLC. That's why Special Counsels are appointed. To create independent decision-making. To separate the investigative and prosecutorial functions from the Executive in instances where an appearance of conflict of interest may exist.



§600.1   Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.



Read the very next section 600.7 paragraph b. And tell me how Mueller could have gotten an obstruction case by an AG that says the president connot obstruct. The AG still has the final say on prosecution. There is absolutely no way Barr would have let him...why do you think Barr was appointed?



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Thats Barrs interpretation. If you listen to the two men side by side you will hear that they are at odds with what the report revealed.

And as muellers boss his interpretation is the only one that matters
Especially as mueller didnt disagree with barr today

No collusion
No obstruction
Trump beat your bobby 2 sticks

Lol
You were wrong AGAIN
Mueller got NO ONE



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Mueller did not address co conspriators. His range was rather slim in this.
Did the president obstruct justice.


He had broad range as we know from released documents and simply by performance.

No co-conspirators because there wasn't any 😎



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Good dodge and deflect 😎



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

As Mueller said, the thing that prevented him from saying that trump committed a crime was trumps inability to defend such a statement made by Mueller because this would never see the inside of a court of law.

The constitution is clear on how we proceed when the president commits a crime.



Soooo how? Doesn't it require evidence? Where's that?



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Mueller said today that all those Russians under indictment are innocent until proven guilty.

But never said Trump is innocent until proven guilty.

Convoluted and conflicting 😆



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

I don't know how bad your reading comprehension is, but Mueller was free to make a prosecutorial decision in spite of the OLC policy which is reinforced by the section you are citing. If Bill Barr disagreed, he would then have to notify Congress on Mueller's decision to prosecute, and why he (Barr) disagreed.
He is also free to conclude a crime was committed without attempting a formal indictment in a federal court.


Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.

However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in §600.9(a)(3).




NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.



If Mueller does not have independent jurisdiction and discretion, there was no reason to appoint him or any other Special Counsel. It could be done by the FBI like any Federal criminal investigation. You appoint a Special Counsel to get "independent authority " -- separation from the DOJ to prevent appearances of conflict of interest. Any differences are sent directly to Congress so they can exercise oversight.

If Mueller had prosecutable evidence a crime was committed and wanted to hand it to Congress or indict, that is his avenue to say so. Not smearing with innuendo about exoneration.
edit on 29-5-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Mueller said today that all those Russians under indictment are innocent until proven guilty.

But never said Trump is innocent until proven guilty.

Convoluted and conflicting 😆


That is really weird, almost like investigating Russian meddling was a ploy to bring down Trump.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Jesus you talk some absolute garbage.

Innocent until proven guilty means something in a logical persons mind.

2 years they couldn't pin anything on Trump.

I don't care how deluded your interpretation is, If Trump was guilty, Mueller and co would scream it from the rooftops.

This vague ''referral for impeachment'' nonsense that your buddies the democratic senators are whimpering about is embarrassing.







 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join