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.

 

The stable genius, Triggered

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   
If Trump was factually guilty, Mueller would have said so. That’s the part people are overlooking. He couldn’t charge him, but Congress could do something about it.




posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Look at you , telling people to read the report when it is crystal clear you either have not or dont understand what you read.
this


that were capable of

is not

15 Obstruction Of Justice



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

Sadly clowns like you aren't prepared and will run and hide if it ever came to that. You sir are weak sauce! Please share your FB account for the world to see if you aren't a coward!



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

One should never be fine with war. The only people who win are the ones who orchestrate it. The rest of us lose. It doesn’t matter what political side you stand by.
edit on 30-5-2019 by willzilla because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

When you surround your campaign with people with direct Russian ties, when you then lie about all things Russian you might draw investigations.


Ah the land of the free ... where being tainted with "Russian" is grounds for unending investigations. Joseph McCarthy would undoubtedly be proud that his vision for America still endures to this day.

Kinda sad that this time its coming from the left though.
edit on 30-5-2019 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)


+6 more 
posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I figured that nonsense was what was being talked about.

Any list that includes firing James Comey as "obstruction" is a list made by a moron intent on lying to the audience. You cannot obstruct justice by doing what you job constitutionally enables you to do.

None of the legal experts insisting that Trump deserves impeachment have been able to explain how you can obstruct justice when no crime is present. Or how someone, president or not, is not allowed first amendment protections when issuing opinions on Twitter.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn



Or did you just let CNN tell you what to think?




I tried to think of a word, one word that describes this statement. What I came up with was

Hackneyed


Hackneyed | Definition of Hackneyed by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com...
trite, hackneyed, stereotyped, threadbare mean lacking the freshness that evokes attention or interest. trite applies to a once effective phrase or idea spoiled from long familiarity. " you win some, you lose some" is a trite expression hackneyed stresses being worn out by overuse so as to become dull and meaningless.
]

In defense of the hackneyed phrase certainly we could all be a bit wiser in our discernment of information that flows our way but using this one allegation over and over again truly diminishes the import-ants of such discriminatory evaluations.

Using this trope to discredit a member here on these boards, a member who has been here for almost 15 years suggests at least shallow belief that all opposing views can be summed up by being brainwashed, at worst a weakness of mind that itself is all to controlled by it's faith in it's own choice of oracles.


Don't answer that, we already know.


And sadly, you seem to. No evaluating, no consideration, no spark of inquiry. Just dismissal because you already know.

edit on 31America/ChicagoThu, 30 May 2019 11:32:09 -0500Thu, 30 May 2019 11:32:09 -050019052019-05-30T11:32:09-05:001100000032 by TerryMcGuire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
dbl
edit on 31America/ChicagoThu, 30 May 2019 11:29:39 -0500Thu, 30 May 2019 11:29:39 -050019052019-05-30T11:29:39-05:001100000029 by TerryMcGuire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Like it or not, there are allegations of obstruction of justice, committed by the President of the United States, clearly outlined throughout Volume 2 of the Mueller report. The president's possible obstruction of justice is the only thing that volume 2 discusses. Anyone pretending to understand the issue, but is unaware of that, hasn't read the report.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I read the report. Still dont understand it. Most people with any sense knows you cant believe everything you read online. Putting out stuff about Hillary just isn't election interference. Hell I posted bad stuff about Hillary on a few sites am I guilty of action interference? Are people speaking there opinion online election interference?



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Exactly! They are just allegations. That means there is no proof. Hearsay is not admissible. Assumption is not admissible.


+1 more 
posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

I don't believe refuting unbased allegations is being "triggered".

Secondly, this is a stable genius ironically named Trigger. . . .




posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: cognizant420
a reply to: LDragonFire

How exactly did Russia interfere? Just a some social media posts? Or did the actually hack voting machines? If no voting machines were hacked then how exactly did Russia interfere? Anyone can say anything they want online, atleast in usa, I still dont understand what the interfering was.


They interfered because they apparently hacked the DNC email servers and let Wikileaks share and expose all the corruption that was happening behind the scenes. Apparently, they are upset that Russia did not do this to Trump as well, but as all these investigations are proving is that Russia probably did try but just could not find as much corruption as he could with the DC politicians and campaigns.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Is that horse dead?
I ask cuz the left is beating it to dust...



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

Like it or not, there are allegations of obstruction of justice, committed by the President of the United States, clearly outlined throughout Volume 2 of the Mueller report. The president's possible obstruction of justice is the only thing that volume 2 discusses. Anyone pretending to understand the issue, but is unaware of that, hasn't read the report.



Just read the full report, none of those 15 things are against the law. Period. Which is why the right is celebrating, and why the left is still trying to find new nothings to get mad about.

Basically, the report says that the most high ranking members of the dem party made up a bunch of lies, and got a cohesive group which spans several government intelligence agencies, to agree on a fabricated story.

The “obstruction” they are accusing Trump of, is him asking them to admit they are lieing.

edit on 30-5-2019 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

Like it or not, there are allegations of obstruction of justice, committed by the President of the United States, clearly outlined throughout Volume 2 of the Mueller report. The president's possible obstruction of justice is the only thing that volume 2 discusses. Anyone pretending to understand the issue, but is unaware of that, hasn't read the report.



Like it or not, the allegations do not rise to the level of an actual crime. Otherwise Mueller just committed a felony when he did not refer them to the Attorney General as such. Most do not even fall under obstruction statutes in the first place for the President (firing Comey, wanting to fire Mueller) because they are actually well within the President's powers under Article 2.

Anyone who actually understands the law is well aware of that.

Those who don't appear to make up the Democratic leadership and their poor voter base.



edit on 30-5-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




None of the legal experts insisting that Trump deserves impeachment have been able to explain how you can obstruct justice when no crime is present. Or how someone, president or not, is not allowed first amendment protections when issuing opinions on Twitter.


This is a tired, worn out excuse that has no legal basis. Even William Barr isn't arguing there was no obstruction of justice, Barr is arguing that Trump's intent was pure, and that while he committed obstructive acts, were done out of frustration, not corruption, and therefore don't reach the threshold of criminal acts.

In the meantime, early on, page 8, I think, of Volume 2, the Mueller report explains that it's Congress' jurisdiction and authority to decide to on the question of presidential corruption.
edit on 30-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well, I sincerely hope you get your wish and the House votes for impeachment.

I really really hope the left pushes this.

Sincerely.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

Like it or not, there are allegations of obstruction of justice, committed by the President of the United States, clearly outlined throughout Volume 2 of the Mueller report. The president's possible obstruction of justice is the only thing that volume 2 discusses. Anyone pretending to understand the issue, but is unaware of that, hasn't read the report.



You realize that no one is denying that allegations we're made against Trump. That is obvious since without any allegation there would be nothing to investigate. What you seem not to understand is that allegations does not mean guilty.

It is an accusation only. Always was and still is. Mueller concluded that he was unable to make a determination of intent after investigating and closed /completed his investigation.

No intent = innocent of obstruction. That is why we are not flown blown in the middle of impeachment proceedings at this time. Congress may still keep digging and investigating in attempt to find intent for impeachment and if they did, they would be able to impeach. Thus Trump was not completely exonerated from the allegations. ..but after 2 years and many investigators, they currently have nada.
edit on 5 30 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The traps are laid and set.

I see many Democrats have already tripped a few 😆😆

Democrats will sail their ships into an inescapable line of sight torpedo pattern 😆




top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join