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: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller is under blackmail from the Whitey Bulger Family 😎

Pretty obvious too 😎


Trump was a game show host and casino boss. Pretty obvious too.

Please, inform us of how you know and what dirt the Bulger's have on him.


I have some knowledge, but I'd rather live a few more years 😎




posted on May, 31 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

It's because of that regulation that Barr was on the hot seat. Remember the first time he testified he said Mueller was fine with everything, then we found out that Mueller wrote him 2 letters and there was a phone call, that he should have disclosed to Congress under that rule.

Now, we're seeing a disagreement between Barr and Mueller on who decides "intent" and "corruption". At the very least, the AG should inform Congress of the disagreement, instead of pretending he doesn't understand Mueller's legalese.




At this point in time, Barr is the only one to commit his words while under oath. Including, clarifying that Mueller during conversation did not disagree with the AG's conclusions to congress.

When Rosenstein and Mueller speak on the record and under oath...I will re-evaluate if opinions differ. Also, why hasn't anyone in congress requested a court ordered subpeona for the taped phone call between Mueller and DOJ? If they have evidence or witness that he lied under oath, the courts would enforce its release. It is the only logical thing to do at this time.

Yet, as always, it seems they are all talk and no action. I am tired of talk...time for them to get to work.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

Barr was dishonest to Congress about his 4 page summary of the Mueller report and the disagreements he and Mueller had.


"As a matter of law. In other words we didn't agree with the legal analysis, a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department," Barr said. "It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law."
www.cbsnews.com...



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So... the next few months will be Congressional bitches and their saps in the voting public doing what, calling for the impeachment of William Barr? Pffft! GTFO, this is over, the Boy who Cried Wolf and Chicken Little wants their jobs back.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

Barr was dishonest to Congress about his 4 page summary of the Mueller report and the disagreements he and Mueller had.


Still beating that same incorrect drum, huh?

All it is is a narrative to allow people to hang their hatred somewhere to admire. It isn't fact, it isn't truth, it isn't reality. its political spin meant to stir up people with confirmation bias.
edit on 5/31/2019 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




Still beating that same incorrect drum, huh?


This is new information, from Barr's "fireside chat" yesterday. It's pretty damning.

William Barr Admits Justice Department 'Didn't Agree' with Mueller and Applied 'Right Law' www.newsweek.com...

That's not what he said to Congress.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: onthedownlow

The way trump lies you have an issue with Comey?
It was not Comeys job to clear the record.

He never even made this investigation public.

The one into Clinton we all knew about
but the one into trump..... that was secret.

Why? Why did he get special treatment?

Oh and you really are not in any position to be telling the left what they "best" do.

The blowback here is nothing for them to worry about.
The blowback is going to be a hurricane named filthy dirty impeachment.
and its going to take aim at trump.


You are kidding right? Comey leaked to the press! They best be worried about the blowback... funny thing is, they are worried. You're silly



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: onthedownlow

The way trump lies you have an issue with Comey?
It was not Comeys job to clear the record.

He never even made this investigation public.

The one into Clinton we all knew about
but the one into trump..... that was secret.

Why? Why did he get special treatment?

Oh and you really are not in any position to be telling the left what they "best" do.

The blowback here is nothing for them to worry about.
The blowback is going to be a hurricane named filthy dirty impeachment.
and its going to take aim at trump.


You are kidding right? Comey leaked to the press! They best be worried about the blowback... funny thing is, they are worried. You're silly



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




Still beating that same incorrect drum, huh?


This is new information, from Barr's "fireside chat" yesterday. It's pretty damning.

William Barr Admits Justice Department 'Didn't Agree' with Mueller and Applied 'Right Law' www.newsweek.com...

That's not what he said to Congress.



You are right and wrong. Barr didn't say that to Congress. He said he Mueller did not have a problem with Barr's 4 page summary conclusions, he just thought his 10 page summary would have provided more detail.

Barr did not lie yesterday nor to Congress. Simply different responses to different questions. Perhaps if the Dems would have stopped over speaking him and cutting him off he would have shared a lot more during the hearing too.
edit on 5 31 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

He lied.


“We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction. In other words, we didn't agree with the legal analysis—a lot of the legal analysis in the report,” Barr said in his CBS interview, the full transcript of which was released Friday morning. “It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers, and so, we applied what we thought was the right law.”



Those statements seemed to contradict his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee May 1 about his rollout of the Mueller report, in which he told lawmakers in his prepared remarks that “we accepted the special counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusion.” He did, however, state April 18 roughly an hour before the Mueller report's release that he and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "disagreed with some of the special counsel’s legal theories."



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
agree and accepted are not the same thing
you see a lie because you wish to see a lie
you can accept something you do not agree with



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -

(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;

(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and

(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.


Barr withheld his disagreements and his decision to override Mueller's conclusion in his 4 page summary and his testimony to Congress. He was not only not being candid, he was avoiding the legal protocol of having to notify Congress of their disagreement. Mueller's conclusion that Congress has the authority and duty to decide on Trump's intent, and whether or not it was corrupt was overridden by Barr, and Barr failed to disclose their disagreement to Congress.


edit on 31-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued

please list the proposed action by the special council?
Please list the conclusion in mullers report.
As I read it mueller chose not to make a conclusion on obstruction.
Mueller has not disagreed with the conclusion that barr and rosenstein gave, even tho he made a public statement.

so again what action was proposed by mueller?



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: chr0naut

Did you read my post ?

If he had confidence the president did commit a crime he could’ve said so .


That is not what Mueller wrote in his report, nor what he reiterated to the press a day or so, ago.

The actual quote, from the report, was, "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." (from Volume 2, page 2, paragraph 4).

Since there was no statement of non-commission of obstruction subsequent to that statement, then the investigation must have found probable cause for an obstruction charge.

Mueller also pointed out that it isn't for the DOJ to prosecute obstruction charges against a sitting President. That job falls to Congress.


He didn’t .

He didn’t need to bring charges all he had to do was make a decision and give a referral .

If your assumption is right and Mueller wanted to be clear he could ’ve said .

“The evidence says the president did commit the crime of obstruction of justice. But we couldn’t bring charges because of long-standing DOJ policy. That decision needs to be made by the attorney general or Congress “.

Using the word clear in any context with Mueller‘s announcement.

Is silly at best unless you say clear as mud .


No, all Mueller can do is present the allegations and evidence of presidential wrongdoing to Congress. He is barred from making any sort of ruling. That is what "cannot indict a sitting President" means - no charges can be laid.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




please list the proposed action by the special council?


The proposed action of referring the decision to Congress, of whether or not Trump's actions rise to criminal, based on corrupt intent.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Muller could have made a referral to the US attorney .

Kenneth Starr did it 11 times on Slick Willy .

I’m telling you a fact.

Unless you can show me a rule change my statement is 100% accurate .

Janet Reno under the Clinton administration re-wrote the independent counsel guidelines to the special counsel guidelines. Look in there, see if you can find a rule change I couldn’t .

Edit;

I never said Mueller could indict the president .

I said he could’ve made a decision which is a referral. Ken Starr making 11 referrals against Clinton proves you can make criminal referrals against a president .



edit on 31-5-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So show me where he did that.
Mueller could have forwarded a criminal referal to congress, muller could have stated that he would have sent a criminal referal to congress, HE DID NEITHER.
He stated he thinks that is congresses job and not doj's but that is simply muellers opinion.
Show me an "action" as stated in the procedure that muller took.

otherwise you are full of it



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown




Muller could have made a referral to the US attorney .


Mueller was not in disagreement with the policy. He explained that making a referral without the president being able to legally defend himself in court would make any such referral unconstitutional. It is not within the DOJ's authority to prosecute a sitting president, he said. Congress is the only body with the authority and duty to do so.

Barr was in disagreement with Mueller's loyalty to the policy, and says that he could have formally protested the policy. Since Barr disagreed with Mueller's conclusion not to make any conclusion of guilt, he did, and that referral was "innocent", "Drop it", "Case closed". A complete and total overrule of what the Mueller report actually says.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Mueller explained why he didn't. It was against DOJ policy. It would be unconstitutional. The DOJ doesn't have the authority to prosecute a sitting president. Only Congress has that authority. Mueller had no problem with the system, as he described it, so there would be no need for him to protest it or violate it.




top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join