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.

 

idiot democrats openly subverting our nation

page: 6
71
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati




you can quote were the report states the President DID break the law, right? Not "possibly" not "May have" but "Did"

nope
as it is not in there
all that actually matters is the ag with the deputy ag(who had been in charge of the "investigation" the entire time) declined to charge no matter the doj policy




otherwise LIE LIE LIE!!

that is an astute and spot on assessment




posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

there is no direct impact on my life during school shooting either so I guess that is all made up as well?

even President Trump's policies do not affect me except in positive ways, Abortion doesn't affect me either I had a vesectomy, so that is all made up too.

Democrats only affect me negativly so they should be jail, no question.

Do you REALLY want to take that position Silly??

(of course you do, but I had to ask)



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

He expressed it in his report.

52 3. The President Asks Intelligence Community Leaders to Make Public Statements that he had No Connection to Russia ....................... .......... ...... ..........
55 4. The President Asks Corney to "Li ft the Cloud" Created by the Rus sia Investigation .. .................................................. ......................................................
57 D . Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney .................................... ....... ............................. ...... ............................................
62 1. Corney Testifies Before the Senate Judiciary Committee and Declines to Answer Questions About Whether the President is Under Investigation .............
62 2. The President Makes the Decision to Terminate Corney ......................................
64 E. The P
resident's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel.. .......................................... .
77 1. The Appointment of the Special Counsel and the President's Reaction ..............
78 2. The President Asserts that the Special Counsel has Conflicts ofinterest... ..........
80 3. The Press Reports that the President is Being Investigat ed for Obstruction of Justice and the President Directs the White House Counsel to Have the Special Counsel Removed ............................................ .................. ..................... .
84 F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation ................ ..........
90 1. The President Asks Corey Lewandowski to Deliver a Message to Sessions to Curtail the Spec ial Counsel Investigation ............................................ .......... ...
90 2. The President Follows Up with Lewandowski ................................................. ....
92 3. The President Publicly Cr itici zes Sess ions in a New York Times Interview ....... 93 4. The President Orders Priebus to Demand Sessions's Res igna tion .................. .....
94 G. The President's Efforts to Prevent Disclosure of Emails About the June 9, 2016 Meeting Between Russians and Senior Campaign Officials ...............................
98 1. The President Learns About the Existence of E mail s Concerning the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower Meeting ........................................................ .. ...................
98 2. The President Directs Communications Staff Not to Publicly Disclose Information About the June 9 Meeting .... ..... .......... ............................................ 3. The President Directs Trump Jr.'s Response to Press Inquiries About the June 9 Meeting ......... .... ..... ..................................................................................
100 101 4. The Media Reports on the June 9, 2016 Meeting ....... ............................. ......... ..
103 H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation ............................................. ........................ ..... ...... ..... .................. ..
107 1. The President Again Seeks to Have Sessio ns Reverse his Recusal. ............. .... ..
107 2. Additional Efforts to Have Sessions Unrecuse or Direct Inve st igati ons Covered by hi s Recusal. ....... ..................... ..... .................. ..... ................. ..... ........ 109


And this is just one page of the table of contents.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sure he could have. But he didnt because that would be publically indicting him without actually indicting him giving him no chance at any defense other than twitter. You know you would not have been happy with that outcome either.

This way this issue is settled the way the constitution demands it be. With congress and the senate.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

And trump is co conspirator #1



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Oh lets don't be coy.

Please share what you have with the class.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

and yet the phrase "he did break the law" or "this is the law he broke" is not there, even in the table of contents.


So once again, you are playing baseball and getting strikes while everyone else is bowling and getting strikes.


was the "Corney" a freudian slip? (truth slips thru now and then?)



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

See page 211 that is the table of contents for part II.


also

IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time , 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

That would be up to a jury wouldnt it?
Are you trying to circumvent the judicial process by having the investigators just proclaim someone is guilty without benefit of trial?

No you wouldn't do that....



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Priorities of the so called transparent democratic party...

Of course the are openly subverting.

They have no fear of reprisal or punishment, because the current do nothing Congress and complacent Senate are just career parasite politicians whom have grown comfortable being catered to by lobbyists, rather than doing their jobs of actually representing their constituents. Let alone honoring the Oaths they swore to uphold.

They should all be charged for dereliction of duty, falsely representing themselves and potentially insubordination, insurrection and treason.

Personally, I prefer to see all the Oath breakers sit in gitmo for same amount of time they spent in politics.

If politicians still followed the State men & woman model, as it was intended, they would do the job people voted them to do. Then return to their lives as a member of society, rather than an elitist revolving door government teat sucking parasite.

Again I reiterate;
Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   


we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct.

muller did not
the ag and deputy ag did



Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.

based on the facts......hmm so then not enough evidence to charge?
which is why



Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime


so then fairly simple

no collusion
no obstruction
no charges

your bobby 2 sticks was not as you advertised
as usual with you



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: network dude
It's you Mrs. Speaker who needs to be in #ing jail. The sooner the damn better.


All right, I'll bite. What law specifically did Pelosi break that she should be indicted for? And what evidence do you have that she broke the law?



Aiding and abetting an illegal element.
The last 2 years instead of working to Better the country they have been receiving pay checks to undermine the president.

That's not what they are getting paid for



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Idiot republicans are led by the buffoon in chief. Sorry you don't see what the rest the world sees, the blind, you, are being led by a moron.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I thought impeachment was political??

and if we are going by Court standards, heresay is inadmissable, so which is it Silly Court of Law or Political impeachment??

can't use the rules for one for the other, but I'm certain you know that but if not, you do now.


ETA: Funny you brought up Starr you know the guy that Indicted Clinton, but Meuller says you can't do that now, why not?
What law was passed that changed indicting Clinton to not indicting President Trump, can you show that to me please, with sugar on top?
edit on 6-6-2019 by thedigirati because: reasons, just like Democrats give.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati




Funny you brought up Starr you know the guy that Indicted Clinton, but Meuller says you can't do that now, why not? What law was passed that changed indicting Clinton to not indicting President Trump, can you show that to me please, with sugar on top?

why must you always ask the impossible?
maddow and morning joe havent told her that part yet.....and it is green jello day, that will distract her for a bit....

oh and dont remind them of the fact that impeachment is a mathematical impossibility in the senate
they tend to ignore that fact


edit on 6/6/2019 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'll offer you a chance at being honest on your own.

Did Mueller tell Barr that he couldn't charge Trump because of that rule?

Remember, facts matter, lies make you look like a lying tool bag. Don't be a lying tool bag.


Facts matter now? Don't be a liar? Lmao. You're a Trump super supporter, what the hell are you talking about?

As far as what Mueller told Barr, who knows? Barr is a lying shill. What we can look at is what Mueller said in his public statement:


As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them 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.


Now I'm going to give you a chance to correct your misstatement about how Mueller found no evidence of any crimes. You don't want to be a "lying tool bag" after all.


sure, what crimes did Mueller say Trump committed? List them in order of severity, or alphabetical, whichever you like.

Remember, Mueller said Barr's statement wasn't in conflict with his report. But you knew that, you just forgot, right?
thehill.com...

Hows about you bring a link to what you claim, K?



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

Why should Mrs. Pelosi be in jail pray tell?

Cuz you dont like what she says?

LOL...

bad night sweety?


Aw, bless your heart. Read more, post less. The words might jump out at you.
www.politico.com...

if you keep up with current events, things may make more sense. Well, they will to some.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: highvein

If stupid was a crime.... oh well


I go for low hanging fruit, but this is a bit too easy for me.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime


Why chop it up like that? It's not that long.


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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.


Clearly says that if they had confidence that Trump hadn't committed obstruction, they would have said so. They did not have that confidence because of what they'd found, so they did not.

Mueller's statement further clarifies the intent was to put it in the hands of Congress.


The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you.

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, 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. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations.


That process as we all know (when we're not playing dumb to score points) is called impeachment.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

No ... you believe there is a problem at the southern border.

There isnt.

Its just trumps prejudice against brown and black people as per usual.


www.nytimes.com...

www.dhs.gov...

when you can show me why I should believe you over people who are there, I'll give your posts a tiny bit more than the laugh they get now. till then, Bwahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join