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.

 

Mueller to publicly testify before House committees after being subpoenaed

page: 13
17
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   
in the meantime, and much more importantly, there is a whole world under observation.

I wonder if whoever said that Wernher von Braun said there would be aliens as the last resort actually meant it.

They were right.





posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 01:00 PM
link   
For obstruction to stick, he would have to prove intent. He couldn’t do that.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I think most of them are hoping to vote him out in 2020 instead.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

Once again this is not kiwi or kangaroo law.
Mueller could have recommended charges,
he did not.
Barr recommended no charges.

As there are no crimes charged, what pray tell will congress impeach upon?
Our laws require crimes, you lot may be different.

You lumping barr and mueller together highlights your foreign ignorance of our laws.
Just because no one has done it does not mean it could not be done.
You are again simply incorrect.
Typical here.


You obviously didn't read the process in the link I posted.

The DOJ, since it is under the Executive branch, headed by the President, does not have the Constitutional authority to indict a sitting President.

Congress (the House of Representatives) deliberates whether the offenses are indictable and, if agreed by majority, begins impeachment. Note that the crime has to be an indictable crime under law. The President does not have to be actually indicted, just have to have been shown to have committed the crime. The House of Reps sets itself up a prosecution in the impeachment trial and the Senate sits first as jury, then as judge. If there is an appeal against the Senate decision, it may go to the Supreme Court, at the discretion of the Judiciary.

There is no DOJ involvement in that process, unless an appeal is raised.

edit on 26/6/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

That number increased by 1 since the last time I replied to you.

Have you read what the 68 not now or undecided are saying?

90 haven't responded so we can't truthfully say that those 90 are a no.

Before you reply don't forget I am against impeachment. Just bringing some info to everyone.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.

There is a difference between saying "In our opinion he committed the following crimes: X, Y, and Zzzsx.", and issuing an indictment for said crimes.

You know, like Ken Starr did for Clinton?

Sheesh... this is politics, not rocket science.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: PilSungMtnMan
Riddle me this (rhetorical);

If the Mueller Report, 400+ pages, all of the leaked info from FBI, multiple congressional investigations, AND a public presser by Mueller CONFIRMS so much bad acts by POTUS, why hasn’t the Dem controlled House (235 Dems + at least 1 flipper) simply impeached POTUS with 218 votes?

Even if Mueller jumped up in the hearing, screamed “You cant handle the truth! You’re GD right I would have ordered Trump arrested!” It’s not going to end with Trump not the President or not on the 2020 ticket.

It’s over. Trump won.


What do you think the subpoena is about, then?

They are clearly mounting a legal case and following proper procedure. It takes time and they want to ensure that the impeachable offenses actually happened as alleged.

They aren't building it upon press hyperbole, hearsay or knee-jerk reactions.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: PilSungMtnMan

Even if the dems in the house attempt to impeach the effort will not pass the senate.
The dems just look like sore losers at this point.
Nobody likes the red ass man.
Get some salve dems and walk it off.
That or get slaughtered in 2020.


If the impeachable offenses are proven to have actually happened, the Senate has no option but to convict. It is about legal process, not about party preference. They, themselves, would be breaking the law if the commission of the offenses was incontrovertible, but they did not convict.

edit on 26/6/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Unless you believe they somehow fabricated evidence and information that is in the report.

You mean like claiming Joseph Mifsud is a Russian spy, when he knows (or should have known) Mifsud was a US Intelligence Asset?

Or trying and convicting Papadopolous and Flynn, knowing they were both innocent/framed?

Silly, I hope you have some friends who will be able to get you some help when your last hope of hopes is dashed to smithereens, and Trump just keeps on winning, like the energizer bunny.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
If the impeachable offenses are proven to have actually happened, the Senate has no option but to convict. It is about legal process, not about party preference. They would be breaking the law if the offenses were unarguable and they did not convict.

The Senate trial isn't a computer program. Of course they have the option to refuse to convict even if the offenses happened.

Ever heard of the concept of jury nullification? It is real, and still in full force and effect in this country, in spite of the efforts to squash it out of existence by the State.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Unless you believe they somehow fabricated evidence and information that is in the report.

You mean like claiming Joseph Mifsud is a Russian spy, when he knows (or should have known) Mifsud was a US Intelligence Asset?


To be fair, he was an asset because they knew he also a Russian spy.


Or trying and convicting Papadopolous and Flynn, knowing they were both innocent/framed?


No, they were both found guilty of crimes, with actual evidence of the commission of those crimes. If they were innocent and were framed, they shouldn't have pled guilty because it weakens their defense a lot.


Silly, I hope you have some friends who will be able to get you some help when your last hope of hopes is dashed to smithereens, and Trump just keeps on winning, like the energizer bunny.


Even the Energizer bunny didn't win. It just took a little longer to be run flat. You are mixing your metaphors badly there.




posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
If the impeachable offenses are proven to have actually happened, the Senate has no option but to convict. It is about legal process, not about party preference. They would be breaking the law if the offenses were unarguable and they did not convict.

The Senate trial isn't a computer program. Of course they have the option to refuse to convict even if the offenses happened.

Ever heard of the concept of jury nullification? It is real, and still in full force and effect in this country, in spite of the efforts to squash it out of existence by the State.


Jury nullification is only valid if the laws being applied are arguably unfair or unjust. Partisan political preference does not meet requirements. If they nullify their verdict as jury, they then next have to stand as judge and must abide by legal precedent and established statute.

Despite jury nullification, there is some case law that has overturned it. In 2017 the Ninth circuit's instructions to the jury were "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." Subsequent to this and in the same trial, three counts that had been nullified by the jury were overruled by the judge and a guilty verdict returned.

edit on 26/6/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Every single one of these lying leftists knows full well the outcome of this. Regardless of the endless dribble they produce while trying to ‘educate’ us on ‘what they think’ the process and outcome ‘should’ be.

The vast majority of people aren’t heavily clued-up on the details and they rely simply on the headlines after the fact. Because the vast majority of people have lives of their own that are not affected by comedy central’s opinion.

Every single one of these lying leftists is totally aware that the headlines WILL be, no collusion, no obstruction, no indictment, no impeachment, no crime, totally fake hoax by the lying left trying their best to influence the election, and failing.

The majority of people will say “well duh”, the extremely small group of never-trumpers will scream at the sky and attack elderly people and young children in the street, again.

cNn will lose their last five or six viewers.

This hoax will not work out the way they think it will, and it’s not their fault really. Its a mixture of low-IQ and the reluctance to seek information outside of their mainstream media clown world view.

You can’t blame them for that though. Reality is very difficult for them. As is evident on a daily basis now.

Then comes election night. Every one of them are DREADING that day. Biggest victory margin in the history of the USA? Maybe so.

You can try and give your left-wing opinion in reply to this, but I’m definitely not going to read it. I value the opinions of five year olds a whole lot more than I do the opinions of the “REEEEEEEEEE” crowd.

We know ok, Orange Man Bad. We get it.

But you just watch, he is NOT going to lose one single iota of support over any of this. YOU are.

And you know it. Hence the desperation.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

Congress isnt the public.... thats one.

The report is quite public whether is was supposed to be or not... You cant unring a bell. Thats two.

What do you think that fact means in light of the conflicting fact that they did decide to release it to us?

Its not like it was leaked.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




Nobody cares about liars or the vain and vindictive


What are you talking about? trump is a hero around here.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I do not lie.
I do not post lies.
I just post the truth you guys are all afraid to face. That is why you are all always mad.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.

There is a difference between saying "In our opinion he committed the following crimes: X, Y, and Zzzsx.", and issuing an indictment for said crimes.

You know, like Ken Starr did for Clinton?

Sheesh... this is politics, not rocket science.


There are 10 recorded instances of Trump apparently attempting to obstruct the course of justice in the Mueller report.

Mueller, and Barr, cannot indict a sitting President. That's in the report, too.

(I'd be quite comfortable discussing rocket science, too, but that would be off topic. Not sure why you mentioned it?)




posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.

There is a difference between saying "In our opinion he committed the following crimes: X, Y, and Zzzsx.", and issuing an indictment for said crimes.

You know, like Ken Starr did for Clinton?

Sheesh... this is politics, not rocket science.


There are 10 recorded instances of Trump apparently attempting to obstruct the course of justice in the Mueller report.

Mueller, and Barr, cannot indict a sitting President. That's in the report, too.

(I'd be quite comfortable discussing rocket science, too, but that would be off topic. Not sure why you mentioned it?)





Please state these ten instances and give precedence please.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.

There is a difference between saying "In our opinion he committed the following crimes: X, Y, and Zzzsx.", and issuing an indictment for said crimes.

You know, like Ken Starr did for Clinton?

Sheesh... this is politics, not rocket science.


There are 10 recorded instances of Trump apparently attempting to obstruct the course of justice in the Mueller report.

Mueller, and Barr, cannot indict a sitting President. That's in the report, too.

(I'd be quite comfortable discussing rocket science, too, but that would be off topic. Not sure why you mentioned it?)





Please state these ten instances and give precedence please.


No. They are in the report Volume 2. That is all Volume 2 is about - Trump's several attempts to obstruct justice. Read it for yourself.

I'm sure the Congress will have many questions to clarify the specifics of volume 2. Let's wait for that.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




As there are no crimes charged, what pray tell will congress impeach upon? Our laws require crimes, you lot may be different.


The paramaters for impeachment and legal indictment are quite different.

The definition of high crimes and misdemeanors is actually up to..... wait for it.....










congress.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join