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

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

How can he accuse the man of a crime and then deny him a trial? If he cant legally charge him he also cant publicly accuse him.




posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Wasnt he also a spy? Wasnt that why he was an asset?
why do you think Mueller would be obligated to reveal that?
edit on 6262019 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




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


Exactly.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

www.documentcloud.org.../

Go to page 210, that is the table of contents for volume II which is ALL about trump and obstruction of justice.
All the attempts are listed there. Lots of details we never knew about too.

You should all really read this report.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
To be fair, he was an asset because they knew he also a Russian spy.

No, he had ties to Russian Intel, but he was not spying for them, he was a US Intelligence Asset.

They used him to make it look like Papadopolous was 'colluding'.


"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.

No, and you know this because...


If they were innocent and were framed, they shouldn't have pled guilty because it weakens their defense a lot.


You haven't been 'found guilty', as in, guilty by a jury of your peers, if you plead.

Plea bargains happen all the time, and every prosecutor knows that people plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit all the time.

Sometimes, when faced with the terrifying prospect of trying to fight the behemoth known as the US Government, with its unlimited resources that will bankrupt even wealthy people, and threats of life in prison for made up BS crimes - and, in Flynns case, threatening to go after and frame his son - you take the lesser of two evils.

Papadopolous got a whopping 14 days, and it looks like that will all be overturned soon, and he is going to have one mother of a massive lawsuit against the Feds for withholding exculpatory evidence, malicious prosecution and other niceties.

And Flynn has fired his legal team and hired a new one and looks like will be withdrawing his guilty plea soon too.


"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.

No, just having some fun...



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Jury nullification is only valid if the laws being applied are arguably unfair or unjust.

Wrong. Any juror can vote their conscience, for any reason, at any time.


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.

You have noi idea what you are talking about, and that statement is a jumbled mess of gobbledygook.


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.

As I said, the State has done everything in their power to eradicate the entire concept of jury nullification, but they have been unsuccessful, because people know right from wrong.

The above 'case law' didn't overturn anything, it is merely another attempt to get people to scare people into not engaging in jury nullification, because it impedes the State from getting their way in lots of cases.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


Drag these accusations out as long as possible? Allow a forum for Dems to actively spin and twist publicly why they distrust Trump and try to encourage the public to vote against him in 2020? You see it at every hearing that is public.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
There are 10 recorded instances of Trump apparently attempting to obstruct the course of justice in the Mueller report.

No, there are 10 examples of things that could, under certain circumstances, be considered as obstruction of justice.

Since Mueller was derelict in his duty to make a determination, of did it or not, he deferred To his boss, the AG, who said, 'Nope, these actions don't arise to the level.'


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

Sigh...

It isn't about indicting. It is about simply saying 'He committed indictable offenses, here they are, and here is the supporting evidence.'

Read the Ken Starr report. that is how Mueller would have worded it - if he could have.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:54 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?)





Are you referring to the recorded list of accusations that the special counsel investigated and by law have to show in their report? Basically to show what they were investigating. Amazing that with so many accusations, not a single one provided evidence so guilt.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl

How can he accuse the man of a crime and then deny him a trial?

By saying "We believe he committed these crimes, and here is our evidence."

Just like Ken Starr did for Clinton.


If he cant legally charge him he also cant publicly accuse him.

Sure he could,m if that is what he believed.

But this is interesting...

So, now, after all of this, you are saying that the Mueller Report does not say he committed any crimes.

Interesting, but I'm shocked, I say, shocked that you have finally seen the light.

Good on ya, mate!



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl

How can he accuse the man of a crime and then deny him a trial? If he cant legally charge him he also cant publicly accuse him.


The special counsel reports their findings to the AG in private. It is up to the AG on whether to release such reports publicly. If Mueller actually discovered wrongdoing, he would have so stated it in his report to the AG.

The AG would have advised Congress of this wrongdoing in private and be the one to state that the DOJ could not indict a sitting President, thus it would be up to Congress to impeach the President in order to indict him.

Simplistic facts that are simply being ignored to fuel an agenda.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl

Wasnt he also a spy? Wasnt that why he was an asset?

He had connections to Russian intelligence, yes - but he was working for the US.


why do you think Mueller would be obligated to reveal that?

It is called exculpatory evidence. They claimed Papadopolous' connection to a Russian Intelligence agent - Misfud - as grounds for spying on Papadopolous.

But he wasn't working as a Russian Agent - he was working for the US, specifically, to set up Papadopolous.

Don't worry, it'll become clear later when the lawsuits and real indictments start coming out.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


Drag these accusations out as long as possible? Allow a forum for Dems to actively spin and twist publicly why they distrust Trump and try to encourage the public to vote against him in 2020? You see it at every hearing that is public.


They succeeded last time, only in the opposite way they were hoping.
The “Orange Man Bad” rhetoric succeeded in encouraging the public to vote FOR President Trump.

They’ve succeeded again this time too. Let the lack of votes for leftist fascism speak for itself.

The public will be voting ‘Trump’ and will likely not be voting ‘dEm’ for the next few decades.

It’s almost as though this was their plan



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Your daft
Mueller would be recommending the indictment
Barr would be issuing it.
No kiwi law here
No kangaroo courts here
The only thing stopping mueller was lack of proof

The report had NOTHING to do with impeachment
Congress can impeach at any time



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: willzilla
For obstruction to stick, he would have to prove intent. He couldn’t do that.

Not without an interview



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 05:50 PM
link   
PREDICTION: I bet we get a "False Flag" that delays (maybe permanently) Bob Mueller's testimony on July 17th.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts




Are you referring to the recorded list of accusations that the special counsel investigated and by law have to show in their report?


They aren't accusations. They're accounts of actual events, as relayed by witnesses. Whether or not the President's actions rise to the level of crimes and misdemeanors is up to Congress to decide, not the DOJ.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Guilty is guilty.... as a matter of fact an admission of guilt probably carries a bit more weight than being found guilty by strangers on a jury.




Papadopolous got a whopping 14 days, and it looks like that will all be overturned soon,
Overturned by whom?



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl




Wrong. Any juror can vote their conscience, for any reason, at any time.


The conversation is about impeachment and the "jury" would be the Senate.

They are required to take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence.
So no politics. No loyatly. No my side your side. You listen and apply the laws of impeachment and if the evidence shows that the president behaved in a manner not befitting the office , or if he committed crimes then they have to impeach him.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Clinton was not accused of any crimes. He was charged with lying to congress.
whoopie doooo

and a republican senate acquitted him of that.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join