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.

 

Barr Disputes IG Horowitz Findings

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Actually, what you’ve said here is the opposite of what Mueller said:

Mueller Letter to Barr




posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Mueller clarified that "not being able to indict a sitting president" did not factor into his report or findings.

When a criminal investigation or special counsel decides they have not found enough evidence to indict or press charges then you have been cleared or exonerated by default.


a reply to: fringeofthefringe
Since Trump,and Bill Barr, claimed that the report exonerated him. "No collusion, No obstruction".

Also, since the report clearly stated that the report did not exonerate Trump, only that DOJ policy forbid Mueller of indicting a sitting president, which is why Mueller clearly tossed the ball to Congress, in his report.



Absolutely not true.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships




Barr on the other hand has evidence that points to
criminal actions committed by the FBI


Suuuuuuuuure he does. Thats why no one has heard about it yet huh?

Oh a year isnt' long enough? How long does he need to produce this evidence?

Believe what you want. He has nothing.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: mtnshredder

It was him who said the president cant be indicted!



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

They’re still trying to blow up the low-level FBI lawyer that screwed up one or more of the FISA warrants that has already left the FBI into “criminal wrongdoing on the part of the FBI.”

It’s rank desperation at this point.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

Passive? As in it didn't come that trump was right?

And Mueller was making sure he didnt feed into any stupid conspiracy theories just like so many witnesses this past week.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

And then he listed ten different ways that trump obstructed justice and said it is up to congress to deal with it.

Which is where we are now.

Hey did you guys know that if they do not remove him from office with these charges he can be impeached over and over again for different things?



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Do not be lazy. If you truly doubt me then go get the info that disputes me.
Do not ask me to do your work for you.
Those reports are readily available.
I read the first one and I know exactly what it said.
The word on the street is this one will be the same.

Then there was the report on the FISA warrant that said there was no spying, that there was no wiretap, that they followed Page because his behaviour was suspect. All the things trump thinks or claims are lies.

Reality is your friend.

The above is all real.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

There was never any spying from the Obama admin.
That is trump lies or active imagination or paranoia. You pick.
But that any of it was true is not on the table.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

There was never any spying from the Obama admin.
That is trump lies or active imagination or paranoia. You pick.
But that any of it was true is not on the table.

There is no question spying occurred. It is only whether that spying was illegal.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Sillyolme

They’re still trying to blow up the low-level FBI lawyer that screwed up one or more of the FISA warrants that has already left the FBI into “criminal wrongdoing on the part of the FBI.”

It’s rank desperation at this point.


We knew that when the name of the whistleblower became their most pressing issue.
Not the evidence.
Just the witnesses and the procedure.
You'd think they would see right through that and if it was a democrat trying to use this defense they would fall off their chairs laughing. You know it and I know it.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

There was never any spying from the Obama admin.
That is trump lies or active imagination or paranoia. You pick.
But that any of it was true is not on the table.

There is no question spying occurred. It is only whether that spying was illegal.

a small fact they would all like to ignore
spying by a sitting administration on their political enemies

you know
similar to what they are trying to impeach trump for without any actual evidence

here there is an actual paper trail
it was done



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You’re making a semantic argument. Spying is pejorative. Certain individuals associated with the Trump campaign were criminals, and the FBI acquired the proper warrants to investigate them covertly which resulted in indictments, convictions, etc.

Calling it spying merely implies that it was done improperly, which we have no evidence of, only supposition.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   
The FBI, Comey/Mcabe/ others misled the FISA court and acquired the FISA warrants under false pretenses and fraud, omitting the source of the dossier funding for one.

The charges that resulted stemmed from "process" crimes and years old activities from Manofort.
We will see what happens with Flynn, it looks like he was set up and the FBI falsified emails to get him in a perjury charge.
The case against Flynn is still unfolding.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You’re making a semantic argument. Spying is pejorative. Certain individuals associated with the Trump campaign were criminals, and the FBI acquired the proper warrants to investigate them covertly which resulted in indictments, convictions, etc.

Calling it spying merely implies that it was done improperly, which we have no evidence of, only supposition.




posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler selectively cited former special counsel Robert S. Mueller’s testimony to misleadingly claim that Mueller said he didn’t indict President Donald Trump only because he couldn’t indict a sitting president.

www.factcheck.org...

Some of us watched it, it was a lame trick Democrat Lieu tried to get by just before the break, but it did not work.
Well it did work on you and Silly.



originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Mueller clarified that "not being able to indict a sitting president" did not factor into his report or findings.

When a criminal investigation or special counsel decides they have not found enough evidence to indict or press charges then you have been cleared or exonerated by default.


a reply to: fringeofthefringe
Since Trump,and Bill Barr, claimed that the report exonerated him. "No collusion, No obstruction".

Also, since the report clearly stated that the report did not exonerate Trump, only that DOJ policy forbid Mueller of indicting a sitting president, which is why Mueller clearly tossed the ball to Congress, in his report.



Absolutely not true.
edit on 3-12-2019 by fringeofthefringe because: added last line



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   
hahahaha
they all expect us to have forgotten the fisa in question was TWICE DENIED before the dossier was added

so no dossier no fisa warrant

this is not hard
fraud upon the court at least
civil rights violations on the monitored
all for political gain by the obama administrion



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You’re making a semantic argument. Spying is pejorative. Certain individuals associated with the Trump campaign were criminals, and the FBI acquired the proper warrants to investigate them covertly which resulted in indictments, convictions, etc.

Calling it spying merely implies that it was done improperly, which we have no evidence of, only supposition.


I think my post fully clarifies everything. I explicitly stated it may have been legal when I said we are still questioning if it was illegal.

Spying happened. Was it wrong? We will see.



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Reply to Gryphon;
Barr testified to congress, www.cbsnews.com...
Spying did occur.
The question was if there was a "predicate" and now we see based on last nights breaking news Barr feels like there was not.



originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You’re making a semantic argument. Spying is pejorative. Certain individuals associated with the Trump campaign were criminals, and the FBI acquired the proper warrants to investigate them covertly which resulted in indictments, convictions, etc.

Calling it spying merely implies that it was done improperly, which we have no evidence of, only supposition.


I think my post fully clarifies everything. I explicitly stated it may have been legal when I said we are still questioning if it was illegal.

Spying happened. Was it wrong? We will see.

edit on 3-12-2019 by fringeofthefringe because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2019 by fringeofthefringe because: grammer

edit on 3-12-2019 by fringeofthefringe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Arnie123

The member you’re addressing is certainly not “lying” and “you all” accept what you hear in your chosen media. Also, you don’t speak for anyone but yourself, so stop the fallacious forum gang crap arguments.

In point of fact, after 34 indictments and convictions of individuals and 3 companies, the Mueller investigation turned up plenty of evidence of criminal activity DIRECTLY related to the Trump Campaign and Russian interference in our Elections.

SO just stop the attempts to silence another member, k? Bring some facts ... like maybe you can cite sections of the report that say that Trump was found innocent of any crimes, oh, wait, the report SPECIFICALLY says the opposite, and explains why indictments were not brought, NOT because there was no collusion or obstruction of justice, but because the DOJ’s internal rules DO NOT PERMIT the indictment of a sitting President.

If anyone is LYING here, it’s sure as heck not anyone who says that the Mueller Report did not exonerate Trump.
False and that makes you a liar as well.

We're talking a politically motivated report, that in itself is invalid.

You're just fooling youself because you cling to a system that doesn't work and was used politically to hurt and damage Trump.

In point of fact, No Russian Collusion, No Onstruction of Justice and the only criminal activity acknowledged was done by smaller fish looking for perosnal gains, hence the Process Crimes.

The Mueller report couldn't establish anything to nail Trump, even the wide umbrella they operated under, you're just wrong and should feel bad for falling for such BS, it's actually amusing considering your Anti Trump stance.

So yes, the user is lying, you're lying to yourself and we're all laughing at you.

Keep'em coming Gryp, I'm here all day 😂



posted on Dec, 3 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Well, jeez, if YOU think I’m lying ...

Give us all a break. Calling it a “politically motivated” report is extremely disingenuous. Everything you don’t like is political. Everything you like is “the law.” The Report was compiled BY a Republican, authorized BY a Republican, etc.

Everything the government does is “political” in one way or another, so it’s a null term.

I’m not fooling myself in any way, and if I were, it’s of ZERO IMPORTANCE in this discussion. Cut down on the superfluous ad hom commentary, and your arguments might have a bit more standing outside your personal “amen corner.”

The Mueller Report explains EXACTLY why the matter of Trump’s guilt or innocence WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED, and was emphatically clear multiple times that nothing in the report cleared the President of ANYTHING.

There’s no reason to “keep them coming” Arn, unless you present a more cogent, meaningful argument than “huntuuh.”



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join