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: 9
29
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Trump will be prosecuted too. But he can't be indicted by the Department of Justice, neither could, nor did, the DOJ indict Clinton.




posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Are you still hanging on to the "if not for the OLC opinion, Mueller would have recommended charges against Trump" argument?

Apparently, you only listened when Mueller garbled his words and suggested that but you choose to ignore his following statement clarifying that that was not the case. Apparently, you also missed the joint letter put out by the DOJ/OSP specifically addressing that matter.

The OLC opinion is just that, an opinion. It's not law and plenty of legal scholars see it as far less than absolute. If Mueller wanted to recommend charges, he could have. There was literally nothing stopping him from doing so. And, no, it isn't up to congress to decide if the president obstructed justice. It was punted to Barr and he and Rosenstein decided the threshold wasn't met. At some point you're going to have to come to that realization.

I get it. You were lied to for over two years by people you trust and you bought it. So much so that, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you still won't allow yourself to contemplate the possibility you're being manipulated.

The saddest part is that you still believe these clowns.


edit on 4-12-2019 by elDooberino because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: elDooberino




Are you still hanging on to the "if not for the OLC opinion, Mueller would have recommended charges against Trump" argument?


No, but apparently Trump supporters are hanging their hopes on the fact that Mueller couldn't have indicted have Trump, so therefore, Trump is vindicated and the Mueller report exonerated him.

Of course that's not true.


(post by elDooberino removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Hey dude.... the cognition skills of the left and the never trumpers have become dull and weak.
They will look back at these days in shame that they had supported Schiff, Pelosi and the rest in their attempts of the destruction of america.
As unique and timely as Trump has been their actions supersede Trump and have taken a life of there own.
What are they hiding?
What are they afraid of being found out?

originally posted by: elDooberino
a reply to: Sookiechacha

[snipped]

Trump supporters aren't "hanging their hopes on the fact that mueller couldn't have indicted him". If you read my comment, and actually comprehended it, you would understand that I said the exact opposite. I'll repeat myself once:
Mueller could have recommended charges. He was not prohibited from doing so by the OLC opinion. Mueller made no conclusion on obstruction either way. He punted to Barr and Rosenstein, who determined the threshold was not met. Case closed.

Is there something you're not understanding?

edit on Thu Dec 5 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: elDooberino



Is there something you're not understanding?

Good luck with that.



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wardaddy454

All that says is that the Trump campaign didn't participate in the hacking or distribution of the DNC documents.

I already said that collusion isn't a crime. I keep emphasizing that because posters, including yourself keep mentioning "collusion".

Mueller did cite several examples of Trump campaign members attempts to conspire, like the Trump Tower meeting, Jared Kushner's secret back channels and Paul Manafort's poll data shenanigans.

The report stated that the Trump campaign and Trump himself benefited, welcomed and invited Russia's help in their campaign. The report also stated that only Congress can determine the intent, when it comes to Trump's acts of obstruction.


So an attempt was made to conspire in a meeting that lasted what, 15 minutes? Perhaps we should reexamine this, and its implications with the Obama admin, since they are the ones that let the woman back into the country? We know why that is.

The MSM conducts poll data shenanigans as well...

You mean when he said Russia should find the emails or whatever? He should have asked China, in hindsight lol.

There is nothing. The report failed. At the end it could find no actionable evidence.



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It's not about how long the meeting lasted, it's about the premise of the meeting, which was, according to the email, to get Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The thing is, even after the Mueller Report, Trump told George Stephanopoulos that he would certainly take "dirt" on a political opponent from a foreign government. He solicited Ukraine, and when questioned about it, he openly called on China to get dirt on the Bidens on the White House lawn, at a presser.

Do we want foreign entities picking and choosing our leaders by sabotaging candidates that they don't want in office?

I thought you guys were "Nationalists", not "Globalists".


edit on 5-12-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!


All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
No Political Trolling.....either in words or images. Please read new thread.

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It's not about how long the meeting lasted, it's about the premise of the meeting, which was, according to the email, to get Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The thing is, even after the Mueller Report, Trump told George Stephanopoulos that he would certainly take "dirt" on a political opponent from a foreign government. He solicited Ukraine, and when questioned about it, he openly called on China to get dirt on the Bidens on the White House lawn, at a presser.

Do we want foreign entities picking and choosing our leaders by sabotaging candidates that they don't want in office?

I thought you guys were "Nationalists", not "Globalists".



The premise was that she had information on Clinton, yes. But the length of time does matter. Can you hear out information, vette it, and work out payment in 15 minutes? Because apparently they heard her out and then told her to bounce.


And the Steele Dossier, the one the clinton campaign spent money on regardless of its origin, is what exactly? Dirt. And more specifically, which were the Americans that this Dossier comes from, Steele or his Russian contacts?


Is finding "dirt" on an opponent illegal?


edit on 5-12-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It's not about how long the meeting lasted, it's about the premise of the meeting, which was, according to the email, to get Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The thing is, even after the Mueller Report, Trump told George Stephanopoulos that he would certainly take "dirt" on a political opponent from a foreign government. He solicited Ukraine, and when questioned about it, he openly called on China to get dirt on the Bidens on the White House lawn, at a presser.

Do we want foreign entities picking and choosing our leaders by sabotaging candidates that they don't want in office?

I thought you guys were "Nationalists", not "Globalists".


So getting dirt from foreign sources is bad? No foreign sources in the Steele dossier?

Serious question, Macron, the French President, publicly says he has evidence Trump committed crimes. You think that evidence should not be viewed and made public?



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: elDooberino




Are you still hanging on to the "if not for the OLC opinion, Mueller would have recommended charges against Trump" argument?


No, but apparently Trump supporters are hanging their hopes on the fact that Mueller couldn't have indicted have Trump, so therefore, Trump is vindicated and the Mueller report exonerated him.

Of course that's not true.




Mueller specifically said he could have recommended charges, and Trump being President had no bearing on the report. He specifically made that clarification to his original comments. Try again.



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   
It doesn't ring alarms to you guys that everyone else in the world sees Trump and his cronies for what they are? Why do you still support him? Is it because you hate non-whites? Is it that you have democrats? Do you hate yourselves? I would like to learn more about the mindset of someone who sees Trump and thinks, yup, that's my guy. He's literally being laughed at by the world.



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: scauma

Yes, you got me, me and my non-white immigrant wife hate non whites. People like you is why we support Trump, the PC nonsense, race baiting craziness is disgusting.



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: scauma
It doesn't ring alarms to you guys that everyone else in the world sees Trump and his cronies for what they are? Why do you still support him? Is it because you hate non-whites? Is it that you have democrats? Do you hate yourselves? I would like to learn more about the mindset of someone who sees Trump and thinks, yup, that's my guy. He's literally being laughed at by the world.


I support Trump. He is obviously working against what the UN is backdooring through the IPCC Paris Agreement Climate Change and the Agenda 2030 which is nothing but an attempt to dystroy capitalism.



 "Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC,  warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
This is  probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history", Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels."  2015



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: scauma



He's literally being laughed at by the world.

why would the lion concern himself with the thoughts of the sheep?

we really dont care what "the world" thinks
they only call when they cant handle the problem themselves



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Hello, I just happen to notice you seem very certain in your beliefs, except the report is not out yet. Do you have any information we do not?

Out of curiosity, what is the proof you are referring to when saying Russia meddled in the election and that Trump had dealings with them? Would be fun to see it, for the laughs. And since you are so certain, I reckon you must have been convinced by some cold hard evidence, right? No one can be so certain on something without having seen proof, right?

Oh well



posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 01:57 AM
link   
12/06/2019

LEAK: DOJ IG Report Has 104 Criminal or Admin Investigations of Misconduct by FBI Employees.

Source: twitter.com...




posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 06:52 AM
link   

edit on 12/6/2019 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 06:52 AM
link   

edit on 12/6/2019 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join