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.

 

Durham FISA investigation produces first guilty plea!

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2020 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Shouldn't they wait until he pleads guilty and report that?

Then the article would be the truth instead of a propagandist opinion piece.

I mean, Fox News have been running these articles about what is imminent in the Durham investigation for years. Considering that they haven't played out yet, don't you think a little skepticism is prudent?




posted on Aug, 14 2020 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: carewemust

I notice that not one of the upper crust coup leaders are
talking or tweeting or commenting as of yet.

I find that interesting. I read that Durham has this thing
stretched out in such a way that none of the targets know
they are a target, and can't figure out who is.




that's beautiful if true.



posted on Aug, 14 2020 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Shouldn't they wait until he pleads guilty and report that?

Then the article would be the truth instead of a propagandist opinion piece.

I mean, Fox News have been running these articles about what is imminent in the Durham investigation for years. Considering that they haven't played out yet, don't you think a little skepticism is prudent?


So where was that line of thought during the years when Trump was accused of colluding with the Russians?



posted on Aug, 14 2020 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Barr said last night that there would be a development in the case today. Everyone is assuming this is that development, which, in light of there being no other "developments" out of the Durham investigation today, isn't a horrible assumption.
Also, I’m pretty sure the charging documents are now available.
edit on 14-8-2020 by elDooberino because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: elDooberino
a reply to: chr0naut

Barr said last night that there would be a development in the case today. Everyone is assuming this is that development, which, in light of there being no other "developments" out of the Durham investigation today, isn't a horrible assumption.
Also, I’m pretty sure the charging documents are now available.


Yes, but since there has been no guilty plea yet, the headline and article is a lie at worst and speculation at best.



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: timequake

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Shouldn't they wait until he pleads guilty and report that?

Then the article would be the truth instead of a propagandist opinion piece.

I mean, Fox News have been running these articles about what is imminent in the Durham investigation for years. Considering that they haven't played out yet, don't you think a little skepticism is prudent?


So where was that line of thought during the years when Trump was accused of colluding with the Russians?


The actual accusation was conspiracy with the Russians in their interference in the 2016 elections. The "collusion" bit was false narrative.

If I recall, several people, primarily involved in the Trump campaign, were convicted of crimes as a result of that investigation. Trump himself was not exonerated - it said so unambiguously in the report. He wasn't convicted, nor was he cleared.



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Special Counsel Bob Mueller (really Andrew Weissmann) used a "footnote" in his report, to distance himself from Kevin Clinesmith's crime(s).

Mueller and Weissmann knew Clinesmith was "dirty": theconservativetreehouse.com...-197942



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: carewemust

Darn right!
Amazing what real investigators can do isn't it? Can't wait until they get ahold of quid pro quo Joe and his corrupt, drug addicted, zero experience son hunter.

There's nothing political about it...only sending the message that using candidacy as a shield is not going to be tolerated

If Barr-Durham operated like the fake Mueller Witch-Hunt, Kevin Clinesmith would have had his house raided at 6am by 23 Federal agents in cars, assault vehicles, with killer German Sheppards, and a helicopter hovering overhead.

FoxNews would have been tipped-off, and in his driveway filming the entire thing.



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: carewemust

There's nothing political about it...only sending the message that using candidacy as a shield is not going to be tolerated


When asked about the 60 day rule (don't rock the boat within 60 days of an election) on Thursday evening by Sean Hannity, AG Barr gave an answer that was incredible.

He said if he wanted to be "politically correct", he would not have petitioned to join the Trump administration.



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: carewemust

There's nothing political about it...only sending the message that using candidacy as a shield is not going to be tolerated


When asked about the 60 day rule (don't rock the boat within 60 days of an election) on Thursday evening by Sean Hannity, AG Barr gave an answer that was incredible.

He said if he wanted to be "politically correct", he would not have petitioned to join the Trump administration.


Doing the things the Obama Admin didnt even do with Trump but boy did EVERYONE know Clinton was being investigated. Glad to see the in your face corruption of the DOJ is being celebrated.



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
He hasn't plead guilty as of yet. He should request a trial and extend until after elections.


Clinesmith's lawyer was the one who reached out to Durham though so that doesn't make too much sense.



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: carewemust

There's nothing political about it...only sending the message that using candidacy as a shield is not going to be tolerated


When asked about the 60 day rule (don't rock the boat within 60 days of an election) on Thursday evening by Sean Hannity, AG Barr gave an answer that was incredible.

He said if he wanted to be "politically correct", he would not have petitioned to join the Trump administration.


Doing the things the Obama Admin didnt even do with Trump but boy did EVERYONE know Clinton was being investigated. Glad to see the in your face corruption of the DOJ is being celebrated.


So you are mad that the Obama DoJ announced they were investigating Clinton?



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Not a one! Mueller had nothing but petty process crimes the government does against us constantly



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I mean, we've seen the evidence. There is definitely criminal activity and getting indictments is a cakewalk. 99% of people before the grand jury are indicted

Having evidence of these crimes along with massive outrage pretty much ties their hands. And since the people involved often use political candidate status as a shield from the law it's all the more important to pursue them vigorously



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Law enforcement never exonerates anybody

We either charge or don't charge...the exonerated came from the fact his intense investigation (and two other investigations) found no evidence of a crime and all the Obama era officials admitted they had never seen evidence of a conspiracy either
edit on 8/15/2020 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Trump didn't do anything wrong. The media and Clinton spun a common counterintelligence investigation into an attack on Trump and worked with Obama admin to give the illusion of a crime

Clinton illegally stored/transmitted classified information AND removed SCI from a SCIF and then turned around and deleted 33k emails subject to a federal search warrant

Apples to rocketships



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: timequake

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Shouldn't they wait until he pleads guilty and report that?

Then the article would be the truth instead of a propagandist opinion piece.

I mean, Fox News have been running these articles about what is imminent in the Durham investigation for years. Considering that they haven't played out yet, don't you think a little skepticism is prudent?


So where was that line of thought during the years when Trump was accused of colluding with the Russians?


The actual accusation was conspiracy with the Russians in their interference in the 2016 elections. The "collusion" bit was false narrative.

If I recall, several people, primarily involved in the Trump campaign, were convicted of crimes as a result of that investigation. Trump himself was not exonerated - it said so unambiguously in the report. He wasn't convicted, nor was he cleared.


You want to play semantics with "conspiracy" vs "collusion" when you know damn well that those convictions--in the process of being overturned no less--had nothing to do with election interference. In fact we have already learned that the Muller investigation, and that "report" should never have started in the first place according to Rosenstein, the very same who promulgated the special investigation. This was stated at a Senate hearing regarding " if he knew then what he knows now" about the fraudulent warrants, and false dossier.
edit on 15-8-2020 by timequake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: timequake

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: timequake

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Shouldn't they wait until he pleads guilty and report that?

Then the article would be the truth instead of a propagandist opinion piece.

I mean, Fox News have been running these articles about what is imminent in the Durham investigation for years. Considering that they haven't played out yet, don't you think a little skepticism is prudent?


So where was that line of thought during the years when Trump was accused of colluding with the Russians?


The actual accusation was conspiracy with the Russians in their interference in the 2016 elections. The "collusion" bit was false narrative.

If I recall, several people, primarily involved in the Trump campaign, were convicted of crimes as a result of that investigation. Trump himself was not exonerated - it said so unambiguously in the report. He wasn't convicted, nor was he cleared.


You want to play semantics with "conspiracy" vs "collusion" when you know damn well that those convictions--in the process of being overturned no less--had nothing to do with election interference. In fact we have already learned that the Muller investigation, and that "report" should never have started in the first place according to Rosenstein, the very same who promulgated the special investigation. This was stated at a Senate hearing regarding " if he knew then what he knows now" about the fraudulent warrants, and false dossier.


The FISA court rulings were not based only on the dossier, nor has the dossier been proven to be false, but rather it contains some conclusions which are unsubstantiated.

To date, only one of the Steele dossier's statements have been judged as false and misleading and another judged inaccurate.

Steele dossier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Trump–Russia dossier)


edit on 15/8/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: chr0naut

Law enforcement never exonerates anybody


Actually, where an accusation itself proves to be false, it does exonerate the accused of that instance. The Mueller report had insufficient evidence to convict Trump of the allegations.

However, Trump's repeated statements that he was exonerated, and 'cleared', are obvious lies.


We either charge or don't charge...the exonerated came from the fact his intense investigation (and two other investigations) found no evidence of a crime and all the Obama era officials admitted they had never seen evidence of a conspiracy either


There was ample evidence that Russia attempted to interfere with the 2016 elections and that they favored the Trump campaign.

What was not proven was that that The Trump campaign made any sort of request for that interference, even though there is evidence that individuals from the Trump campaign did meet with Russian agents in the time-frame. The content and purpose of those meetings were not in evidence.

What is obvious is that an older guy with money with political aspirations, had two substantially younger, ex-Soviet models for wives, which may well have influenced him to look favorably on Russia. Why doesn't anyone talk about that elephant in the room?

edit on 15/8/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: JBurns

Last night (on Hannity) Attorney General Barr said today's "development" will be the start of much more to come before the November election.

Senator Ron Johnson says Joe Biden is in trouble with the Senate's Biden-Ukraine investigation. "Not qualified to be President", according to the evidence Johnson's committee has uncovered.

Things are finally HEATING UP with Obama-BidenGate.
I hope Barr doesn’t give the DNC justification to remove Biden as their candidate! I don’t know if that’s even possible, but I’d rather have Trump run against him than any of the other candidates.




top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join